UNITED STATES – LAWS, REGULATIONS AND METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING DUMPING MARGINS ("ZEROING")
Document: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities Request for the Establishment of a Panel
Date: 14 September 2007
Document codes: WT/DS294/25
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")

Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities

Request for the Establishment of a Panel

 The following communication, dated 13 Sept ember 2007, from the delegation of the
European Communities to the Chairman of the Dis pute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to
Article 21.5 of the DSU.

 On 9 May 2006, the Dispute Settlement Body (the "DSB") adopted the Appellate Body
Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body, in the case WT/DS294 " ". The
resulting DSB rulings found that the United States' administrative practice (the zeroing methodology
in original investigations in which the weighted -average-to-weighted-average comparison method is
used) and other measures (15 original investigations
1 and 16 "administrative reviews" 2 in which
zeroing was used), including each of the assessment in structions issued pursuant to any of one of
these measures, were inconsistent with Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade 1994
("GATT 1994") and the Agreement on implementa tion of Article VI of the GATT 1994 (the
"AD Agreement"). The DSB recommended that the United States brings those measures into
conformity with its obligations under those Agreements.

 On 30 May 2006, the United States informed the DSB that it intended to implement the
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a ma nner consistent with its WTO obligations, but
needed a reasonable period of time to do so. Th e parties agreed under Article 21.3(b) of the
Understanding on rules and proce dures governing the settlement of disputes ("DSU") that the United
States would have until 9 April 2007 to implemen t the recommendations and rulings of the DSB
(WT/DS294/19).

 On 27 December 2006, the United States publishe d a notice whereby it announced that it was
abandoning "zeroing" in average-to-average comparis ons in anti-dumping original investigations (see
Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of th e Weighted–Average Dumping Margin during an
Antidumping Investigation; Final Modification published in 71 FR 77722). The final modification

1 Listed in WT/DS294/7/Rev.1, cases 1 to 15 on pages 5-6.
2 Listed in WT/DS294/7/Rev.1, cases 16 to 31 on pages 14-15. The term "administrative review" is a
term of US municipal law that is not used in the AD Agreement . A US "administrative review" involves an
investigation into and a re-calculation of the existence and degree of an exporter's margin of dumping during the
review investigation period, contemporaneous with the imports for which final liability is being assessed. An
"administrative review" investigation also results in th e fixing of a new "cash deposit" rate to be applied
prospectively to future imports, pending the next "administrative review".

became effective on 22 February 2007 (see Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted–
Average Dumping Margin in Antidumping Investigations; Change in Effective Date of Final
Modification, published in 72 FR 3783, 26 January 2007).

 Subsequently, the US began a recalculation of the margins of dumping in 12 of the 15 original
investigations (the anti-dumping measures having been previously revoked in three of the 15 original
investigations for reasons other than zeroing
3). The United States issued its final findings in 11 of the
original investigations on 9 Apr il 2007 ("Section 129 determinations") 4 which entered into effect on
23 April 2007 (published in 72 FR 25261, 4 Ma y 2007) and on 20 August 2007 issued its final
findings in the one outstanding case 5. At the DSB meeting of 24 April 2007, and at subsequent DSB
meetings, the United States stated that it had im plemented the DSB recommendations and rulings in
this dispute. The EC did not agree.

 On 4 May 2007, the parties concluded an agreement on the procedures under Articles 21 and
22 of the DSU ("sequencing agreement")
6 with a view to facilitating the procedures for a resolution of
the dispute.

On 9 July 2007, the European Communities in itiated the procedures under Article 21.5 of the
DSU by requesting the United States to enter into consultations. The request was circulated in
document WT/DS294/22 of 12 July 2007. Consultati ons were held on 30 July 2007. Consultations
have allowed a better understanding of respective positions but have failed to settle the dispute.

