Document: WT/DS322/R Page A-1 ANNEX A REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS AND REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL Contents Page
Document codes: WT/DS322/R
Complainant: Japan
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, China, EU, Hong Kong, India, South Korea, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Taiwan, Thailand
Dispute stage: Implementation & Compliance
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 5.8, 3, 9.5, 11.1, 11.2, 11.3, 1  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994Art. 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

ANNEX A

REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS AND REQUEST
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL

Contents Page
Annex A-1 Request for Consultations by Japan A-2
Annex A-2 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Japan A-15

ANNEX A-1

REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY JAPAN

UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING
AND SUNSET REVIEWS

Request for Consultations by Japan

 The following communication, dated 24 Novemb er 2004, from the delegation of Japan to the
delegation of the United States and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in
accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

 Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby wish to convey the request of the
Government of Japan for consultations with the Government of the United States of America pursuant
to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Pr ocedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes
(DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreem ent on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), and
Article 17.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (the Anti-Dumping
Agreement), regarding certain me asures imposed by the United States including: (1) the "zeroing"
practice by which the United States Department of Commerce ("USDOC") treats transactions with
negative dumping margins as having margins equal to zero in determining weighted average dumping
margins in anti-dumping investigations, administrati ve reviews, and sunset reviews, and also in
assessing the final anti-dumping duty liability on entries upon liquidation; (2) in sunset reviews, the
USDOC's "irrefutable presumption" of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping in
certain specific factual situations; and (3) in sunset reviews, the waiver provisions of US law, which
oblige the USDOC, in certain situations, to find a likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping
without performing a substantive review. This requ est is, in particular but not exclusively, with
respect to:

(1) the Tariff Act of 1930 ("the Act"), in par ticular, sections 731, 751, 752, 771(7), 771(35)(A),
771(35)(B), and 777A(d);

(2) the Statement of Administrative Action th at accompanied the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act, H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. I;

(3) the implementing regulations of the USDOC, 19 C.F.R. section 351, in particular, sections
351.218 and 351.414;

(4) the Import Administration Antidumping Manual (1997 edition), including the computer
program(s) to which it refers;

(5) the USDOC's Policy Bulletin 98.3, "Policies G overning the Conduct of Five-Year ("Sunset")
Reviews of Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Orders" (16 April 1998) ("Sunset Policy
Bulletin"), 63 Federal Register 18871 (16 April 1998);

(6) the methodology of the United States for determining dumping margins and material injury in
anti-dumping investigations;

(7) the methodology of the United States for determining dumping margins in administrative
reviews; and

(8) the methodology of the United States, in sun set reviews, for determining whether revocation
of anti-dumping orders would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping, and
continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

 Japan wishes to consult with the United Stat es not only on these measures "as such," but also
on the applications of the measures in specific instan ces. In this regard, Japan has attached a list of
specific cases of an anti-dumping investigation, ad ministrative reviews and sunset reviews covering
imports from Japan subject to the Anti-Dumping Ag reement in which the United States has applied
these measures.

 The matters that the Government of Japan woul d like to raise in the course of consultations
include, but are not limited to, the following:

(1) in anti-dumping investigations, the zeroing of negative dumping margins when comparing
export prices and normal values on a weighted-average to weighted-average basis;

(2) the impact of zeroing negative dumping marg ins in the determination of the "dumped
imports" in injury investigations by th e United States International Trade Commission
("USITC");

(3) in administrative reviews, the zeroing of negative dumping margins when comparing export
prices and normal values on a weighted-average to transaction basis;

(4) the determination of dumping margins above de minimis levels as a result of zeroing negative
dumping margins, and the consequent imposition, continuation, or collection of anti-dumping
duties;

(5) in sunset reviews, the use of margins cal culated in anti-dumping investigations and/or
administrative reviews, in which negative dumpi ng margins had been zeroed, resulting in the
determination that revocation of the anti-dum ping orders would be likely to lead to
continuation or recurrence of dumping;

(6) in sunset reviews, the consideration by the USITC of the magnitude of the margin of dumping
provided by the USDOC, in determining whet her the revocation of an anti-dumping order
would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably
foreseeable time;

(7) in sunset reviews, the "irrefutable presumption" whereby the USDOC perceives the
provisions of Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Po licy Bulletin as conclusive in determining that
revocation of an anti-dumping order would be likel y to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping;

(8) in sunset reviews, the waiver provisions of US law, which oblige the USDOC to find the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping without performing a substantive review
with regard to interested parties that either affirmatively waived, or are deemed to have
waived, their right to participate in the sunset reviews conducted by the USDOC; and

(9) the level of dumping margins in the absence of zeroing in the cases identified in the attached
list.

