UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS ("ZEROING")
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities
Date: 6 February 2004
Document codes: WT/DS294/7
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")

Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities

 The following communication, dated 5 February 2004, from the delegation of the European
Commission to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of
the DSU.

 On 12 June 2003 and 8 September 2003, the Eu ropean Communities requested consultations
with the United States of America (the "United States") under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disput es (the "DSU"); Article XXII:1 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GA TT 1994"); and Articles 17.2 and 17.3 of the
Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the
"AD Agreement ") with regard to the laws, regulati ons and methodologies for calculating dumping
margins including zeroing practices
1. Consultations were held on 17 July 2003 and 6 October 2003.
They have allowed a better understanding of the respective positions of the parties, but have not led to
a satisfactory resolution of the matter.

Summary of facts

 In anti-dumping proceedings the United States uses the following methodologies to establish
the dumping margin.

 In original investigations, the United States identifies sub-groups of products within the
product under investigation ("averaging groups") on a per model basis as well as on the basis of other
criteria such as the level of trade. Within each of the averaging groups, a weighted average export
price is established and compared to the correspondi ng weighted average normal value. The results of
these comparisons on an "averaging group" basis are a dded up to establish the dumping margin of the
product under investigation as a whole; however, in this process, any negative margins or amounts of
"dumping" resulting from the comparison of weighted average normal values with weighted average
export prices on an "averaging group" basis are put at zero. As a result, the United States calculates a
margin and amount of dumping in excess of th e actual dumping practised by the companies
concerned.

 In administrative review investigations, th e United States determines the margin of dumping
on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value for each "averaging group" and
individual export prices (the United States does not establish weighted average export prices in
administrative review investigations). Here again, when adding up the results of the 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

1 WT/DS294/1 of 19 June 2003 and WT/DS294/1/Add.1 of 15 September 2003.

dumping and collects an amount of anti-dumping duty in excess of the actual dumping practised by
the companies concerned. The Unite d States uses this methodology systematically in all reviews
including so-called newcomer review investigations (Article 9.5 of the AD Agreement ), changed
circumstances review investigations (Article 11.2 of the AD Agreement ) and sunset review
investigations (Article 11.3 of the AD Agreement).

 These calculation methodologies are applied pursu ant, in particular, to the following United
States laws, regulations, administrative procedures and measures:

– the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the "Act"), including the Statement of Administrative
Action (the "SAA"), in particular Title VII and sections 731, 751, 771(35)(A), 771(35)(B) and
777(A)(d);

– the implementing regulation
2 of the United States Department of Commerce (the "DOC"), in
particular section 351.414(c)(2); and

– the Import Administration Antidumping Ma nual (1997 edition) (the "IA AD Manual")
including the computer program(s) to which it refers.

 The calculation methodologies described above were respectively applied in the
determinations of dumping by the DOC in the original investigations listed in annex I and in the final
results of the anti-dumping administrative review investigations listed in annex II.

Claims

– As such claims

 The European Communities considers that the above-mentioned United States laws,
regulations, administrative procedures, measure s and methodologies for determining the dumping
margin in original investigations and review investig ations are inconsistent with several provisions of
the AD Agreement , GATT 1994 and the Marrakesh Agreem ent establishing the World Trade
Organization , for the following reasons:

(a) in original investigations, the United States puts at zero the negative margins or amounts of
"dumping" resulting from the comparison of weighted average normal values with weighted
average export prices within the averaging gro ups. As a result, the United States calculates a
margin and amount of dumping in excess of the actual dumping practised by the companies
concerned. This constitutes a violation of:

• Articles 2.4
3 and 2.4.2 4 of the AD Agreement insofar as the comparison made by the
United States is inconsistent with those provisions;

2 19 CFR Section 351.
3 "A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value ."
4 "Subject to the provisions governing fair comparis on in paragraph 4, the existence of margins of
dumping during the investigation phase shall normally be established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted
average normal value with a weighted average of pri ces of all comparable expo rt transactions or by a
comparison of normal value and export prices on a transaction-to-transaction basis. A normal value established
on a weighted average basis may be compared to prices of individual export transactions if the authorities find a
pattern of export prices which differ significantly among different purchasers, regions or time periods, and if an
explanation is provided as to why such differences ca nnot be taken into account appr opriately by the use of a
weighted average-to-weighted average or transaction-to-transaction comparison."

• Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement insofar as a de minimis dumping margin is erroneously
determined to be not de minimis;
• Articles 9.1 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement insofar as there is as a result the imposition and
collection of an anti-dumping duty in excess of the margin or amount of dumping as
determined pursuant to Article 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 as a result the imposition an d collection of an anti-dumping duty which
is inconsistent with the AD Agreement; and consequently of
• 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.
(b) in review investigations, the United States systematically determines the margin of dumping
on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value and individual export prices
and puts at zero the 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
dumping practised by the companies concerned. This constitutes a violation of:

• Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement
5 insofar as the comparison made by the
United States is inconsistent with those provisions;
• Articles 9.1 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement insofar as there is as a result 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;
• Articles 9.5 and 11 (including Articles 11.2 and 11.3) of the AD Agreement insofar as the
determinations of dumping in review investig ations contemplated by these provisions are
not made in compliance 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 as a result the imposition an d collection of an anti-dumping duty which
is inconsistent with the AD Agreement; and consequently of
• 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.

As applied claims

 In the specific anti-dumping proceedings anne xed to the present request, the United States
applied the methodologies and the laws, regulat ions, administrative procedures and measures
described under point 2 above. In consequence, the European Communities considers that the
determinations of dumping by DOC , the determinations of injury by the United States International

5 See footnotes 3 and 4.

Trade Commission, the imposition of definitive duties in the original investigations and the outcome
of the administrative review investigations as deta iled in the annexes are inconsistent with the AD
Agreement, GATT 1994 and the Marrakesh Agreement estab lishing the World Trade Organization as
follows:

(a) in the original investigations:

• Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.1 and 9.3 of the AD Agreement and Articles VI:1 and
VI:2 of the GATT 1994, for the reasons set out under point 3.1(a) above;
• Article 3, including Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 3.5, of the AD Agreement insofar as the volume
of "dumped imports" for the injury and causa lity determinations is determined on the
basis of margins of dumping in excess of the actual margin of dumping of the companies
concerned, with the result that imports fro m certain companies which should be excluded
because of de minimis dumping margins are erroneously included in the "dumped
imports"; and consequently
• Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreemen t establishing the World Trade Organization
and Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement, for the reasons set out under point 3.1(a) above.
(b) in the administrative review investigations : Articles 1, 2.1 2.4, 2.4.2, 9.1, 9.3, and 11
(including Article 11.2) of the AD Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994,
and consequently Article XVI:4 of the Marra kesh Agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization and Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement, for the reasons set out under point 3.1(b)
above.

 The European Communities hereby respectfully requests that a panel be established, with
standard terms of reference, by the Dispute Settl ement Body pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the
DSU, Article XXIII of GATT 1994, and Article 17.4 the AD Agreement. The European Communities
asks that this request be placed on the agenda of the meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body on
17 February 2004.

