UNITED STATES – CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities
Date: 11 May 2007
Document codes: WT/DS350/6
Complainant: EU
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Norway, Taiwan, Thailand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.1, 9.3, 9.5, 11, 1, 11.1, 11.3, 11.2, 2  Anti-dumpingArt. VI:1, VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 18.4  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION
OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY

Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities

 The following communication, dated 10 May 2007, from the delegation of the European
Communities to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of
the DSU.

 The European Communities hereby requests th at a panel be established by DSB action
pursuant to Articles 2.1 and 6.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU"); Article XXII:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (the "GATT 1994"); and Articles 17.4 and 17.5 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article
VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the " AD Agreement") with regard to an "as
such" measure or measures providing for the practice or methodologies for calculating dumping
margins involving the use of zeroing, and the application of zeroing in certain specified anti-dumping
measures maintained by the United States of Americ a (the "United States"). On 2 October 2006, the
European Communities requested consultations with the United States with a view to reaching a
mutually satisfactory solution of the matter. The request was circulated in document
dated 3 October 2006. The consu ltations were held on 14 Novemb er 2006 and 28 February 2007 by
video-conference on the above-mentioned measures. Th ey have not led to a satisfactory resolution of
the matter.

1. The facts

 (a) When carrying out assessment and review proceedings of anti-dumping measures (so-
called annual "administrative reviews"), the United States re-investigates and
determines the margin of dumping on the basis of a comparison of a weighted
average "normal value" for each "averaging group" and the prices of individual
export transactions. When aggregating the results of these comparisons to determine
the total amount or margin of dumping of the product under investigation, the
United States puts at zero any negative amounts of "dumping". As a result, the
United States calculates a margin of dumping and collects an amount of anti-dumping
duty in excess of the actual margin of dumping practised by the exporters concerned.
The United States uses this methodology systematically in all its annual
administrative reviews of anti-dumping orders, and indeed in all types of review
proceedings (including new shipper and changed circumstances review proceedings)
in which it calculates a dumping margin.

 The Appellate Body, in the case United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology
for Calculating Dumping Margins ("Zeroing") (WT/DS294/AB/R), found that the
United States' use of zeroing in its "adminis trative reviews" was inconsistent with
Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:2 of GATT 1994. In the same case
and in the subsequent case of United States – Measures relating to Zeroing and
Sunset Reviews (DS 322) it was also confirmed that the United States Department of
Commerce (the "DOC") employed a "zeroing methodology" in calculating the margin
of dumping in its "administrative reviews" as described above and that that this was
inconsistent with Articles 2.4 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement..

This zeroing practice or methodology is applied pursuant, in particular, to:

− DOC's interpretation of Sections 771(35)(A) and (B), Section 731,
Section 777A(d), and Section 751(a)(2)(A)(i ) and (ii) of the United States Tariff
Act of 1930, as interpreted by the United States Statement of Administrative
Action, which accompanied the adoption of the United States Uruguay Round
Agreements Act, giving effect in the United States to the WTO Agreements, and
as upheld by US municipal courts;
1
− the implementing regulation2 of the DOC, in particular section 351.414(c)(2);
− the Import Administration Antidumpi ng Manual (1997 edition) (the "IA AD
Manual") including the computer program(s) to which it refers;
− DOC's consistent and established practice; and
− DOC's zeroing methodology.
Since the WTO inconsistency of this practice or methodology is already established
(notably in DS322) the European Communiti es does not ask the Panel to rule on the
WTO inconsistency of this practice.

