UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS ("ZEROING")
Document: Status Report by the United States Addendum
Date: 23 August 2011
Document codes: WT/DS294/38/Add.14
Complainant: EU
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Brazil, China, Taiwan, Hong Kong, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Norway, Thailand, Turkey
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2.1, 2.4, 5.8, 9.1, 9.3, 9.5, 11  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 3  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY
FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS ("ZEROING")

Status Report by the United States

Addendum

 The following communication, dated 22 August 2011, from the delegation of the
United States to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 21.6
of the DSU.

Status Report Regarding Implementation of the
DSB Recommendations and Rulings in the Dispute

(WT/DS294)

The United States submits this report in accordance with Article 21.6 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes ("DSU").

On 9 May 2006, the Dispute Settlement Body ("DSB") adopted its recommendations and
rulings in (DS294). At the following DSB meeting on 30 May 2006, the United States informed the
DSB of its intention to implement the recommendati ons and rulings of the DSB in connection with
this matter. The United States and the European Communities ("EC") agreed that the reasonable
period of time for the United States to implemen t the recommendations and rulings of the DSB would
end on 9 April 2007.

The United States has taken a number of step s to comply with the recommendations and
rulings of the DSB in this dispute. With respect to the "as such" claims, as of 22 February 2007, the
United States is no longer performing average-to-ave rage comparisons in anti-dumping investigations
without offsets.

With respect to the 15 anti-dumping investigati ons at issue in this dispute, three of the
anti-dumping orders in question had been revoked before the DSB adopted its recommendations and
rulings. With respect to the remaining 12, the US Department of Commerce issued 11 determinations
on 9 April 2007 and one determination on 31 August 200 7. In those determinations, the Department
used an average-to-average comparison in which offs ets were provided. As a result, in two of these
determinations, the Department found no dumping, and the Departme nt revoked the orders. The
margins for the others were adju sted accordingly, and in sever al cases, the Department found no

dumping by individual companies. The Departme nt revoked the orders with respect to those
companies. Additionally, four of the remain ing anti-dumping orders were revoked as a result of
sunset reviews, with effect prior to the end of the reasonable period of time.

On 11 June 2009, the DSB adopted the Appella te Body report and the panel report, as
modified by the Appellate Body report, regarding the recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the EC.

On 28 December 2010, in part in response to th e findings in this dispute with respect to
administrative reviews and sunset reviews, the US Department of Commerce announced a proposal to
change the methodology for calculating weighted average dumping margins and assessment rates in
certain anti-dumping proceedings, including administrative reviews. The Department proposes to
compare monthly weighted average export prices w ith monthly weighted average normal values, and
to grant an offset for comparisons that show an export price that exceeds normal value in the
calculation of the weighted average margin of dumping and assessment rate. The modifications the
Department has made with respect to investigations, and is proposing to make with respect to reviews,
address the underlying issue with respect to sunset reviews.

The proposal has been published in the Federal Register, 75 Fed. Reg. 81533 (28 Dec. 2010).
Under US law, there will be a period for public co mment on this proposal and for consultations with
appropriate committees in the US Congress.

The United States is continuing its ongoing work on the December proposal and will continue
to consult with interested parties.