 Accordingly, " there is a disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered
agreement of measures taken to comply with the recommendations and rulings" of the DSB. Pursuant
to Article 6 and Article 21.5 of the DSU, Article 17 of the AD Agreement, Article XXIII of
GATT 1994 and Paragraph 1 of the sequencing agreem ent, the EC hereby requests the establishment
of a panel.

 In particular, the European Communities claims the following:

1. The Section 129 determinations entered into force on 23 April 2007, not on the date of
9 April 2007 as agreed by the parties under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU. This is inconsistent
with Article 17(14) and Article 21, including 21.3 and 21.3(b) of the DSU and with the
agreement between the parties concerning the reasonable period of time. In particular:

• Article 17(14) DSU because the United States, by its actions, has not unconditionally
accepted the Appellate Body Report.

• Article 21, including Article 21.3 and 21.3( b) DSU and the agreement between the
parties concerning the reasonable period of time because the United States has failed
to comply immediately and/or within the reasonable period of time agreed by the
parties.

3 Cases Number 10, 12 and 13 in the Annex to this Panel Request.
4 The term "Section 129 determination" is a term of US municipal law that is not used in the AD
Agreement. It is used in this Panel Request without pr ejudice to the correct categor isation of the measures at
issue under one or more provisions of the AD Agreement.
5 Case Number 11 in the Annex to this Panel Request. Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Italy
(A-475-824) Published on US Commerce Department Web Site on 29 August 2007
http://ia.ita.doc.gov/download/section129/Italy-SSSS-in-Coils-129-Final-Decision-Memo-08-20-07.pdf
6 "Understanding between the United States and the European Communities Regarding Procedures
under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU" (WT/DS294/21, 9 May 2007).

2. The US failed to properly implement the DS B recommendations and rulings with respect to
the 16 administrative reviews found to be incons istent with the US' WTO obligations since
"zeroing" was not eliminated in any of the a bove-mentioned measures. Th is is inconsistent
with Article 2, including 2.1, 2.4 and 2.4.2, Article 9.3 and Article 11, including Article 11.1
and 11.2 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994. In particular:

• Article 2, including Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:2 of the
GATT 1994 because the US has not re-calculated margins of dumping for the product
as whole.

• Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement because the United States has not made a fair
comparison between normal value and export price.

• Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement because the United States has used an
asymmetrical method of comparison, and zeroed, without determining and
demonstrating that the conditions provided for in that provision are met.

• Article 9.3 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 because the
United States has not re-calculated margins of dumping for the product as a whole,
and has failed to ensure that the amount of duty does not exceed the dumping margin,
as calculated in conformity with Article 2.

• Article 11, including Article 11.1 and 11.2, because the re-calculation of the cash
deposit rate is also subject to the obligati ons set out in those provisions, and must be
calculated in accordance with the rules in Article 2, as set out above, but has not been
so calculated.

3. With respect to Case No. 11 – Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy (A-475-824),
in its Issues and Decision Memorandum of 20 August 2007 ( Final Results for the Section 129
Determination: Certain Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Italy ), the United States
committed (or failed to remove) an obvious calcu lation error. When calculating an average
unit value for a small number of US sales of th e exporter in question, to which it applied a
"facts available" percentage rate for the purpose of its dumping calculation, the United States
erroneously inverted the fraction: instead of di viding total value by total volume, the United
States has divided total volume by total value. This error artificially inflated the unit value
and therefore the amount of dumping. If, in addition to eliminating zeroing, the United States
would correct this obvious calculation error, the dumping margin would fall below de
minimis, and the measure would be revoked. In resp ect of this measure there have been a
number of subsequent review investigations as we ll as future review investigations involving
zeroing. As regards the obvious calculation erro r, the European Communities claims that the
measure is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the AD Agreement because there is an
obvious calculation error in the determinati on of normal value (and thus in the dumping
margin); and Article 6.8 and Annex II of the AD Agreement because the United States has
failed to correctly apply facts available. As regards zeroing and failure to revoke the measure,
the US failed to properly implement the DS B recommendations and rulings since duties
calculated with zeroing continue to be imposed, collected or liquidated. For the reasons set
out above, this is inconsistent with Article 2, including 2.1, 2.4 and 2.4.2, Article 5.8 (since
the dumping margin is de minimis the measure should have been terminated), Article 9.3 and
Article 11, including 11.1 and 11.2 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.