(b) The United States uses this practice or methodology in calculating dumping amounts
or dumping margins, and in setting and coll ecting anti-dumping duties. The level of
such anti-dumping duties is set in origin al proceedings, revised in administrative
review proceedings or changed circumst ances proceedings, and the need for the
continued application of anti-dumping duties is decided in sunset review proceedings.
In the latter DOC may determine that dumping is likely to continue or recur if the
anti-dumping order were revoked, notably because dumping has continued at levels
above de minimis after the issuance of the order. To find that dumping has continued
after the issuance of the order, DOC re lies on dumping margins calculated in the
original proceeding and in administrative review proceedings using zeroing 3. The

1 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (04-1107) Corus Staal BV and Corus Steel
USA INC. v Department of Commerce and Others, 21 December 2005, applying a US municipal law doctrine
of judicial deference to executive interpretations of statute (the so-called "Chevron doctrine"), to the exclusion
of a US municipal law doctrine which states that US courts should interpret US law whenever possible in a
manner consistent with international obligations (the so-called "Charming Betsy doctrine").
2 19 CFR Section 351.
3 These dumping margins will normally have been established in original proceedings, in which the
zeroing methodology condemned in DS 2 94 will usually have been used; Sec tion 752(c)(3) of the Tariff Act of
1930, Section 315.218(e)(2)(i) of the DOC implementing regulation and paragraphs II.B of the Sunset Policy
Bulletin.

EC has identified in the annex to this request a number of anti-dumping orders where
duties are set and/or maintained on the basis of the above-mentioned zeroing practice
or methodology with the result that duties are paid by importers either in excess of the
dumping margin which would have been calculated using a WTO consistent
methodology or are paid when no such duty would have resulted from the use of a
WTO-consistent methodology.

2. The measures at issue and the legal basis of the complaint

The measures at issue and the legal basis of the complaint include, but are not limited
to, the following:
4

The continued application of, or the application of the specific anti-dumping duties
resulting from the anti-dumping orders enumer ated from I to XVIII in the Annex to
the present request as calculated or mainta ined in place pursuant to the most recent
administrative review or, as the case may be, original proceeding or changed
circumstances or sunset review proceedi ng at a level in excess of the anti-dumping
margin which would result from the correct application of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement (whether duties or cash deposit rates or other form of measure).

In addition to these measures, the administ rative reviews, or, as the case may be,
original proceedings or changed circumstan ces or sunset review proceedings listed in
the Annex (numbered 1 to 52) with the specific anti-dumping orders and are also
considered by the EC to be measures subj ect to the current request for establishment
of the panel in addition to the anti-dumping orders.

This includes the determinations in re lation to all companies and includes any
assessment instructions, whether automatic or otherwise, issued at any time pursuant
to any of the measures listed in the Anne x. The anti-dumping duties maintained (in
whatever form) pursuant to these orders, a nd the administrative reviews, or, as the
case may be, original proceedings and changed circumstances or sunset review
proceedings listed in the Annex are inconsistent with the following provisions:

• Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, because
the US did not determine a dumping margin for the product as a whole ;

• Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement, whether considered in isolation or together
with the obligations referred to in the firs t bullet point, insofar as the comparison made
by the United States is unfair, uses an unjustified comparison method, employs zeroing,
fails to calculate a margin of dumping for the product, and is otherwise inconsistent with
those provisions;

• Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement insofar as a de minimis dumping margin is erroneously
determined not to be de minimis;

• Articles 9.1 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement , whether considered in isolation or together
with the obligations referred to in the firs t and second bullet points, insofar as there the
imposition and collection of an anti-dumping duty in excess of the margin of dumping
determined pursuant to Article 2 of the AD Agreement;

4 The measures at issue include all Issues and Decision Memorandums, and any similar documents; any
computer programmes; any calculation memorandums; any other document that is part of the measure or record;
and any assessment instructions.

• Articles 9.5 and 11 (including Articles 11.1, 11.2 and 11.3) of the AD Agreement ,
whether considered in isolation or together with the obligations referred to in the first and
second bullet points, insofar as the determ inations of dumping made or relied upon by
the United States in review investigations ar e not made in compliance with Article 2 of
the AD Agreement;

• Articles 11.1 and 11.3 of the AD Agreement insofar as the United States relied on a
dumping margin which was not established for the product as a whole and not in
conformity with Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement;

• Articles 1 and 2.1 of the AD Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994
insofar as there is the imposition and collection of an anti-dumping duty which is
inconsistent with the AD Agreement; and

• Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreemen t establishing the World Trade Organization
and Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement insofar as the United States has not taken all
necessary steps, of a general or particular char acter, to ensure the conformity of its laws,
regulations and administrative procedures with the provisions of GATT 1994 and the AD
Agreement.