ANNEX I
IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTY
Product MS DOC Case
Number DOC Final Determination ITC Case
Number
ITC
Determination AD Order
1. Certain hot-rolled
carbon steel
NL A-421-807 66 FR 50408, October 3, 2001
(amended: 66 FR 55637, November 2,
2001)
A-903 November 2001 66 FR 59565,
November 29, 2001
2. Stainless steel bar F A-427-820 67 FR 3143, January 23, 2002 A-913 Febr uary 2002 67 FR 10385,
March 7, 2002
3. Stainless steel bar G A-428-83 0 67 FR 3159, January 23, 2002
(amended: 67 FR 10382, March 7,
2002)
A-914 February 2002 67 FR 10382,
March 7, 2002
4. Stainless steel bar I A-475-82 9 67 FR 3155, January 23, 2002
(amended: 67 FR 8228, February 22,
2002)
A-915 February 2002 67 FR 10384,
March 7, 2002
5. Stainless steel bar UK A-412-822 67 FR 3146, January 23, 2002 A-918 Febr uary 2002 67 FR 10381,
March 7, 2002
6. Stainless Steel Wire
Rod
SW A-401-806 63 FR40449, July 29,1998 A-774 September 1998 63 FR49329,
September 15, 1998
7. Stainless Steel Wire
Rod
E A-469-807 63 FR40391, July 29,1998 A-773 September 1998 63 FR 49330,
September 15, 1998
8. Stainless Steel Wire Rod I A-475-820 63 FR40422, July 29,1998 A-770 September 1998 63 FR 49327,
September 15, 1998
9.Certain Stainless Steel
Plate in Coils
B A-423-808 64 FR15476, March 31, 1999 A-788 May 1999 64 FR 27756,
May 21, 1999 (amended
by 68 FR 20114 April 24,
2003)
10. Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils
F A-427-814 64 FR30820, June 8, 1999 A-797 July 1999 64 FR 40562,
July 27, 1999
11. Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils
I A-475-824 64 FR30750, June 8, 1999 A-799 July 1999 64 FR 40567,
July 27, 1999
12. Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils
UK A-412-818 64 FR30688, June 8,1999 A-804 July 1999 64 FR 40555,
July 27,1999
13. Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate
F A-427-816 64 FR73143, December 29,1999 A-816 February 2000 65 FR 6585,
February 10, 2000
14. Certain Cut-to-Length
Carbon-Quality Steel Plate
I A-475-826 64 FR73234, December 29,1999 A-819 February 2000 65 FR 6585,
February 10, 2000

ANNEX I
IMPOSITION OF ANTI-DUMPING DUTY
Product MS DOC Case
Number DOC Final Determination ITC Case
Number
ITC
Determination AD Order
15. Certain Pasta I A-475-818 61 FR30326, June 14, 1996 (amended
by 66 FR65889, December 21,2001)
A-734 July 1996 61 FR38547
July 24, 1996

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Hot-Rolled
Carbon Steel Flat Products from the Netherlands

Specific Case No. l

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Carbon Steel
Flat products from the Netherlands (US case number A-421-807, 66 FR 59565 of 29 November
2001). The rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 2.59% for Corus Staal BV and all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 2.59% while without the zeroing methodology (i.e.
with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been [- ..%] (negative) and
the case would have been terminated.

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Bar from France

Specific Case No. 2

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Bar from France
(US case number A-427-820, 67 FR 10385 of 7 March 2002). The rates of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty were 71.83% for Aubert & Duva l S.A, 3.90% for Ugine-Savoie Imphy and all
others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.90% for Ugine-Savoie Imphy SA while without the
zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have
been [- ..%] (negative) and the case would have been terminated with respect to this exporter.

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Bar from Germany

Specific Case No. 3

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Bar from
Germany (US case number A-428-830, 67 FR 10382 of 7 March 2002). The rates of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty were 13.63% for BGH, 4.17% for Einsal, 15.40% for EWK, 32.32% for KEP and
16.96% for all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

DOC calculated a dumping margin:

– of 13.63% for BGH. Without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins
included), the dumping margin would have been [..%] (lower).

– of 4.17% for Einsal. Without the zeroing methodology, the dumping margin would have been
of [..%] (de minimis) and the case would have been terminated with respect to this exporter.

– of 15.40% for EWK. Without the zeroing methodology the dumping margin would have been
[..%] (lower).

– of 32.32% for KEP. Without the zeroing methodology the dumping margin would have been
[..%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Bar from Italy

Specific Case No. 4

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Bar from Italy
(US case number A-475-829, 67 FR 10384 of 7 March 2002). The rates of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty were 2.50% for Acciaierie Valb runa Srl/Acciaierie Bolzano D.p.A, 7.07% for
Acciaiera Foroni SpA, 3.83% for Rodacciai S.p.A, 33% for Cogne Acciai Speciali Srl and 3.81% for
all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin:

– of 2.50% for Acciaierie Valbruna Srl/Acciaierie Bolzano S.p.A. Without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margin s included), the dumping margin would have
been [-..%] (negative) and the case would have been terminated with respect to this exporter.

