UNITED STATES – SUNSET REVIEW OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON CORROSION-RESISTANT CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN
Document: Notification of an Appeal by Japan under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
Date: 17 September 2003
Document codes: WT/DS244/7
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, Chile, EU, India, South Korea, Norway
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. VI, X  GATT 1994Art. 2, 3, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18.3, Annex II  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – SUNSET REVIEW OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON
CORROSION-RESISTANT CARBON STEEL FLAT PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN
Notification of an Appeal by Japan
under paragraph 4 of Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU)
The following notification, dated 15 September 2003, sent by Japan to the Dispute Settlement
Body (DSB), is circulated to Members. This noti fication also constitutes the Notice of Appeal, filed
on the same day with the Appellate Body, pursuant to the Working Procedures for Appellate Review.
Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 20 of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, Japan
hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel
Report on United States – Sunset Review of Anti-Dum ping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Japan (, dated 14th August 2003) and certain legal
interpretations developed by the Panel.
The appeal relates to the following issues of law and legal interpretations developed by the
Panel in its Report.
1. The Panel erred in its legal conclusion in paragraphs 7.168 – 7.170 and 7.183 –
7.184 of the Panel Report, and the reasoning leading thereto, that the United
States Department of Commerce ("DOC") acted consistently in the anti-
dumping sunset review on corrosion-resi stant carbon steel flat products from
Japan ("CRS sunset review") with Arti cle 2.4 or Article 11.3 of the Agreement
on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement") by relying on the administrative review margins
without making any adjustments for the "zeroed-out" negative margins. The
Panel based its conclusion on an erroneous legal interpretation that the term
"dumping" in Article 11.3 is not defined by Article 2, and that a responding
party should have raised the zeroing issue during the course of the CRS sunset
review.
2. The Panel erred in its legal conclusion in paragraph 7.283 of the Panel Report,
and the reasoning leading thereto, that DOC acted consistently with Article 11.3
of the AD Agreement in the CRS sunset review in making its likelihood of
continuation of dumping determination. The Panel based its conclusion on an
erroneous legal interpretation of the requirement to make a determination as to
the likelihood of continuation of dumping under Article 11.3.

3. The Panel erred in its legal conclusion in paragraph 7.208 of the Panel Report,
and the reasoning leading thereto, that DOC acted consistently with
Articles 6.10 and Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement by making its likelihood of
continuation of dumping determination in the CRS sunset review on an order-
wide basis. The Panel based its conclusion on an erroneous legal interpretation
of the applicability of Article 6.10 to sunset reviews conducted under
Article 11.3, as well as the evidentiary and substantive requirements under
Article 11.3 in conjunction with Articles 2 and 6.10.
4. The Panel erred in its legal conclusions in paragraphs 7.145, 7.195, and 7.246
of the Panel Report, and the reasoning leading thereto, that the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, including sections II.A.2, 3 and 4 prescribing the standards to
determine the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping and
requiring that such a determination be based on an order-wide basis, cannot, by
itself, give rise to a WTO violation, and is therefore not a measure
challengeable under the WTO Agreement as such.
5. The Panel erred in its legal conclusion in paragraph 7.315 of the Panel Report,
and the reasoning leading thereto, that the United States acted consistently with
Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization.
Accordingly, Japan requests the Appellate Body to reverse the above findings of the Panel and
the corresponding conclusions reached by the Panel in paragraphs 8.1(d)(i) and (iii), 8.1(e)(i) and (ii),
8.1(f)(i) and (ii), 8.1(h) and 8.2 of the Report.