4. With respect to all measures (original inves tigations and administrative reviews) that were
found inconsistent with the US' WTO obligations , the US continues to impose, collect or

liquidate anti-dumping duties at a rate inflated by "zeroing" beyond 9 April 2007. With regard
to those measures which were revoked by the Section 129 determinations,
7 the US continues
to impose, collect or liquidate anti-dumping duties after 9 April 2007. For the reasons set out
above, this is inconsistent with the provisions cited in paragr aph 1 of this Panel Request, as
well as with Article 2, including 2.1, 2.4 and 2.4.2, Article 5.8 (since the United States did not
immediately terminate the measures on evidence that there was no dumping or dumping
below de minimis level), Article 9.3 and Article 11, including 11.1 and 11.2 of the
AD Agreement and Articles VI:1 (since the United States imposes, collects or liquidates anti-
dumping duties in cases where the imported pr oduct is not dumped) and VI:2 of the
GATT 1994.

5. In three cases (Case No. 2: Stainless Steel Bar from France (A-427-820), Case No. 4:
Stainless Steel Bar from Italy (A-475-829) and Case No. 5: Stainless Steel Bar from the
United Kingdom (A-412-822) ) in the Section 129 determinati ons, which concerned original
investigations, the US re-determinations led to an unjustified increase in the "all others rate".
The United States has imposed an "all others" rate based on rates calculated using a weighted
average of exporters with zero or de minimis rates and "adverse facts available" rates. This is
inconsistent with Article 2 (because there is no relation between the rate imposed and any
margin of dumping calculated in accordance with Article 2), Article 6.8 and Annex II
(because with respect to the "o thers" the United States has not correctly applied facts
available and has, in particular, applied a rate partly based on "adverse facts available" to
exporters which did not seek to impede the investigation and whose behaviour did not warrant
the drawing of adverse inferences), Article 9, including 9.2 (because the United States has not
imposed rates at an appropriate level nor ta ken steps to ensure non-discrimination), 9.3
(because the United States has taken no steps to ensure that the amount of duty does not
exceed a lawfully calculated margin of dum ping) and 9.4 (because the United States has
included facts available margins in the calculati on of an all others rate), and Article 18.1
(because the United States has taken a specifi c action against dumping other than in
accordance with the provisions of the AD Agreement) of the AD Agreement.

6. With respect to original investigations in which the recalculation of dumping margins led to
the conclusion that some exporters were not dumping or had de minimis dumping margins,
8
the US maintained the Anti-Dumping order without establishing whether the remaining
amount of dumped imports was causing injury to the domestic industry and whether this
volume of dumped imports was not negligible. This is inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.5,
5.8 of the AD Agreement and Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994. In particular:

• Article 3.1 because it has failed to base its assessment on positive evidence and make
an objective examination of the volume of dumped imports, and their effects and
impact on the US industry.

• Article 3.2 because it has not correctly calculated the volume of dumped imports, or
any increase, in absolute or relative terms, or their effects in the context of price
undercutting.

• Article 3.5 because the US has not correctly demonstrated that the dumped imports
are through the effects of dumping, causing injury, and have failed to properly
examine other known factors, including non-dumped imports.

7 Cases Number 1, 2 (for Ugitech), 3 (for Einsal), 4 (for Acciaiera Valbruna S.p.A, Acciaiera Foroni
S.p.A and Rodacciai S.p.A), 5 (for Corus Engineering Steels Ltd) and 6 in the Annex to this Panel Request.
8 Cases Number 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the Annex to this Panel Request.