– of 7.07% for Acciaiera Foroni Spa. Without the zeroing methodology the dumping margin
would have been [..%] (lower).

– of 3.83% for Rodacciai SpA. Without the zeroing methodology the dumping margin would
have been [...%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Bar
from the United Kingdom

Specific Case No. 5

The measure

 This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Bar from the
United Kingdom (US case number A-412-822, 67 FR 10381 of 7 March 2002). The rates of the
ad valorem anti-dumping duty were 4.48% for Corus Engineering Steels, Ltd, 125.77% for
Crownridge Stainless Steel, Ltd/Valkia Ltd and Firth Rixson Special Steels, Ltd and 4.48% for all
others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 4.48% for Corus Engineering Steels, Ltd while without
the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative un it margins included), the dumping margin would
have been [- ...%] (negative) and the case would have been terminated with respect to this exporter.

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Wire Rod
from Sweden

Specific Case No. 6

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Wire Rod from
Sweden (US case number A-401-806, 63 FR 49329 of 15 September 1998). The rate of the
ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 5.71% for Fagersta Stainless AB and all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 5.71% fo r Fagersta Stainless AB while without the
zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have
been [-…%] (negative) and the case would have been terminated with respect to this exporter.

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Wire Rod
from Spain

Specific Case No. 7

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Wire Rod from
Spain (US case number A-469-807, 63 FR 49330 of 15 September 1998). The rate of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty was 4.73% for Roldán SA and all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 4.73% for Roldán SA while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been
[ …%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Wire Rod from Italy

Specific Case No. 8

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Wire Rod from
Italy (US case number A-475-820, 63 FR 49327 of 15 September 1998). The rate of the ad valorem
anti-dumping duty was 12.72% for Cogne Acciai Speciali Srl and all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 12.72% fo r Cogne Acciai Speciali Srl while without the
zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have
been [ …%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from Belgium

Specific Case No. 9

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from Belgium (US case number A-423-808, 64 FR 2775 6 of 21 May 1999, amended by 68 FR 20114
of 24 April 2003). The rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 3.84% for ALZ and 9.86% for
all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.84% for ALZ while without the zeroing methodology
(i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been [ ..%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from France

Specific Case No. 10

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils from France (US case number A-427-814, 64 FR 40562 of 27 July 1999). The rate of the
ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 9.38% for Usinor and all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 9.38% for Usinor while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been
[ …%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Italy

Specific Case No. 11

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils from Italy (US case number A-475-824, 64 FR 40567 of 27 July 1999). The rate of the
ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 11.23% for Acciai Spaciali Terni SpA and all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 11.23% for Acciai Spaciali Te rni SpA while without
the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative un it margins included), the dumping margin would
have been [ ..%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from the UK

Specific Case No. 12

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in
Coils from the UK (US case number A-412-818, 64 FR 40555 of 27 July 1999). The rate of the
ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 14.84% for Avesta Sheffield and all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 14.84% for Avesta Sheffield while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been
[ ..%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from France

Specific Case No. 13

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumpi ng duties on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-
Quality Steel Plate from France (US case number A- 427-816, 65 FR 6585 of 10 February 2000). The
rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 10.41% for Usinor and all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 10.41% for Usinor while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been
[ …%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain
Cut-to-Length Carbon-Quality Steel Plate from Italy

Specific Case No. 14

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of Anti- dumping duties on Certain Cut-to-Length Carbon-
Quality Steel Plate from Italy (US case number A-475-826, 65 FR 6585 of 10 February 2000). The
rate of the ad valorem anti-dumping duty was 7.85% for Palini and Bertoli SpA and all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 7.85% for Palini and Bertoli SpA while without the
zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have
been [ ..%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Pasta from Italy

Specific Case No. 15

The measure

This case concerns the imposition of anti-dumping duties on Certain Pasta from Italy (US
case number A-475-818, 61 FR 38547 of 24 July 1996). The rates of the ad valorem anti-dumping
duty were 21.34% for Italpasta , 14.78% for La Molisana, 12.41% for Liguori, 18.30% for Pagani and
12.09% for all others.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin:

– of 21.34% for Italpasta. Without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins
included), the dumping margin would have been [..%] (lower).