 The Government of Japan is concerned that these measures, as well as their application in the
specific anti-dumping investigation, administrative reviews, and sunset reviews identified in the
attached list, are inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the WTO Agreements.
The provisions of the Agreements with which these measures appear to be inconsistent include, but
are not limited to, the following:

(1) Article VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994;

(2) Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3, and 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (with respect to the
calculation of the dumping margins and the determination of injury);

(3) Articles 6.1 and 6.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent (with respect to the right of interested
parties to submit information and defend their interests in sunset reviews);

(4) Article 9 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (w ith respect to administrative reviews and the
assessment of dumping duties);

(5) Article 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement (with respect to the continued imposition of
anti-dumping duties);

(6) Articles 18.3 and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and

(7) Article XVI:4 of the Agreement Estab lishing the WTO (the Marrakesh Agreement).

 The Government of Japan reserves its right to raise further factual claims and legal issues
during the course of consultations.

 We look forward to receiving your reply to this request and to fixing a mutually acceptable
date for consultations.

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Cut-To-Length
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Japan

Specific Case No. 1

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-
Quality Steel Plate Products ("CTL Plate") from Japan (USDOC case number A-588-847, 64 FR
73215, 13 December 1999). The rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 10.78% for Kawasaki
Steel Corporation and all others.

Use of zeroing

 In the United States Department of Commerc e's ("USDOC's") investigation of CTL Plate
from Japan, the USDOC utilized a methodology commonly referred to as "zeroing" in calculating
dumping margins.

 This methodology is functionally identical to the methodology that was held to be
inconsistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in European Communities – Anti-Dumping
Duties on Imports of Cotton-Ty pe Bed Linen from India (Panel Report, WT/DS141/R, and Appellate
Body Report, WT/DS141/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001), and also in United States – Final Dumping
Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada (Panel Report, WT/DS264/R, and Appellate Body
Report, WT/DS264/AB/R, adopted 31 August 2004).

 In addition, in the United States Internati onal Trade Commission's ("USITC's") affirmative
determination in Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plat e from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-820, the
USITC, pursuant to Section 771(7) of the Act, may have considered the margins of dumping provided
by the USDOC, which were calculated using the zeroing practice.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using the above methodology, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 10.58% for
Kawasaki Steel Corporation, while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit
margins included), the dumping margin would have been [9.46%].

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Tapered Roller Bearings,
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan

Specific Case No. 2

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Tapered Roller Bearings, Four
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan (USDOC case number
A-588-054, 66 Fed. Reg. 15078, 15 March 2001). Th e period of review is 1 October 1998 through
30 September 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 14.86% for Koyo Seiko
Co., Ltd.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Tapered Ro ller Bearings, Four Inches or Less in Outside
Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan, the USDOC utilized the zeroing methodology in a
manner closely similar, but not identical, to that used in the investigation iden tified in Specific Case
No. 1.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 14.86% for Koyo
Seiko Co., Ltd., while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included),
the dumping margin would have been [-1.27%], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan

Specific Case No. 3

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Jap an (USDOC case number A-588-604, 65 Fed. Reg.
11767, 6 March 2000). The period of review is 1 October 1997 through 30 September 1998, and the
rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 17.58% for NTN Corporation.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Tapered Ro ller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, the USDOC utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in
Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 17.58% for NTN
Corporation, while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included),
the dumping margin would have been [-6.01%], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan

Specific Case No. 4

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Jap an (USDOC case number A-588-604, 66 Fed. Reg.
15078, 15 March 2001). The period of review is 1 October 1998 through 30 September 1999, and the
rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 17.94% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Tapered Ro ller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, the USDOC utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in
Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 17.94% for Koyo
Seiko Co., Ltd., while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included),
the dumping margin would have been [13.32%].