• Article 5.8 because the US has failed to pr operly examine whether or not the volume
of dumped imports is negligible.

• Article VI:1 of the GATT 1994 because the US has failed to properly establish the
existence of injurious dumping.

7. With regard to the 15 original investiga tions and 16 administrative reviews, the US has
continued zeroing in the reviews related to th e measures in question. The United States has
not eliminated zeroing in these reviews though th ey determine the cash deposit rate currently
applicable, and/or are relied upon to maintain the AD measure or to impose, collect or
liquidate anti-dumping duties at a rate inflated by zeroing after 9 April 2007. Details of the
reviews in question are set out in the annex. For the reasons set out above, this is inconsistent
with Article 2, including 2.1, 2.4 and 2.4.2, Article 9.3, and Article 11, including 11.1, 11.2
and 11.3 (since, by relying on zeroed dumping margins, the United States did not properly
determine that the expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of
dumping and injury) of the AD Agreement and Articles VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994.

 The European Communities reserves its rights in respect of all other aspects of the United
States' purported compliance with its obligations in this case. In particular, the European
Communities reserves its right to revisit certain me asures in the light of the eventual outcome of
challenges to them in United States' courts.

 The European Communities requests that the Pane l be established with the standard terms of
reference set out in Article 7 of the DSU, and asks that this request be placed on the agenda of the
meeting of the DSB on 25 September 2007. The European Communities recalls that Article 21.5 DSU
provides that this dispute shall be decided throug h recourse to the DSU, including wherever possible
resort to the original panel.

 Pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Sequencing Agreement, the European Communities notes that
United States shall accept the establishment of th e panel at the first DSB meeting at which the
European Communities' request for the establishment of an Article 21.5 panel appears on the agenda.

ANNEX

I. Reviews of the measures imposed in the 15 original investigations condemned in DS294

Product MS
DOC Case
Number
(ITC Case
No)
DOC Final Determination ITC Determination AD Order Subsequent reviews
1. Certain hot-rolled
carbon steel
NL A-421-807
(A-903)
66 FR 50408, October 3, 2001
(amended: 66 FR 55637,
November 2, 2001)
November 2001 66 FR 59565,
November 29, 2001
Administrative Reviews
3 May 2001 – 31 Oct 2002
(69FR 43801, July 22 2004)
4.8%

1 Nov 2002 – 31 Oct 2003
(70FR 18366, April 11, 2005)
4.42%

1 Nov 2004 – 31 Oct 2005
(72FR 34441, June 22, 2007)
2.26%

2. Stainless steel bar F A-427-820
(A-913)
67 FR 3143, January 23, 2002 February 2002 67 FR 10385,
March 7, 2002
Administrative Reviews:

1 March 2003 – 29 February
2004 (70 FR 46482,
August 10, 2005)
Ugitech 14.98%

1 March 2004 – 28 February
2005 (71 FR 30873, May 31
2006)
Ugitech 9.68%

Sunset Review: DOC Final
Determination 72 FR 30772,
June 4, 2007

Product MS
DOC Case
Number
(ITC Case
No)
DOC Final Determination ITC Determination AD Order Subsequent reviews
3. Stainless steel bar G A-428-830
(A-914)
67 FR 3159, January 23, 2002
(amended: 67 FR 10382, March 7,
2002)
February 2002 67 FR 10382,
March 7, 2002
Administrative Reviews:

2 August 2001–28 February
2003
(69 FR 32982, June 14, 2004)
BGH 0.52%

1 March 2004–28 February
2005
(71 FR 52063, September 1,
2006)
BGH 0.73%

Sunset Review: DOC
Preliminary Determination
72 FR 29970, May 30, 2007

4. Stainless steel bar I A-475-829
(A-915)
67 FR 3155, January 23, 2002
(amended: 67 FR 8228, February
22, 2002)
February 2002 67 FR 10384,
March 7, 2002
Administrative Review:

2 August 2001–28 February
2003
(69 FR 32984, June 14, 2004)
Foroni 4.03%
Ugine 33%

Sunset Review: DOC Final
Determination 72 FR 30772,
June 4, 2007

Page 8 Product MS
DOC Case
Number
(ITC Case
No)
DOC Final Determination ITC Determination AD Order Subsequent reviews
5. Stainless steel bar UK A-412-822
(A-918)
67 FR 3146, January 23, 2002 February 2002 67 FR 10381, March 7,
2002
Administrative review:

1 March 2005 – 28 February
2006(72 FR 15106, March
30, 2007) Enpar Special
Alloys 33.87%

Sunset Review:
DOC Final Determination 72
FR 30772, June 4, 2007

6. Stainless Steel Wire
Rod
SW A-401-806
(A-774)
63 FR40449, July 29,1998 September 1998 63 FR49329,
September 15, 1998
Administrative reviews:

1 Sept. 2004 – 31 August
2005 (72FR 26337, May 9,
2007)
Fagersta 19.36%

Sunset Review:
Continuation order, 69 FR
50167, August 13, 2004

7. Stainless Steel Wire
Rod
E A-469-807
(A-773)
63 FR40391, July 29,1998 September 1998 63 FR 49330,
September 15, 1998
Administrative review:

5 March 1998 – 31 August
1999 (66 FR 10988, February
21, 2001) Roldan SA 0,8%

Sunset Review:
Continuation Order
69FR 50167, August 13, 2004

8. Stainless Steel Wire
Rod
I A-475-820
(A-770)
63 FR40422, July 29,1998 September 1998 63 FR 49327,
September 15, 1998
Sunset Review:
Continuation Order
69FR 50167, August 13, 2004

Product MS
DOC Case
Number
(ITC Case
No)
DOC Final Determination ITC Determination AD Order Subsequent reviews
9. Certain Stainless
Steel Plate in Coils
B A-423-808
(A-788)
64 FR15476, March 31, 1999 May 1999 64 FR 27756,
May 21, 1999
(amended by 68 FR
20114 April 24, 2003)
See case 18 below

10. Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in
Coils
F A-427-814
(A-797)
64 FR30820, June 8, 1999 July 1999 64 FR 40562,
July 27, 1999
See Cases 25 & 26 below

Measure revoked July 2004
(70 FR 44894, August 4,
2005)

11. Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in
Coils
I A-475-824
(A-799)
64 FR30750, June 8, 1999 July 1999 64 FR 40567,
July 27, 1999
See cases 21 & 22 below
12. Stainless Steel
Sheet and Strip in
Coils
UK A-412-818
(A-804)
64 FR30688, June 8,1999 July 1999 64 FR 40555,
July 27,1999
Measure revoked: July 2004
(70 FR 44894, August 4,
2005)

13. Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality
Steel Plate
F A-427-816
(A-816)
64 FR73143, December 29,1999 Fe bruary 2000 65 FR 6585,
February 10, 2000
Measure revoked : February
2005 (70 FR 72787,
December 7, 2005)

14. Certain Cut-to-
Length Carbon-Quality
Steel Plate

I A-475-826
(A-819)
64 FR73234, December 29,1999 Fe bruary 2000 65 FR 6585,
February 10, 2000
Sunset review:

Continuation Order (70FR
72607, December 6, 2005)

15. Certain Pasta I A-475-818
A-734)
61 FR30326, June 14, 1996
(amended by 66 FR65889,
December 21,2001)
July 1996 61 FR38547
July 24, 1996

See Cases 19 & 20 below

Reviews subsequent to the 16 administrative reviews condemned in DS294

Product MS No Case Final Results Company
Subsequent Reviews
16. Industrial
Nitrocellulose
F A-427-009 66 FR 54213,
October 26, 2001