 The European Communities asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of
the Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 22 May 2007.

ANNEX
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 September 2004 –
31 August 2005
71 FR 74900, 13
December 2006
 Liepajas Metalurgs 5,94% 1
1 September 2003–
31 August 2004
71 FR 7016,
February 10, 2006
 Liepajas Metalurgs 5,24% 2
1 September 2002–
31 August 2003
69 FR 74498,
December 14, 2004
 Liepajas Metalurgs 3,01% 3
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final
determination
ITC Case number ITC Determinati on Continuation order
CASE I.

S
TEEL CONCRETE
REINFORCING BARS –
LATVIA

US DOC NO A-449-8041

72 FR 16767, April
5, 2007
731-TA-878 4

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 May 2004–30
April 2005
71 FR 40064, July
14, 2006
 FAG Italy
SKF Italy
2,52%
7,65%
5
1 May 2003–30
April 2004
70 FR 54711,
September 16, 2005
 FAG Italy
SKF Italy
5,88%
2,59%
6
1 May 2002–30
April 2003
69 FR 55574,
September 15, 2004
69 FR 62023,
October 22, 2004
Numerous 68,29% to less
than 5%
7
1 May 2001–30
April 2002
68 FR 35623,
June 16, 2003
 FAG
SKF
2,87%
5,08%
8
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final
determination
ITC Case number ITC Determinati on Continuation order
CASE II.

B
ALL BEARINGS AND
PARTS THEREOF – ITALY

US DOC NO A-475-8012

70 FR 58383,
October 6, 2005
731-TA-393 71 FR 51850, August
31, 2006
71 FR 54469,
September 15, 2006
 9

1 Original Order: 66 FR 46777, 7 September 2001.
2 Original Order: 15 May 1989; Continuation Order: 71 FR 54469, 15 September 2006.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 May 2004–30
April 2005
71 FR 40064, July
14, 2006
 FAG/INA
GRW
SKF Germany
4,04%
1,14%
7,35%
10
1 May 2003–30
April 2004
70 FR 54711,
September 16, 2005
 FAG/INA
GRW
SKF Germany
5,65%
4,58%
16,06%
11
1 May 2002–30
April 2003
69 FR 55574,
September 15, 2004

69 FR 63507,
November 2, 2004
Numerous 70,41% to less
than 1%
12
1 May 2001–30
April 2002
68 FR 35623,
June 16, 2003
 FAG
Torrington
Paul Mueller
SKF
1,45%
70,41%
0,19%
3,38%
13
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final
determination
ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order
CASE III.

BALL BEARINGS AND
PARTS THEREOF –
GERMANY

US DOC NO A-428-8012

70 FR 58383,
October 6, 2005
731-TA-392

71 FR 51850, August
31, 2006
71 FR 54469,
September 15, 2006
 14

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 May 2004–30
April 2005
71 FR 40064, July
14, 2006
 SKF France
SNR
12,57%
11,75%
15
1 May 2003–30
April 2004
70 FR 54711,
September 16, 2005
 SKF
SNR
8,41%
11,93%
16
1 May 2002–30
April 2003
69 FR 55574,
September 15, 2004
69 FR 62023,
October 22, 2004
Numerous 66,42% to less
than 7%
17
1 May 2001–30
April 2002
68 FR 35623, June
16, 2003
68 FR 43712,
July 24, 2003
France SNR
Roulements
SKF
3,52%
6,70%
18
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final
determination
ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order
CASE IV.

B
ALL BEARINGS AND
PARTS THEREOF –
FRANCE

US DOC NO A-427-8012

70 FR 58383,
October 6, 2005
731-TA-391

71 FR 51850, August
31, 2006
71 FR 54469,
September 15, 2006
 19

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 March 2004–28
February 2005
71 FR 30873, May
31 2006
 Ugitech S.A. 9,68% 20
CASE V.

