UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities
Date: 12 November 1998
Document codes: WT/DS136/2
Complainant: EU
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: India, Japan, Mexico
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities
The following communication, dated 11 November 1998, from the Permanent Delegation of
the European Commission to the Chairman of the Di spute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to
Article 6.2 of the DSU.
I have the honour to request the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (“GATT 1994”), Article 4 and 6 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes and Article 17 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“Anti-Dumping
Agreement”) regarding the United States Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 (Act of September 8, 1916, 39,
Stat. 756. Title VIII of that Act is codified at United States Code 71-74).
On 4 June 1998 the European Communities requested consultations with the United States of
America with a view to reach a mutually satisfactory solution of the matter. The request was
circulated in document dated 24 June 1998. Such consultations, which were held on
29 July 1998 in Geneva, have allowed a better understanding of the respective positions, but have not
led to a satisfactory resolution of the matter.
Therefore the European Communities request that the Panel consider and find that the
1916 Anti-Dumping Act is inconsistent with the United States of America’s obligations under:
(1) the provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation
(“WTO”), and in particular, but not necessarily exclusively, Article XVI:4, which imposes the
obligation to WTO Members to ensure the conformity of their laws with their obligations as
provided in the WTO Agreements;
(2) the provisions of GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and in particular, but not
necessarily exclusively :
- Article VI:2 of GATT, which stipulates that anti-dumping duties are the only possible
remedies to dumping;
- Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement which requires the carrying-out of an
investigation (which has to respect a set of procedural rules) prior to the imposition of
any duty;

- Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 4 and 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
which require that the complaining industry satisfies certain requirements before
being permitted to bring an anti-dumping complaint;
- Article VI of GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement which
specifically define and qualify the concept of “material injury”;
- Article VI:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement which set the actual price in the exporting country as the first and
privileged criterion for the calculation of the normal value;
- Article VI:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 2.1. of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which
require the introduction of products into the commerce of another country as a
prerequisite for dumping to take place.
In the alternative, the European Communities request that the panel consider and find that the
1916 Act, insofar as it leads to applying stricter disciplines to the sale of imported products at low
prices than for the sale of domestic products, is in breach of Article III:4 of GATT 1994.
The European Communities request that the pane l be established with the standard terms of
reference.