Bergerac NC Two subsequent Administrative reviews were
rescinded, covering the periods:
1 August 2000 – 31 July 2001
1 August 2002 – 31 July 2003

Measure revoked: (69 FR 52231, August 25, 2004)

17. Industrial
Nitrocellulose
UK A-412-803 67 FR 77747,
December 19, 2002

Imperial Chemical
Industries
Two subsequent Administrative reviews were
rescinded, covering the periods:
1 July 2001 – 30 June 2002
1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003

Changed circumstance review (Dec, 2003) confirmed
the rate of 3.06% to apply to Troon Investments,
successor to ICI

Measure revoked: (69 FR 52231, August 25, 2004)

18. Stainless steel
plate in coils
B A-423-808 67 FR 64352, October 18, 2002 ALZ NV &
TrefilARBED (affiliated
US importer) – Same
company Ugine & ALZ,
N.V. Belgium (U&A
Belgium).
Two subsequent reviews resulting in change to rate:

1 May 2002 – 30 April 2003
(70FR 2999, January 19, 2005)
2.71%

1 May 2003 – 30 April 2004
(70FR 72789, December 7, 2005)
2.96%

Sunset Review: Continuation Order 70 FR 41202,
July 18, 2005

Product MS No Case Final Results Company
Subsequent Reviews
19. Certain pasta I A-475-818 67 FR 300, January 3, 2002
Amended: 67 FR 5088,
February 4, 2002
1) Ferrara

2) Pallante

3) PAM

Ferrara: Order revoked in February 2005 following
third consecutive review where the company had
de minimis rate (70FR6832, February 9, 2005)

Pallante:
Order revoked in November 2005 following
third consecutive review where the company had
de minimis rate (70 FR71464, November 29, 2005)

PAM
: Two subsequent reviews resulting in change to
rate:

1 July 2001 – 30 June 2002
(69FR 6255, February 10, 2004)
45.49%

1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003
(70FR 6832, February 9, 2005)
4.78%

Sunset review: DOC Final Determination 72FR 5266
February 5, 2007

20. Certain pasta I A-475-818 68 FR 6882, February 11, 2003

Pastifi Garofalo One subsequent re view resulting in change to rate:

1 July 2001 – 30 June 2002
(69 FR 22761, April 27, 2004)
2.57%

One review rescinded covering period:
1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003

21. Stainless steel
sheet strip coils
I A-475-824 67 FR 1715, January 14, 2002

Acciai Speciali Terni
SpA

See Case 22

Page 12 Product MS No Case Final Results Company
Subsequent Reviews
22. Stainless steel
sheet strip coils
I A-475-824 68 FR 6719, February 10, 2003

Acciai Speciali Terni
SpA
Two subsequent reviews resulting in change to rate:

1 July 2001 – 30 June 2002
(68FR 69382, December 12, 2003)
1.62%

1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003
(70FR 13009, March 17, 2005)
3.73%

Sunset review: Continuation Order 70 FR 44886,
August 4, 2005

23. Granular
polytetrafluoenthylene
I A-475-703 67 FR 1960, January 15, 2002

Ausimont SpA See Case 24

24. Granular
polytetrafluoenthylene
I A-475-703 68 FR 2007, January 15, 2003

Ausimont SpA Two subsequent Administrative reviews were
rescinded, covering the periods:
1 August 2002 – 31 July 2003
1 August 2003 – 31 July 2004

Changed circumstance revi ew (May,2003) confirmed
the rate of 12.08% to apply to Solvay Solexis, successor
to Ausimont

1 subsequent review resulting in change to rate:

1 August 2004 – 31 July 2005
(72FR 1980, January 17, 2007
39.13%

Sunset review: Continuation Order 70FR 76026,
Dec. 22, 2005

25. Stainless steel
sheet strip coils

F A-427-814 67 FR 6493, February 12, 2002
Amended
: 67 FR 12522, March 19,
2002

Ugine See Case 26

Product MS No Case Final Results Company
Subsequent Reviews
26. Stainless steel
sheet strip coils

