Document: WT/DS402/R Page D-1 ANNEX D ORAL STATEMENTS OF THIRD PARTIES OR EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES THEREOF Contents Page Annex D-1 Oral Statement of China D-2
Document codes: WT/DS402/R
Complainant: South Korea
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: China, EU, Japan, Mexico, Thailand, Vietnam
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 2.4.2  Anti-dumping

ANNEX D

ORAL STATEMENTS OF THIRD PARTIES OR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARIES THEREOF

Contents Page
Annex D-1 Oral Statement of China D-2
Annex D-2 Oral Statement of the European Union D-3

ANNEX D-1

ORAL STATEMENT OF CHINA

 China shares the view with Korea that it is well-settled by the Appellate Body and panels that
the practice of zeroing employed by the Ministry of Commerce of the United States (the "USDOC") is
not consistent with the requirement of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, first sentence.

 Besides requesting that the Panel recommend that the United States be instructed to bring its
measures into conformity with its obligations unde r the relevant covered ag reements of the WTO,
China further urges the United Stat es to provide a package solution to this issue so as to avoid any
more disputes on zeroing.

 The USDOC modified its methodology in anti- dumping investigations with respect to the
calculation of the weighted-average dumping margin on 16 January 2007. However, there are still
many exporters suffering today from the zeroing methodology adopted in anti-dumping
determinations conducted before that date, including Chinese exporters. According to current practice
of the USDOC, these companies could not have the benefit of the modification by the USDOC simply
because the USDOC refuses to recalculate the relevant anti-dumping rates conducted before that date.

 China takes the view that it would be an unnecessary cost for the member whose companies
are suffering from the zeroing methodology if it has to bring such case before the WTO. The precious
resources of the WTO should not be wasted in such a manner. China requests the United States to
recalculate the anti-dumping rates upon applications of relevant companies and provide a package
solution to this issue so as to en sure that it fully brings its measures into conformity with its
obligations under the relevant covered agreements of the WTO.

ANNEX D-2

ORAL STATEMENT OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Panel,

1. Following your indication, the EU will be brief in its intervention of today. As mentioned in
our written submission, the EU considers that there is no "dispute" before the parties as to the facts of
the case, as shown by the evidence, the interpretation of the relevant law and its application to the
facts. There is no "debate", "controversy" or "di fference in opinion" between the parties. The rights
and obligations of both parties seem to have been acknowledged by Korea and the U.S. in this case
and, therefore, there is no need for the Panel to clarify the meaning of the covered agreements.
1

2. In the EU's view, where certain matters are put to the Panel as agreed between the parties, that
might consequently have an effect on the precise term s of the findings that the Panel can make, which
findings are eventually to be adopted by the DSB. Thus, under the circumstances of the present case,
the report of the Panel could be limited to making th e finding that the parties agree that there is no
dispute, and then recommend that the United States bring the measures at issue into conformity with
its obligation under the covered agreements. The Pa nel would distinguish between a finding that the
parties agree with respect to a particular fact, evid entiary matter or legal issue; and the Panel itself
making such finding or recommendation. This would be consistent with the Panel's obligations under
Article 11 of the DSU.

 Thank you for your attention. We are ready to respond to any questions you may have.

1 DSU, Article 3.2 ("The Members recognize that it serv es to preserve the rights and obligations of
Members under the covered agreements, and to clarify the existing provisions of those agreements in
accordance with customary rules of interpretation of public international law").