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 5

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 62 Fed. Reg. 2081, 15 January 1997). The period of
review is 1 May 1994 through 30 April 1995, and the rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was
45.83% for Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC
utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 45.83% for Nippon
Pillow Block Co., Ltd., while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins
included), the dumping margin would have been sign ificantly lower. The exact figure cannot yet be
determined, because the case is currently on remand to the USDOC from the US Court of
International Trade, and the remand proceedings have not yet been completed.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 6

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 65 Fed. Reg. 49219, 11 August 2000). The period of
review is 1 May 1998 through 30 April 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was
6.14% for NTN Corporation.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC
utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 6.14% for NTN
Corporation, while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included),
the dumping margin would have been [-25.15%], and no anti-dumping duty would have been
collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Cylindrical
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 7

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Cylindrical Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 65 Fed. Reg. 49219, 11 August 2000).
The period of review is 1 May 1998 through 30 April 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty was 3.49% for NTN Corporation.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan,
the USDOC utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.49% for NTN
Corporation, while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included),
the dumping margin would have been [-25.24%], and no anti-dumping duty would have been
collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Spherical Plain
Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 8

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Spherical Plain Bearings and
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 65 Fed. Reg. 49219, 11 August 2000).
The period of review is 1 May 1998 through 30 April 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty was 2.78% for NTN Corporation.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Spherical Pl ain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the
USDOC utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 2.78% for NTN
Corporation, while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included),
the dumping margin would have been [-26.06%], and no anti-dumping duty would have been
collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 9

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001). The period of
review is 1 May 1999 through 30 April 2000, and the rates of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty were
10.10% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., 9.16% for NTN Corporation, and 4.22% for NSK Ltd.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC
utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 10.10% for Koyo
Seiko Co., Ltd., 9.16% for NTN Corporation, and 4.22% for NSK Ltd., while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margins would have been
[-5.51%] for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., [-15.21%] for NTN Corporation, and [-20.76%] for NSK Ltd., and
no anti-dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Cylindrical
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 10

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Cylindrical Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001). The
period of review is 1 May 1999 through 31 December 1999, and the rates of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty were 5.28% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and 16.26% for NTN Corporation.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan,
the USDOC utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 5.28% for Koyo
Seiko Co., Ltd. and 16.26% for NTN Corporation, while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with
the negative unit margins included), the dumping margins would have been [-11.70%] for Koyo Seiko
Co., Ltd. and [-8.08%] for NTN Corporation, and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Spherical
Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 11

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Spherical Plain Bearings and
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001). The
period of review is 1 May 1999 through 31 December 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty was 3.60% for NTN Corporation.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Spherical Pl ain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the
USDOC utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.60% for NTN
Corporation, while without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included),
the dumping margin would have been [-10.31%], and no anti-dumping duty would have been
collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 12

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof,
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 67 Fed. Reg. 55780, 30 August 2002, as amended by
67 Fed. Reg. 63608, 15 October 2002). The period of review is 1 May 2000 through 30 April 2001,
and the rates of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty were 6.07% for NSK Ltd., 2.51% for Asahi Seiko
Co., Ltd., and 9.34% for NTN Corporation.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC
utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 6.07% for NSK Ltd.,
2.51% for Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd., and 9.34% for NTN Corporation, while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margins would have been
[-18.78%] for NSK Ltd., [-26.83%] for Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd., and [-12.17%] for NTN Corporation,
and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 13

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 68 Fe d. Reg. 35623, 16 June 2003). The period of
review is 1 May 2001 through 30 April 2002, and the rates of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty were
4.51% for NTN Corporation and 2.68% for NSK Ltd.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC
utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 4.51% for NTN
Corporation and 2.68% for NSK Ltd., while withou t the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative
unit margins included), the dumping margins would have been [-25.99%] for NTN Corporation and
[-29.90%] for NSK Ltd., and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 14

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 69 Fed. Reg. 55574, 15 September 2004). The period
of review is 1 May 2002 through 30 April 2003, and the rates of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty
were 5.56% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., 2.74% for NTN Corporation, and 2.46% for NSK Ltd.