F A-427-814 67 FR 78773 , December 26, 2002
Amended

68 FR 4171, January 28, 2003

Ugine 3 subsequent reviews resulting in change to rate:

1 July 2001 – 30 June 2002
(68FR 69379, December 12, 2003)
2.93%

1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003
(70 FR 7240, February 11, 2005)
9.65%

1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004
(71 FR 6269, February 7, 2006)
12.31%

Measure revoked: 70 FR 44894, August 4, 2005
27. Stainless steel
sheet strip coils
G A-428-825 67 FR 7668, February 20, 2002
Amended: 67 FR 15178, March 29,
2002

KTN See Case 28
28. Stainless steel
sheet strip coils
G A-428-825 68 FR 6716, February 10, 2003
Amended: 68 FR 14193, March 24,
2003

TKN (successor in
interest of KTN)
4 subsequent reviews resulting in change to rate:

1 July 2001 – 30 June 2002
(69FR 6262, February 10, 2004) 3.72%

1 July 2002 – 30 June 2003
(69 FR 75930, December 20, 2004) 7.03%

1 July 2003 – 30 June 2004
(70 FR 73729 December 13, 2005) 9.5%

1 July 2004 – 30 June 2005
(71 FR 74897, December 13, 2006) 2.45%

Sunset review: Continuation Order 70 FR 44886,
August 4 2005

Page 14 Product MS No Case Final Results Company
Subsequent Reviews
29. Ball bearings F A-427-801 67 FR 55780, August 30, 2002

SKF France SA and
Sarma
SKF: 4 subsequent reviews resulting in change to rate:

1 May 2001 – 30 April 2002
68 FR 43712, July 24, 2003
6.70%

1 May 2002 – 30 April 2003
69 FR 55574, September 15, 2004
5.25%

1 May 2003 – 30 April 2004
70 FR 54711, September 16, 2005
8.41%

1 May 2004 – 30 April 2005
71 FR 40064, July 14, 2006
12.57%

Sunset Reviews: Continuation Order 71 FR 54469,
September 15, 2006

30. Ball bearings I A-475-801 67 FR 55780, August 30, 2002

FAG Italia SpA

FAG: 4 subsequent reviews resulting in change to rate:

1 May 2001 – 30 April 2002
68 FR 35623, June 16, 2003
2.87%

1 May 2002 – 30 April 2003
69 FR 55574, September 15, 2004
4.79%

1 May 2003 – 30 April 2004
70 FR 54711, September 16, 2005
5.88%

1 May 2004 – 30 April 2005
71 FR 40064, July 14, 2006
2.52%

Product MS No Case Final Results Company
Subsequent Reviews
 SKF Industrie SpA SKF: 4 subsequent reviews resulting in change to rate:

1 May 2001 – 30 April 2002
68 FR 35623, June 16, 2003
5.08%

1 May 2002 – 30 April 2003
69 FR 55574, September 15, 2004
1.38%

1 May 2003 – 30 April 2004
70 FR 54711, September 16, 2005
2.59%

1 May 2004 – 30 April 2005
71 FR 40064, July 14, 2006
7.65%

Sunset Reviews: Continuation Order 71 FR 54469,
September 15, 2006

31. Ball bearings UK A-412-801 67 FR 55780, August 30, 2002

NSK Bearings Europe
Ltd

The Barden Corporation
UK
NSK Bearings:
No subsequent administrative reviews

Barden
: 1 subsequent administrative review rescinded
for period: 1 May 2001 – 30 April 2002

2 subsequent reviews resulting in change to rate:

1 May 2002 – 30 April 2003
69 FR 55574, September 15, 2004
4.10%

1 May 2003 – 30 April 2004
70 FR 54711, September 16, 2005
2.78%

Sunset Reviews: Continuation Order 71 FR 54469,
September 15, 2006