UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS ("ZEROING")
Document: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
Date: 26 February 2009
Document codes: WT/DS294/29
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")

Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities

Notification of an Other Appeal by the United States
under Article 16.4 and Article 17 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
and under Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review

 The following notification, dated 25 February 2009, from the Delegation of the United States,
is being circulated to Members.

Pursuant to Article 16 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes ("DSU") and Rule 23(1) of the Worki ng Procedures for Appellate Review, the
United States hereby notifies its decision to appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law
covered in the report of the panel in : Recou rse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European
Communities () and certain legal interpreta tions developed by the Panel in this
dispute.

1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel's conclusion that the
United States failed to comply with the recommenda tions and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body
("DSB") in the original dispute and has acted inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the Agreement on
Implementation of Article VI of the Ge neral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement")
and Article VI:2 of the General Agreement on Ta riffs and Trade 1994 ("GATT 1994") by publishing
determinations, after the end of the reasonable period of time, of the amount of antidumping duty to
be assessed based on zeroing in the 2004-2005 administrative reviews in Hot-Rolled Steel from the
Netherlands and Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden and issuing assessment instructions pursuant
to the results of those administrative reviews. This conclusion is in error and based on erroneous
findings on issues of law and related legal interpretations of DSU Articles 21 and 22.

2. Specifically, the United States requests the Appellate Body to reverse:

(a) the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.126 of its report
1 that these two administrative
reviews of entries that were made in 2004 and 2005 fell within its terms of reference;

1 The paragraphs on which the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.126 is based include, for example,
paragraphs 8.87-8.125 of the Panel's report.

(b) (i) the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.208 of its report
2 that, in issuing the final
results of the 2004-2005 administrative review in Hot-Rolled Steel from the
Netherlands and assessment instructions pursu ant to those results, the United
States acted inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement and
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, because this review did not fall within the
Panel's terms of reference; and

(ii) the Panel's further finding in paragraph 8.208 of its report that, in issuing the
final results of the 2004-2005 administrative review in Hot-Rolled Steel from
the Netherlands and assessment instructions pursuant to those results, the
United States failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings
to bring the original investigation in Hot-Rolled Steel from the Netherlands
into conformity with the covered agreements, because those assessment
reviews were of entries that were made prior to the end of the reasonable
period of time, and indeed prior to the DSB's recommendations and rulings in
the original dispute;

(c) (i) the Panel's finding in paragraph 8.213 of its report
3 that, in issuing the final
results of the 2004-2005 administrative review in Stainless Steel Wire Rod
from Sweden and assessment instructions pursuant to those results, the United
States acted inconsistently with Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement and
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, because this review did not fall within the
Panel's terms of reference; and

(ii) the Panel's further finding in paragraph 8.213 of its report that, in issuing the
final results of the 2004-2005 administrative review in Stainless Steel Wire
Rod from Sweden and assessment instructions pu rsuant to those results, the
United States failed to comply with the DSB's recommendations and rulings
to bring the original investigation in Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Sweden
into conformity with the covered agreements, because those assessment
reviews were of entries that were made prior to the end of the reasonable
period of time, and indeed prior to the DSB's recommendations and rulings in
the original dispute; and

(d) the Panel's conclusions in paragraph 9.1(b)(i) of its report, which are based on the
erroneous findings referenced above.