Use of zeroing

 In this administrative review of Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC
utilized the same "zeroing" methodology as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 By using this methodology, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 5.56% for Koyo
Seiko Co., Ltd., 2.74% for NTN Corporation, and 2.46% for NSK Ltd., while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margins would have been
[-10.83%] for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., [-25.86%] for NTN Corporation, and [-29.61%] for NSK Ltd.,
and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Sunset Review of Antifriction Bearings From Japan

Specific Case No. 15

The measure

 This case concerns the Final Results of th e USDOC in the Expedited Sunset Review of
Antifriction Bearings from Japan, in which the USDOC found that revocation of the anti-dumping
order on Ball Bearings from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping
(USDOC case number A-588-804, 64 Fed. Reg. 60275, 4 November 1999); and the Determination of
the USITC in Certain Bearings from China, Fran ce, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Romania,
Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Investigations Nos. AA-1921-143, 731-TA-341,
731-TA-343-345, 731-TA-391-397, and 731-TA-399 (R eview), that revocation of the anti-dumping
order on Ball Bearings from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material
injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

Use of zeroing

In making this determination, the USDOC specifi cally relied on the "margins determined in the
investigation and subsequent administrative reviews," and concluded that because "dumping has
continued over the life of the orde rs, the [USDOC] determines that dumping is likely to continue if
the orders were revoked." (64 Fed. Reg. at 60278.) Japan submits that because the USDOC's
likelihood determination was based on margins in both the investigation and subsequent
administrative reviews that were calculated using th e zeroing practice, which is inconsistent with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the USDOC's decision not to revoke the anti-dumping order on Ball
Bearings from Japan is equally inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

In addition, Japan submits that because the US ITC may have considered the margins of dumping
provided by the USDOC, which were calculated using the zeroing practice, the USITC's likelihood
determination and the decision not to revoke the anti-dumping order on Ball Bearings from Japan are
also inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

Recourse to irrefutable presumption

In making this determination, the USDOC relied on Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin,
which provides that the DOC will normally determin e that revocation of an anti-dumping duty order
is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping in a case in which dumping continued at any
level above de minimis after the issuance of the order.

The provisions of Section II.A.3. of the Sunset Policy Bulletin were held to be inconsistent with the
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil
Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (Panel Report, WT/DS268/R, 16 July 2004).

Recourse to affirmative and deemed waiver

 In making this determination, the USDOC reso rted to the affirmative and deemed waiver
provisions of US law – including Section 751(c)(4) of the Act, Section 351.218(d)(2) of the
implementing regulations of the USDOC, and the Statement of Administrative Action ("SAA") that
accompanied the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, H. R. Doc. No. 103-316, vol. I – by which the
USDOC is obliged to make an affirmative finding of likelihood of continuation or recurrence of
dumping with regard to interested parties that waiv e their right to participate before the USDOC in a
sunset review.

 This practice under the provisions mentioned above is identical to that which was held to be
inconsistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in United States – Sunset Reviews of
Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (Panel Report, WT/DS268/R,
16 July 2004).

United States – Sunset Review of Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan

Specific Case No. 16

The measure

 This case concerns the Final Results of the USDOC in the Full Sunset Review of Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, in which the USDOC concluded that revocation of
the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping (USDOC case number A-588-826, 65 Fed. Reg.
47380, 2 August 2000); and the Dete rmination of the USITC in Certain Carbon Steel Products from
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands,
Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United Kingdom, Investigations Nos. AA-1921-197,
701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587,
604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618 (Review), that re vocation of the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence
of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

Use of zeroing

In making this determination, the USDOC specif ically relied on the margins determined in the
investigation, and concluded that because "dumping has continued to occur throughout the life of the
order," dumping was likely to continue if the order was revoked. USDOC, Issues and Decision Memo
for the Full Sunset Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan; Final
Results at Comment 1 (2 August 2000). Japan submits that because the USDOC's likelihood
determination was based on margins in the invest igation that were calculated using the zeroing
practice, which is inconsistent with the Anti- Dumping Agreement, the USDOC's decision not to
revoke the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-Resist ant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan is
equally inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

In addition, Japan submits that because the US ITC may have considered the margins of dumping
provided by the USDOC, which were calculated using the zeroing practice, the USITC's likelihood
determination and the decision not to revoke th e anti-dumping order on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon
Steel Flat Products from Japan are also inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

Recourse to irrefutable presumption

 In making this determination, the USDOC relied on Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin, which provides that the DOC will normally determine that revocation of an anti-dumping
duty order is likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping in a case in which dumping
continued at any level above de minimis after the issuance of the order.

The provisions of Section II.A.3 of the Sunset Policy Bulletin were held to be inconsistent with the
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil
Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (Panel Report, WT/DS268/R, 16 July 2004).

