UNITED STATES – CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY
Document: 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: 21 November 2008
Document codes: WT/DS350/12
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

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 18 November 2008, 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 app eal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law
covered in the report of the panel in () (“Panel Report”) and certain legal interpretations developed by the
Panel in this dispute.

1. The United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s finding that Members
need not consult on a measure prior to requesting a pa nel to review that measure. In particular the
United States seeks review by the Appellate Body of the Panel’s finding that the 14 periodic reviews
and sunset reviews that were identified in the EC’s panel request, but not in the EC’s consultations
request, were within the Panel’s terms of reference.
1 This finding is in error and is based on erroneous
findings on issues of law and related legal interpre tations, including an incorrect interpretation of
Articles 4, 6, and 7 of the DSU and Articles 17.3, 17.4, and 17.5 of the Agreement on Implementation
of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (“AD Agreement”).

2. The United States seeks review of the Pa nel’s conclusion that the United States acted
inconsistently with its obligati ons under Article VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and
Trade 1994 (“GATT 1994”) and Article 9.3 of the AD Agreem ent by applying simple zeroing in the
29 periodic reviews at issue in this dispute.
2 This conclusion is in error and is based on erroneous
findings on issues of law and related legal interpre tations, including the improper interpretation and
application of Article 17.6(ii) of the AD Agre ement, Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement, and
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.

3. The United States requests the Appellate Body to find that the Panel failed to make “an
objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case
and the applicability of and conformity with th e relevant covered agreements” as required by
Article 11 of the DSU with respect to the EC’s clai ms that the United States acted inconsistently with

1See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.17-7.28; 8.1(a).
2See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.162-7.169; 7.178-7.183; 8.1(e).

its obligations under Article 11.3 of the AD Agre ement in the eight sunset reviews at issue.
3 The
Panel’s failure to undertake an objective assessment includes the err oneous finding that the EC made
a prima facie case that the margins in the underlying prior investigations were obtained through so-
called model zeroing.

3See, e.g., Panel Report, paras. 7.192-7.202; 8.1(f).