UNITED STATES – CONTINUED EXISTENCE AND APPLICATION OF ZEROING METHODOLOGY
Document: Understanding between the European Union and the United States Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU
Date: 6 January 2010
Document codes: WT/DS350/19
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

Understanding between the European Union and the United States

Regarding Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU

 The following communication, dated 4 Ja nuary 2010, from the delegation of the
European Union and the delegation of the United St ates to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement
Body, is circulated at the request of these delegations.

 The European Union and the United States would like to inform the Dispute Settlement Body
of the attached "Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement
Understanding" between the European Union and the United States with respect to the dispute
 (WT/DS350).

We request that you please circulate the attached agreement to the Members of the Dispute
Settlement Body.

Agreed Procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding

United States - Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology
(WT/DS350)

 The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted its recommendations and rulings in the dispute
 (WT/DS350) on
19 February 2009.
 Pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the Unde rstanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU) the European Union and the United States agreed that the reasonable
period of time to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings would be ten months, expiring on
19 December 2009 ().
 The European Union and the United States ("the parties to the dispute") have agreed on the
following procedures for the exclusive purposes of this dispute. They are designed to facilitate the
resolution of the dispute and reduce the scope for procedural disputes and are without prejudice to
either party's views on the correct interpretation of the DSU:
1. Should the European Union consider that the situation described in Article 21.5 of the DSU
exists, the European Union will request consu ltations, which the parties to the dispute will
hold within 12 days from the date of circulati on of such request. The parties to the dispute
agree that at the end of such period for consu ltations, should either party so state, the parties
to the dispute will immediately and jointly cons ider that such consultations have failed to
settle the dispute.

 Consequently, the European Union may at any time following the failure of consultations to
settle the dispute request the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.

2. At the first DSB meeting at which the Europ ean Union's request for the establishment of an
Article 21.5 panel appears on the agenda, the United States shall accept the establishment of
that panel.

3. The parties to the dispute shall cooperate to en able the Article 21.5 panel to circulate its report
within 90 days of the panel's establishment, excluding such time during which the panel's
work may be suspended pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU.

4. Either party to the dispute may request the DS B to adopt the report of the Article 21.5 panel at
a DSB meeting held at least 20 days after the circulation of the report to the Members unless
either party appeals the report.

5. In the event of an appeal of the Article 21. 5 panel report, the parties to the dispute shall
cooperate to enable the Appellate Body to circ ulate its report to the Members within 90 days
from the date of notification of the appeal to the DSB.

6. In the event of an appeal, either party to the dispute may request the DSB to adopt its
recommendations and rulings at a DSB meeting held within 30 days of the circulation of the
Appellate Body report to the Members.

7. In the event that the DSB ru les, in a proceeding under Article 21.5 of the DSU, that a measure
taken to comply does not exist or is inc onsistent with a covered agreement, the
European Union may request authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations in
accordance with Article 22 of the DSU after the adoption by the DSB of its recommendations

and rulings and may request negotiations with th e United States with a view to developing
mutually acceptable compensation pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.

8. The United States shall not assert that the Eu ropean Union is precluded from obtaining such
DSB authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations on the grounds that the request
was made outside the 30-day time-period specified in Article 22.6 of the DSU. This is without
prejudice to the US right to have the matter referred to arbitration in accordance with
Article 22.6 of the DSU.

9. If the European Union requests authorization to suspend concessions or other obligations
pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU, and if the United States objects under Article 22.6 of the
DSU to the level of suspension of concessions or other obligations and/or claims that the
principles and procedures set forth in Article 22.3 of the DSU have not been followed, the
matter will be referred to arbitration pursuant to Article 22.6 of the DSU.

10. The parties to the dispute will cooperate to en able the arbitrator under Article 22.6 of the DSU
to circulate its decision within 60 days of the referral to arbitration.

11. If any of the original panelists is not availa ble for either the Article 21.5 compliance panel or
the Article 22.6 arbitration (or both), the parties to the dispute will promptly consult on a
replacement, and either party may request the Director-General of the WTO to appoint, within
ten days of being so requested, a replacement for the proceeding or proceedings in which a
replacement is required. If an original panelis t is unavailable to serve in either of the
proceedings, the parties to the dispute will further request that, in making this appointment,
the Director-General seek a person who will be available to act in both proceedings.

12. The parties to this dispute will continue to cooperate in a ll matters related to these agreed
procedures and agree not to raise any procedural objec tion to any of the steps set out herein.
If, during the application of these procedures, the parties to the dispute consider that a
procedural aspect has not been properly addressed in these procedures, they will endeavor to
find a solution within the shortest time possible that will not affect the other aspects and steps
agreed herein.

Signed in Geneva, 29 December 2009

For the European Union

(signed)
Eckart Guth
Ambassador
For the United States

(signed)
David P. Shark
Chargé d'affaires, a.i.