ANNEX A-2

REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF A PANEL BY JAPAN

7 February 2005

 (05-0498)
 Original: English

UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING
AND SUNSET REVIEWS

Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Japan

 The following communication, dated 4 February 2005, from the delegation of Japan to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

 Upon instructions from my authorities, I hereby wish to convey the request of the
Government of Japan for the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article XXIII of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994"), Articles 4 and 6 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU"), and Article 17 of the
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (the "Anti-Dumping Agreement")
regarding certain measures imposed by the United States.

A. Consultations

 On 24 November 2004, the Government of Japan requested consultations with the
Government of the United States under Article 4 of the DSU, Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994, and
Article 17.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
1 Consultations were held on 20 December 2004,
which allowed a better understanding of the positions of the parties, but failed to achieve a mutually
agreed solution of the dispute.

B. Measures and Claims

 Pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Japan
considers that the specific measures identified in this request are inconsistent with the United States'

1 WT/DS322/1 (24 November 2004).

obligations under the Marrakesh Agreement Esta blishing the World Trade Organization (the
"Marrakesh Agreement"), including the agreements a nnexed thereto. By infringing those obligations,
the United States' measures nullify or impair benefits accruing to Japan directly or indirectly under
such agreements, as set forth in Article 3.8 of the DSU. Specifically, the Un ited States has acted in a
manner inconsistent with the provisions of th e Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the
Marrakesh Agreement that are identified below.

1. The Government of Japan considers that the United States measures including laws,
regulations and administrative procedures, as such, are inconsistent with certain provisions of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the Marrakesh Agreement, for the following reasons.

(a) In original investigations, periodic reviews, new shipper reviews, sunset reviews and
changed circumstances reviews where the redetermination of margins of dumping
occurs, the United States Department of Commerce ("USDOC") disregards
intermediate negative dumping margins cal culated by comparing normal value and
export price, including on a weighted-avera ge-to-weighted-average basis, weighted-
average-to-transaction basis, and transac tion-to-transaction basis, through the
USDOC's AD Margin Calculation computer program and other related procedures, in
the process of establishing the overall dumping margin for the product as a whole
(hereinafter collectively referred to as "Zeroing"). As a result, the USDOC artificially
inflates the dumping margins. Zeroing is inconsistent with:
(i) Articles 2.1, 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because the
comparison of normal value and export price is not in conformity with those
provisions;
(ii) Articles 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement through the
imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties in excess of the margin or
amount of dumping as properly determined pursuant to Article 2 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement;
(iii) as to original investigations, Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
insofar as de minimis dumping margins are determined to be greater than
de minimis as a result of the impermissible use of the Zeroing procedure, and
the Zeroing procedure results in the failure to immediately terminate an
investigation;
(iv) as to original investigations, Article 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
insofar as the Zeroing procedure result s in the cumulative assessment of the
effect of imports for which dumping ma rgins are erroneously determined to
be greater than de minimis;
(v) as to new shipper reviews, changed circumstances reviews and sunset
reviews, Articles 9.5, 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement to
the extent that dumping margins calculated by using the impermissible
Zeroing procedure results in erroneous determination; and
(vi) Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the
GATT 1994 to the extent that the Zeroing procedure and the resulting
imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties are inconsistent with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.

(b) Injury investigations by the United States International Trade Commission ("USITC")
are inconsistent with:
(i) Article 3, including Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4 and 3.5, of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement insofar as the injury and causation determinations are based on
the examination of the inflated dumping margin and volume of "dumped
imports" that include imports from companies which would have been
excluded as non-dumped imports (due to the calculation of de minimis or
zero margins) had the margins been ca lculated without using the Zeroing
procedure;
(ii) Article 3.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent insofar as the Zeroing procedure
allows the cumulative assessment of th e effect of imports for which dumping
margins are erroneously determined to be greater than de minimis;
(iii) Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement insofar as the volume of dumped
imports or injury is determined not to be negligible as a result of the
impermissible use of the Zeroing procedure, and the USITC consequently
fails to immediately terminate the investigation; and
(iv) Articles 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the
GATT 1994 to the extent that the injury investigation and the resulting
imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties are inconsistent with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
(c) In sunset reviews, the USDOC and the US ITC base their determinations that the
expiry of an anti-dumping duty would be likel y to lead to continuation or recurrence
of dumping and injury on margins previously calculated using the Zeroing procedure.
Thus, the sunset reviews by the US authorities are inconsistent with:
(i) Articles 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, insofar as the
likelihood determinations in the sunset reviews are based on dumping
margins determined using the Zeroing pr ocedure that is inconsistent with
Article 2 including Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
and
(ii) Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the
GATT 1994 to the extent that the sunset reviews and the resulting continued
imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties are inconsistent with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement.
(d) Changed circumstances reviews are inconsistent with:
(i) Articles 11.1 and 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement insofar as the
determinations in the changed circumstances reviews are based on dumping
margins determined using the Zeroing pr ocedure that is inconsistent with
Article 2, including Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
and
(ii) Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the
GATT 1994 to the extent that the changed circumstances reviews and the
resulting continued imposition and collection of anti-dumping duties are
inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