S
TAINLESS STEEL BAR –
FRANCE

US
 DOC NO A-427-8203

 1 March 2003–29
February 2004
70 FR 46482,
August 10, 2005
 Ugitech S.A. 14,98% 21

3 Original Order: 67 FR 10385, 7 March 2002.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 July 2004 – 30
June 2005
71 FR 74897,
December 13, 2006
 Thyssen Krupp
Nirosta Gmbh
2,45% 22
1 July 2003–30 June
2004
70 FR 73729
December 13, 2005
 TKN 9,5% 23
1 July 2002–30 June
2003
69 FR 75930,
December 20, 2004
 Thyssen Krupp
Nirosta
7,03% 24
1 July 2001–30 June
2002
69 FR 6262,
February 10, 2004
 TKN 3,72% 25
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final
determination
ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order
CASE VI.

STAINLESS STEEL SHEET
AND STRIP IN COILS –
GERMANY

US
 DOC NO A-428-8254

69 FR 67896,
November 22,2004

731-TA-798

70 FR 41236, July
18, 2005
70 FR 44886, August
4, 2005
 26

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 May 2003–30
April 2004
70 FR 72789,
December 7 2005
 Ugine & ALZ
Belgium NV
2,96% 27
1 May 2002–30
April 2003
69 FR 74495,
December 14, 2004
70 FR 2999, January
19, 2005
U&A Belgium 2,71% 28
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final
determination
ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order
CASE VII.

S
TAINLESS STEEL PLATE
IN COILS – BELGIUM

US
 DOC NO A-423-8085

69 FR 61798,
October 21 2004
731-TA-788 70 FR 38710, July 5,
2005
70 FR 41202, July 18
2005
 29

4 Original Order : 64 FR 40557, 27 July 1999; Continuation Order: 70 FR 44886, 4 August 2005.
5 Original Order : 64 FR 25288, 11 May 1999; Continuation Order: 70 FR 41202, 18 July 2005.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 May 2003–30
April 2004
70 FR 54711,
September 16, 2005
 Barden/FAG
SKF IK
2,78%
61,14%
30
1 May 2002–30
April 2003
69 FR 55574,
September 15, 2004
69 FR 62023,
October 22, 2004
Aeroengine Bearings
Barden/FAG
61,14%
4,10%
31
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final
determination
ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order
CASE VIII.

BALL BEARINGS AND
PARTS THEREOF – UK

US DOC NO A-412-8012

70 FR 58383,
October 6, 2005
731-TA-399

71 FR 51850, August
31, 2006
71 FR 54469,
September 15, 2006
 32

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 March 2004–28
February 2005
71 FR 42802, July
28, 2006
71 FR 52063,
September 1, 2006
BGH Group 0,73% 33
CASE IX.

STAINLESS STEEL BAR –
GERMANY

US DOC A-428-8306
2 August 2001–28
February 2003
69 FR 113, June 14,
2004
 BGH 0,52% 34

6 Original Order: 67 FR 10382, 7 March 2002.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 November 2004–
31 October 2005
70 FR 71523,
December 11, 2006
(Preliminary results)
 Corus 2.52% 35
1 November 2002–
31 October 2003
70 FR 18366, April
11, 2005
 Corus 4,42% 36
3 May 2001–31
October 2002
69 FR 115, June 16,
2004
69 FR 43801,
July 22, 2004
Corus 4,80% 37
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final
determination
ITC Case number ITC Determina tion Continuation order
CASE X.

CERTAIN HOT ROLLED
CARBON STEEL FLAT
PRODUCTS –
NETHERLANDS

US DOC NO A-421-8077
72 FR 7604,
February 16, 2007
(Preliminary Results)
731-TA-903 38

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by
the review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
CASE XI.

