UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS ("ZEROING")
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 Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review
Date: 1 February 2006
Document codes: WT/DS294/13
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")

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 Rule 23(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review

 The following notification, dated 30 January 20 06, 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 Working 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.

 The United States seeks review of the Panel's legal conclusion that the United States
maintains a "zeroing methodology" that, as it relates to original investigations, is a norm which, as
such, is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("AD Agreement").
1 This conclusion is in error and is
based on erroneous findings on issues of law and related legal interpretations, including the following:

1. The standard used by the Panel to identif y "zeroing methodology" as a purported measure for
purposes of determining whether there was a breach of Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement is
erroneous as a matter of law.
2

2. The Panel's finding that "zeroing methodology" constituted a "measure" because it is a norm
is erroneous, as is its subsequent finding that this "measure" breaches Article 2.4.2 of the AD
Agreement.3

1The Panel's conclusion and the articulation of the reasons therefore are set forth in Panel Report,
paragraphs 7.91-7.106 and 8.1(c).
2The standard used by the Panel is set forth largely in Panel Report, paragraphs 7.98-7.100.
3The Panel's finding is set forth largely in Panel Report, paragraphs 7.101-7.104.

3. The Panel failed to apply a correct analysis in finding that a measure allegedly taken by the
United States – the so-called "zeroing methodology" – is "as such" inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of
the AD Agreement, and, in any event, failed to ma ke an objective assessment under Article 11 of the
DSU.
4

4. The Panel relieved the European Communities of its burden of proving the existence of a
measure that is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement.5

4The Panel's "as such" analysis appears to be set forth in Panel Report, paragraphs 7.104-7.105.
5This error is reflected in the Panel's overall analysis set forth in Panel Report, paragraphs 7.91-7.106.