– of 14.78% for La Molisana. Without the zeroing methodology, the dumping margin would
have been of [..%] (lower).

– of 12.41% for Liguori. Without the zeroing methodology the dumping margin would have
been [..%] (lower).

– of 18.30% for Pagani. Without the zeroing methodology the dumping margin would have
been [..%] (lower).

ANNEX II
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Product MS No Case Final Results Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
Margin
Period covered by the
Review
16. Industrial Nitrocellulose F A-427-009 66 FR 54213,
October 26, 2001

 Bergerac NC 3.26% 1 August 99-31 July 00
17. Industrial Nitrocellulose UK A-412-803 67 FR 77747,
December 19, 2002

 Imperial Chemical
Industries
3.06% 1 July 00-30 June 01
18. Stainless steel plate in coils B A-423-808 67 FR 64352,
October 18, 2002
 ALZ NV &
TrefilARBED
(affiliated US
importer)

3.84% 1 May 00-30 April 01
19. Certain pasta I A-475-818 66 FR 300,
January 3, 2002
67 FR 5088,
February 4, 2002
Ferrara
Pallante
PAM

1.25%
1.78%
4.10%
1 July 99-30 June 00
20. Certain pasta I A-475-818 68 FR 6882,
February 11, 2003

 Pastifi Garofalo 0.55% 1 July 00-30 June 01
21. Stainless steel sheet strip
coils
I A-475-824 67 FR 1715,
January 14, 2002

 Acciai Speciali
Terni SpA
0.66% 4 January 99-30 June 00
22. Stainless steel sheet strip
coils
I A-475-824 68 FR 6719,
February 10, 2003

 Acciai Speciali
Terni SpA
5.84% 1 July 00-30 June 01
23. Granular
polytetrafluoenthylene
I A-475-703 67 FR 1960,
January 15, 2002

 Ausimont SpA 2.15% 1 August 99-31 July 00
24. Granular
polytetrafluoenthylene
I A-475-703 68 FR 2007,
January 15, 2003

 Ausimont SpA 12.08% 1 August 00-31 July 01
25. Stainless steel sheet strip
coils
F A-427-814 67 FR 6493,
February 12, 2002

67 FR 12522,
March 19, 2002
Ugine 3.00% 4 January 99-30 June 00

ANNEX II
ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS
Product MS No Case Final Results Amended Final
Results Company Dumping
Margin
Period covered by the
Review
26. Stainless steel sheet strip
coils
F A-427-814 67 FR 78773,
December 26, 2002

68 FR 4171,
January 28, 2003
Ugine 1.44% 1 July 00-30 June 01
27. Stainless steel sheet strip
coils
G A-428-825 67 FR 7668,
February 20, 2002

67 FR 15178,
March 29, 2002
KTN 2.61% 4 January 99-30 June 00
28. Stainless steel sheet strip
coils
G A-428-825 68 FR 6716,
February 10, 2003

68 FR 14193,
March 24, 2003
TKN 4.74% 1 July 00-30 June 01
29. Ball bearings F A-427-801 67 FR 55780,
August 30, 2002

 SKF France SA and
Sarma
8.51% 1 May 00-30 April 01
30. Ball bearings I A-475-801 67 FR 55780,
August 30, 2002

 FAG Italia SpA
SKF Industrie SpA
1.42%
3.70%
1 May 00-30 April 01
31. Ball bearings UK A-412-801 67 FR 55780,
August 30, 2002

 NSK Bearings
Europe Ltd
The Barden
Corporation UK
16.87%

3.87%
1 May 00-30 April 01

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Imports
of Industrial Nitrocellulose from France

Specific Case No. 16

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Industrial
Nitrocellulose from France, produced and exported by Bergerac NC. (US case number A-427-009,
66 FR 54213 of 26 October 2001). The period of revi ew is 1 August 1999 through 31 July 2000 and
the rate of anti-dumping duty for Bergerac NC was 3.26% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.26%. while without the zeroing methodology (i.e.
with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been [...%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Imports
of Industrial Nitrocellulose from the United Kingdom