(e) By adopting and maintaining the WTO-inc onsistent measures identified above, the
United States has violated its obligations under Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement, because the United
States has failed to take all necessary steps, of a general or particular character, to
ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the
provisions of GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
2. The Government of Japan also considers that the United States laws, regulations and
administrative procedures described above were applied in the specific original investigation, periodic
reviews and sunset reviews identified in the Annex to this panel request. As a result of the application
of the Zeroing procedure, the anti-dumping orders and determinations adopted in the proceedings
identified in the Annex are inconsistent with the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the Marrakesh Agreement for the same reasons as set out in point
B.1.(a)–(e) above:

(a) in the original investigation:
(i) Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 5.8, 9.1, 9.2 and 9.3 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994;
and
(ii) Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement and Article XVI:4 of the
Marrakesh Agreement ; and

(f) in the periodic and sunset reviews:
(i) Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 11.1 and 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement, and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994; and
(ii) Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Ag reement and Article XVI:4 of the
Marrakesh Agreement.
3. The foregoing measures include, and/or are a dopted or applied pursuant to, the following
United States laws, regulations, and administrative procedures:

 (1) the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (in particular, by the Uruguay Round Agreements
Act of 1994 (the "URAA")), in particular, sections 731, 751, 752, 771(7), 771(35)(A),
771(35)(B) and 777A(d);

(2) the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the URAA, H.R. Doc. No.
103-316, vol. I;

(3) the implementing regulations of the USDOC, 19 C.F.R. section 351; and

(4) the USDOC Import Administration's Antidumping Manual (1997 edition), including
the AD Margin Calculation computer program(s) to which it refers.

 The foregoing text identifies the specific measures at issue and describes in brief the legal
bases for the Government of Japan's claims, and is without prejudice to any arguments that the
Government of Japan may develop and present to the Panel regarding the WTO-inconsistency of the
measures at issue.

 Accordingly, the Government of Japan requests the establishment of a panel pursuant to
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU, and Article 17 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement. The terms of reference shall be the te rms set out in Article 7 of the DSU and Article 17
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Government of Japan requests that the establishment of a panel
in this matter be placed on the agenda of the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on
17 February 2005.

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Cut-To-Length
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate Products from Japan

Specific Case No. 1

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Certain Cut-To-Length Carbon-
Quality Steel Plate Products ("CTL Plate") from Japan (USDOC case number A-588-847, 64 FR
73215, 13 December 1999). The rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 10.78% for Kawasaki
Steel Corporation and all others.

Use of Zeroing

In the United States Department of Commerce's ("USDOC's") original investigation of CTL
Plate from Japan, the USDOC utilized the Zeroi ng procedure by which the USDOC disregards
negative dumping margins calculated for averaging gr oups in the process of establishing the dumping
margin for the product as a whole.

 This procedure is functionally identical to the pr ocedure that was held to be inconsistent with
the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of
Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (Panel Report, WT/DS141/R, and Appellate Body Report,
WT/DS141/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001), and also in United States – Final Dumping
Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada (Panel Report, WT/DS264/R, and Appellate Body
Report, WT/DS264/AB/R, adopted 31 August 2004).

 In addition, in the United States Internati onal Trade Commission's ("USITC's") affirmative
determination in Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plat e from Japan, Investigation No. 731-TA-820, the
USITC, pursuant to Section 771(7) of the Act, relied on a "magnitude of dumping" and "volume of
dumped imports," that were inflated by the use of the Zeroing procedure.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using the above procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 10.58% for
Kawasaki Steel Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins
included), the dumping margin would have been [lower].