S
TAINLESS STEEL BAR –
ITALY

US
 DOC NO A- 475-8298 2 August 2001–28
February 2003
69 FR 113, June 14,
2004
 Foroni
Ugine-Savoie-Imphy
SA
4,03%
33,00%
39

7 Original Order: 66 FR 55637, 2 November 2001.
8 Original Order: 67 FR 10384, 7 March 2002.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by the
review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003 70 FR 7472,
February 14, 2005
70 FR 13009,
March 17, 2005
Thyssen Krupp Acciai
Speciali Terni SpA
3,73% 40
1 July 2001–30 June 2002 68 FR 69382
December 12, 2003
 Thyssenkrupp Acciai
Terni SpA
1,62% 41
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final determination ITC Case number ITC
Determination
Continuation order
CASE XII.

STAINLESS STEEL SHEET
& STRIP IN COILS – ITALY

US DOC NO
A-475-8249
69 FR 67896, November
22,2004

731-TA-799 70 FR 41236, July
18, 2005
70 FR 44886, August
4, 2005
 42

9 Original Order: 64 FR 40567, 27 July 1999; Continuation Order: 70 FR 44886, 4 August 2005.

ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Period covered by the
review
Final Results
(unless otherwise
specified)
Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
margin No.
1 July 2004 – 30 June 2005 72 FR 7011,
February 14, 2007
 Atar
Corticella/Combattenti
18,18%
1,95%
43
1 July 2003–30 June 2004 70 FR 71464,
November 29,
2005
 Barilla
Corticella/Combattenti
Indalco
Pagani
Riscossa
20,68%
3,41%
2,59%
2,76%
2,03%
44
1 July 2002–30 June 2003 70 FR 6832,
February 9, 2005
 Barilla
Corticella/Combattenti
Indalco
PAM
Riscossa
Russo
7,25%
4%
6,03%
4,78%
1,05%
7,36%
45
1 July 2001–30 June 2002 69 FR 6255,
February 10, 2004
69 FR 81, April
27, 2004
Garofalo
Indalco
PAM
Tomasello
Zaffiri
2,57%
2,85%
45,49%
4,59%
7,23%
46
SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final determination ITC Case number ITC
Determination
Continuation order
CASE XIII.

CERTAIN PASTA – ITALY

US DOC NO A-475-81810

72 FR 5266, February 5,
2007
731-TA-734 47

10 Original Order 61 FR 143, 24 July 1996; Continuation Order 66 FR 55160, 1 November 2001.

SUNSET REVIEWS
DOC Final determination ITC Case number ITC Determination Continuation order No.
CASE XIV.

BRASS SHEET & STRIP –
GERMANY

US DOC NO A-428-60211
71 FR 4348, January 26, 2006 731-TA-317 71 FR 14719, March 23,
2006
71 FR 16552, April 3,
2006
48

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
DOC Final determination ITC Case nu mber ITC Determination AD order No.
CASE XV.

PURIFIED
CARBOXYMETHYLCELLUL
OSE
– SWEDEN

US DOC NO A-401-808
70 FR 28278, May 17, 2005 731-TA-1087 70 FR 39334, July 7,
2005
70 FR 39734, July 11,
2005
49

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
DOC Final determination ITC Case nu mber ITC Determination AD order No.
CASE XVI.

 PURIFIED
CARBOXYMETHYLCELLUL
OSE – NETHERLANDS

US DOC NO A-421-811
70 FR 28275, May 17, 2005 731-TA-1086 70 FR 39334, July 7,
2005
70 FR 39734, July 11,
2005
50

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
DOC Final determination ITC Case nu mber ITC Determination AD order No.
CASE XVII.

P
URIFIED
CARBOXYMETHYLCELLUL
OSE – FINLAND

US DOC NO A-405-803
70 FR 28279, May 17, 2005 731-TA-1084 70 FR 39334, July 7,
2005
70 FR 39734, July 11,
2005
51

ORIGINAL INVESTIGATIONS
DOC Final determination ITC Case nu mber ITC Determination AD order No.
CASE XVIII.

CHLORINATED
ISOCYANURATES – SPAIN

US DOC NO A-469-814
70 FR 24506, May 10, 2005 731-TA-1083 70 FR 36205, June 22,
2005
70 FR 36562, June 24,
2005
52