Specific Case No. 17

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Industrial
Nitrocellulose from the United Kingdom, produced a nd exported by Imperial Chemical Industries
PLC. (US case number A-412-803, 67 FR 77747 of 19 December 2002). The period of review is
1 July 2000 through 30 June 2001 and the rate of an ti-dumping duty for Imperial Chemical Industries
was 3.06% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.06% while without the zeroing methodology (i.e.
with the negative unit margins included), the dumpi ng margin would have been [- …%] (negative)
and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Imports
of Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Belgium

Specific Case No. 18

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils from Belgium, produced and exported by ALZ NV (US case number A-423-808,
67 FR 64352 of 18 October 2002). The period of review is 1 May 2000 through 30 April 2001 and the
rate of anti-dumping duty for ALZ NV was 3.84% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 3. 84% while without the zeroing methodology
(i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dum ping margin would have been [- ..%] (negative)
and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Certain Pasta from Italy

Specific Case No. 19

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Certain Pasta from
Italy, produced and exported by Pastificio Guido Fe rrara S.r.L. (Ferrara), Pastificio Antonio Pallante
S.r.L. (Pallante) and PAM S.r.L. (PAM). (US case number A-475-818, 66 FR 300 of 3 January 2002,
67 FR 5088 of 4 February 2002). The period of revi ew is 1 July 1999 through 30 June 2000 and the
rate of anti-dumping duty was, ad valorem, 1.25% for Ferrara, 1.78% for Pallante, 4.10% for PAM.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated for Ferrara a dumping margin of 1.25% while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been
[...%] (lower).

 As for Pallante, DOC calculated a dumping margin of 1.78%, while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been [...%]
(lower).

 As for PAM, DOC calculated a dumping margin of 4.10%, while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. the negative unit margins incl uded), the dumping margin would have been
de minimis.

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Certain Pasta from Italy

Specific Case No. 20

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Certain Pasta from
Italy, produced and exported by Pastificio Ga rofalo S.p.A. (US case number A-475-818, 68 FR 6882
of 11 February 2003). The period of review is 1 Ju ly 2000 through 30 June 2001 and the rate of anti-
dumping duty was 0.55% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 0.55% while without the zeroing methodology (i.e.
with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been [...%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Imports
of Stainless Steel Sheet Strip in Coils from Italy

Specific Case No. 21

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Sheet
Strip in Coils from Italy, produced and exporte d by Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (US case number
A-475-824, 67 FR 1715 of 14 January 2002). The period of review is 4 January 1999 through 30 June
2000 and the rate of anti-dumping duty for Acciai Speciali Terni SpA was 0.66% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 0. 66% while without the zeroing methodology
(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 Administrative Review on Imports
of Stainless Steel Sheet Strip in Coils from Italy

Specific Case No. 22

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Sheet
Strip in Coils from Italy, produced and exporte d by Acciai Speciali Terni SpA (US case number
A-475-824, 68 FR 6719 of 10 February 2003). The peri od of review is 1 July 2000 through 30 June
2001 and the rate of anti-dumping duty for Acciai Speciali Terni SpA was 5.84% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 5. 84% while without the zeroing methodology
(i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been [- …%]
(negative).

United States – Anti-dumping Administrative Review on Imports
of Granular Polytetrafluoroenthylene Resin from Italy

Specific Case No. 23

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Granular
Polytetrafluoroenthylene resin from Italy, produced and exported by Ausimont SpA. (US case number
A-475-703, 67 FR 1960 of 15 January 2002). Th e period of review is 1 August 1999 through
31 July 2000 and the rate of anti-dumping duty for Ausimont SpA SA was 2.15% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 2. 15% while without the zeroing methodology
(i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been [...%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Imports
of Granular Polytetrafluoroenthylene Resin from Italy

Specific Case No. 24

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Granular
Polytetrafluoroenthylene Resin from Italy, produced and exported by Ausimont SpA. (US case
number A-475-703, 68 FR 2007 of 15 January 2003). Th e period of review is 1 August 2000 through
31 July 2001 and the rate of anti-dumping duty for Ausimont SpA SA was 12.08% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 12.08% while without the zeroing methodology
(i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin would have been [...%] (lower).