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Tapered Roller Bearings,
Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan

Specific Case No. 2

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Tapered Roller Bearings, Four
Inches or Less in Outside Diameter, and Components Thereof, From Japan (USDOC case number A-
588-054, 66 Fed. Reg. 15078, 15 March 2001). Th e period of review is 1 October 1998 through 30
September 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 14.86% for Koyo Seiko Co.,
Ltd.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Tapered Roller B earings, Four Inches or Less in Outside Diameter,
and Components Thereof, From Japan, the USDOC utilized the Zeroing procedure by which the
USDOC disregards negative dumping margins calculated for the export transactions under review in
the process of establishing the dumping margin for the product as a whole.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 14.86% for Koyo Seiko
Co., Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan

Specific Case No. 3

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Jap an (USDOC case number A-588-604, 65 Fed. Reg.
11767, 6 March 2000). The period of review is 1 October 1997 through 30 September 1998, and the
rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 17.58% for NTN Corporation.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, the USDOC utilized the sa me zZeroing procedure as that used in Specific
Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 17.58% for NTN
Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Tapered Roller Bearings
and Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Japan

Specific Case No. 4

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Tapered Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof, Finished and Unfinished, From Jap an (USDOC case number A-588-604, 66 Fed. Reg.
15078, 15 March 2001). The period of review is 1 October 1998 through 30 September 1999, and the
rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 17.94% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From Japan, the USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific
Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 17.94% for Koyo Seiko
Co., Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the
dumping margin would have been [lower].

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 5

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 65 Fed. Reg. 49219, 11 August 2000). The period of
review is 1 May 1998 through 30 April 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was
6.14% for NTN Corporation.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 6.14% for NTN
Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Cylindrical
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 6

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Cylindrical Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 65 Fed. Reg. 49219, 11 August 2000).
The period of review is 1 May 1998 through 30 April 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty was 3.49% for NTN Corporation.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the
USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.49% for NTN
Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Spherical Plain
Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 7

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Spherical Plain Bearings and
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 65 Fed. Reg. 49219, 11 August 2000).
The period of review is 1 May 1998 through 30 April 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty was 2.78% for NTN Corporation.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the
USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 2.78% for NTN
Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 8

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001). The period of
review is 1 May 1999 through 30 April 2000, and the rates of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty were
10.10% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., 9.16% for NTN Corporation, and 4.22% for NSK Ltd.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 10.10% for Koyo Seiko
Co., Ltd., 9.16% for NTN Corporation, and 4.22% for NSK Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure
(i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margins would have been [negative] for
Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., [negative] for NTN Corpor ation, and [negative] for NSK Ltd., and no
anti-dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Cylindrical
Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 9

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dum ping duties on Cylindrical Roller Bearings and
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001). The
period of review is 1 May 1999 through 31 December 1999, and the rates of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty were 5.28% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd. and 16.26% for NTN Corporation.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Cylindrical Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the
USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calcul ated dumping margins of 5.28% for Koyo Seiko
Co., Ltd. and 16.26% for NTN Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the
negative unit margins included), the dumping margin s would have been [negative] for Koyo Seiko
Co., Ltd. and [negative] for NTN Corporation, and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Spherical
Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 10

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Spherical Plain Bearings and
Parts Thereof From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 66 Fed. Reg. 36551, 12 July 2001). The
period of review is 1 May 1999 through 31 December 1999, and the rate of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty was 3.60% for NTN Corporation.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Spherical Plain Bearings and Parts Thereof From Japan, the
USDOC utilized the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.60% for NTN
Corporation, while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the
dumping margin would have been [negative], and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 11

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 67 Fed. Reg. 55780, 30 August 2002, as amended by
67 Fed. Reg. 63608, 15 October 2002). The period of review is 1 May 2000 through 30 April 2001,
and the rates of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty were 6.07% for NSK Ltd., 2.51% for Asahi Seiko
Co., Ltd., and 9.34% for NTN Corporation.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 6.07% for NSK Ltd.,
2.51% for Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd., and 9.34% for NTN Corporation, while without the Zeroing
procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins in cluded), the dumping margins would have been
[negative] for NSK Ltd., [negativ e] for Asahi Seiko Co., Ltd., and [negative] for NTN Corporation,
and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 12

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 68 Fe d. Reg. 35623, 16 June 2003). The period of
review is 1 May 2001 through 30 April 2002, and the rates of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty were
4.51% for NTN Corporation and 2.68% for NSK Ltd.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calculated dumping margins of 4.51% for NTN
Corporation and 2.68% for NSK Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit
margins included), the dumping margins would ha ve been [negative] for NTN Corporation and
[negative] for NSK Ltd., and no anti-dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Periodic Review on Imports of Ball Bearings
and Parts Thereof From Japan

Specific Case No. 13

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti- dumping duties on Ball Bearings and Parts Thereof
From Japan (USDOC case number A-588-804, 69 Fed. Reg. 55574, 15 September 2004). The period
of review is 1 May 2002 through 30 April 2003, and the rates of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty
were 5.56% for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., 2.74% for NTN Corporation, 2.46% for NSK Ltd., and 3.37%
for Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd.