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Imports
of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France

Specific Case No. 25

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from France, produced and exported by Ugine (US case number A-427-814,
67 FR 6493 of 12 February 2002, 67 FR 12522 of 19 Ma rch 2002). The period of review is 4 January
1999 through 30 June 2000 and the rate of anti-dumping duty for Ugine was 3.00% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 3. 00% while without the zeroing methodology
(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 Administrative Review on Imports
of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from France

Specific Case No. 26

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from France, produced and expor ted by Ugine SA (US case number A-427-814,
67 FR 78773 of 26 December 2002, 68 FR 4171 of 28 January 2003). The period of review is 1 July
2000 through 30 June 2001 and the rate of anti-dumping duty for Ugine SA was 1.44% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 1. 44% while without the zeroing methodology
(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 Administrative Review on Imports
of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany

Specific Case No. 27

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Germany, produced a nd exported by KTN (US case number A-428-825,
67 FR 7668 of 20 February 2002, 67 FR 15178 of 29 March 2002). The period of review is 4 January
1999 through 30 June 2000 and the rate of anti-dumping duty for KTN was 2.61% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 2. 61% while without the zeroing methodology
(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 Administrative Review on Imports
of Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Germany

Specific Case No. 28

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Stainless Steel Sheet
and Strip in Coils from Germany, produced and exported by TKN (US case number A-428-825, 68
FR 6716, February 10, 2003, 68 FR 14193, March 24, 2003). The period of review is 1 July 2000
through 30 June 2001 and the rate of anti-dumping duty for TKN was 4.74% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 4. 74% while without the zeroing methodology
(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 Administrative Review on Imports
of Ball Bearings from France

Specific Case No. 29

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Ball Bearings from
France, produced and exported by SKF France SA and Sarma (US case number A-427-801,
67 FR 55780 of 30 August 2002). The period of revi ew is 1 May 2000 through 30 April 2001 and the
rate of anti-dumping duty for SKF France SA and Sarma was 8.51% ad valorem.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin of 8. 51% while without the zeroing methodology
(i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the du mping margin would have been [-..%] (negative)
and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Imports
of Ball Bearings from Italy

Specific Case No. 30

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Ball Bearings from
Italy, produced and exported by SKF Industrie SpA and FAG Italia SpA (US case number A-475-801,
67 FR 55780 of 30 August 2002). The period of review is 1 May 2000 through 30 April 2001 and the
rate of anti-dumping duty was, ad valorem, 3.70% for SKF Industrie SpAand 1.42% for FAG Italia
SpA.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated a dumping margin for SKF Indus trie SpA of 3.70% while without the zeroing
methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins incl uded), the dumping margin would have been
[– ..%] (negative) and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

 As for FAG Italia SpA, DOC calculated a dumping margin of 1.42% while without the
zeroing methodology the dumping margin would have been [– ..%] (negative) and no anti-dumping
duty would have been collected.

United States – Anti-Dumping Administrative Review on Imports
of Ball Bearings from the United Kingdom

Specific Case No. 31

The administrative review

 This case concerns the administrative review of anti-dumping duties on Ball Bearings from
the United Kingdom, produced and exported by NS K Bearings Europe Ltd and the Barden
Corporation UK (US case number A-412-801, 67 FR 55780 of 30 August 2002). The period of review
is 1 May 2000 through 30 April 2001 and the rate of anti-dumping duty was, ad valorem, 16.87% for
NSK Bearings Europe Ltd and 3.87% for the Barden Corporation UK.

Dumping margin without zeroing

 DOC calculated for NSK Bearings Europe Lt d a dumping margin of 16.87% while without
the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative un it margins included), the dumping margin would
have been [– …%] (negative) and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.

 As for the Barden Corporation UK, DOC calculated a dumping margin of 3.87%, while
without the zeroing methodology (i.e. with the negative unit margins included), the dumping margin
would have been [– ..%] (negative) and no anti-dumping duty would have been collected.