Use of Zeroing

 In this periodic review of Ball Bearings a nd Parts Thereof From Japan, the USDOC utilized
the same Zeroing procedure as that used in Specific Case No. 2.

Dumping margin without Zeroing

 By using this procedure, the USDOC calcul ated dumping margins of 5.56% for Koyo Seiko
Co., Ltd., 2.74% for NTN Corporation, 2.46% for NSK Ltd., and 3.37% for Nippon Pillow Block
Co., Ltd., while without the Zeroing procedure (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the
dumping margins would have been [negative] for Koyo Seiko Co., Ltd., [negative] for NTN
Corporation, [negative] for NSK Ltd., and [negative] for Nippon Pillow Block Co., Ltd., and no anti-
dumping duties would have been collected.

United States – Sunset Review of Antifriction Bearings From Japan

Specific Case No. 14

The measure

 This case concerns the Final Results of th e USDOC in the Expedited Sunset Review of
Antifriction Bearings from Japan, in which the USDOC found that revocation of the anti-dumping
order on Ball Bearings from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping
(USDOC case number A-588-804, 64 Fed. Reg. 60275, 4 November 1999); and the Determination of
the USITC in Certain Bearings from China, Fran ce, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Romania,
Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, Investigations Nos. AA-1921-143, 731-TA-341, 731-
TA-343-345, 731-TA-391-397, and 731-TA-399 (Revie w), that revocation of the anti-dumping order
on Ball Bearings from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury
within a reasonably foreseeable time.

Use of Zeroing

 In making this determination, the USDOC speci fically relied on the "margins determined in
the original investigation and subsequent periodic reviews," and concluded that because "dumping has
continued over the life of the orde rs, the [USDOC] determines that dumping is likely to continue if
the orders were revoked." (64 Fed. Reg. at 60278.) Japan submits that because the USDOC's
likelihood determination was based on margins in both the original investigation and subsequent
periodic reviews that were calculated using the Zero ing procedure, which is inconsistent with the
Anti-Dumping Agreement, the USDOC's decision not to revoke the anti-dumping order on Ball
Bearings from Japan is equally inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

 In addition, Japan submits that because the USITC relied on a "magnitude of dumping" and
"volume of dumped imports" that were inflated by the use of the Zeroing procedure,, the USITC's
likelihood determination and the decision not to revoke the anti-dumping order on Ball Bearings from
Japan are also inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

United States – Sunset Review of Corrosion-Resistant
Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan

Specific Case No. 15

The measure

 This case concerns the Final Results of the USDOC in the Full Sunset Review of Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan, in which the USDOC concluded that revocation of
the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan would be likely
to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping (USDOC case number A-588-826, 65 Fed. Reg.
47380, 2 August 2000); and the Dete rmination of the USITC in Certain Carbon Steel Products from
Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Korea, Mexico, Netherlands,
Poland, Romania, Spain, Sweden, Taiwan, and United Kingdom, Investigations Nos. AA-1921-197,
701-TA-231, 319-320, 322, 325-328, 340, 342, and 348-350, and 731-TA-573-576, 578, 582-587,
604, 607-608, 612, and 614-618 (Review), that re vocation of the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence
of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time.

Use of Zeroing

 In making this determination, the USDOC specifically relied on the margins determined in
the investigation, and concluded that because "dum ping has continued to occur throughout the life of
the order," dumping was likely to conti nue if the order was revoked. USDOC, Issues and Decision
Memo for the Full Sunset Review of Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan;
Final Results at Comment 1 (2 August 2000). Japan submits that because the USDOC's likelihood
determination was based on margins in the original investigation that were calculated using the
Zeroing procedure, which is inc onsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the USDOC's decision
not to revoke the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products From Japan
is equally inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

 In addition, Japan submits that because the USITC relied on a "magnitude of dumping" and
"volume of dumped imports" that were inflated by the use of the Zeroing procedure, the USITC's
likelihood determination and the decision not to revoke the anti-dumping order on Corrosion-
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan are also inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping
Agreement.