UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO
Document: Request for Consultations by Mexico
Date: 26 February 2003
Document codes: WT/DS282/1; G/L/605; G/ADP/D47/1
Complainant: Mexico
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Canada, China, Taiwan, EU, Japan, Venezuela, Thailand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, 18  Anti-dumpingArt. VI, X  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY
TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO
Request for Consultations by Mexico
The following communication, dated 18 February 2003, from the Permanent Mission of
Mexico to the Permanent Mission of the United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement
Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
Acting on instructions from the relevant Mexican Government authorities, I hereby request
the holding of consultations with the Government of the United States, pursuant to Article 4 of the
WTO Understanding on Rules and Procedures Go verning the Settlement of Disputes (DSU),
Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and Article 17 of the
Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA), in relation to the measures listed hereunder:
The following determinations by the United States Department of Commerce (the
Department) and the United States International Trade Commission (the Commission):
• Oil country tubular goods from Mexico: Final results of sunset review, 66 Fed.
Reg. 14131 (9 March 2001) ("sunset review by the Department");
• Oil country tubular goods from Argentina, Italy, Japan, Korea and Mexico: 66 Fed.
Reg. 35997 (10 July 2001) ("sunset review by the Commission");
• Oil country tubular goods from Mexico and other countries: Final determination to
continue applying anti-dumping duties, 66 Fed. Reg. 38630 (25 July 2001); and
• Oil country tubular goods from Mexico: Final results of anti-dumping duty
administrative review – 1 August 1998 – 31 July 1999, 66 Fed. Reg. 15832
(21 March 2001) (Final results of the fourth administrative review).
The following US laws, regulations and administrative practices:
• Sections 751 and 752 of the Tariff Act of 1930, codified at Title 19 of the United
States Code , sections 1675 and 1675a; and the United States Statement of
Administrative Action accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act;
• The Department's Policies regarding the conduct of sunset reviews of anti-dumping
and countervailing duties; Policy Bulletin , 63 Federal Register 18871
(16 April 1998);

• The Department's regulations for sunset reviews of anti-dumping duties, codified at
Title 19 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Section 351.218;
• The Commission's regulations for sunset reviews of anti-dumping duties, codified at
Title 19 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations , Section 207.60-69
(Subpart F); and
• The Department's regulations for administrative review, including those codified at
Title 19 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, Sections 351.213, 351.221
and 351.222.
As explained hereunder, Mexico considers that these measures are contrary to the obligations
of the United States under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the
WTO Agreement) and the Agreements annexed thereto, and that they have resulted in the nullification
or impairment of benefits directly or indirectly accruing to Mexico under this Agreement. In
particular, Mexico considers that the US anti-dumping measures are inconsistent with the following
provisions:
• Articles 1, 2, 3, 6, 11 and 18 of the ADA;
• Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994;
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
Mexico's claims are listed as follows:
A. With regard to the sunset review of the anti-dumping duties conducted by the Department
(66 Fed. Reg. 14131 (9 March 2001)) and their continued application pursuant to the final
determination to maintain the anti-dumping duties (66 Fed. Reg. 38630 (25 July 2001)):
1. The Department misapplied the "would be likely to lead" standard in its determination as to
whether termination of the anti-dumping measure "would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of dumping", in a manner inconsistent with Articles 2 and 11.3 of the ADA.
2. The standard used by the Department for determining whether termination of anti-dumping
duties would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping relies on a
presumption in favour of maintaining the anti-dumping duties, in a manner inconsistent with
Articles 2 and 11.3 of the ADA.
B. With regard to the sunset review of the anti-dumping duties conducted by the Commission
(66 Fed. Reg. 35997 (10 July 2001)), and their continued application pursuant to the final
determination to maintain anti-dumping duties (66 Fed. Reg. 38630 (25 July 2001)):
1. The Commission applied the "would be likely to lead" standard in determining whether
termination of the anti-dumping measure "would be likely to lead to continuation or
recurrence of injury ...", in a manner inconsistent with Articles 3 and 11.3 of the ADA.
2. The Commission failed to conduct an "objective examination" of the record based on
"positive evidence" when it determined that revocation of the anti-dumping measure "would

be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of injury …". Hence the Commission acted
inconsistently with Articles 3.1, 6.6, 11.3 and 11.4 of the ADA.
3. The Commission failed to base its determination of injury on the "effects of dumping" on the
domestic industry and to consider whether injury was caused by "any known factors other
than the dumped imports", in a manner inconsistent with Articles 3.5 and 11.3 of the ADA.
4. The cumulative assessment of injury carried out by the Commission is therefore inconsistent
with Articles 3.3 and 11.3 of the ADA.
5. The United States applied the aforementioned laws, regulations and administrative provisions
to the sunset review of OCTG from Mexico in a manner inconsistent with Articles 3 and 11.3
of the ADA, by following the standards laid down in these laws, regulations and
administrative provisions, under which the Commission is required to determine whether
injury would be likely to continue or recur "within a reasonably foreseeable time" and to
"consider that the effects of revocation or termination may not be imminent, but may manifest
themselves only over a longer period of time".
C. As regards the Department's determination not to revoke the anti-dumping measure in the
fourth administrative review of oil country tubular goods coming from Mexico:
1. The Department's determination not to revoke the anti-dumping measure in the fourth
administrative review was inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles 2, 6
and 11 of the ADA, insofar as an anti-dumping measure is to be terminated once it has been
demonstrated that the measure is not necessary to offset dumping.
2. The Department's decision to impose new conditions on Tubos de Acero de México, S.A. de
C.V. (Tamsa) through retroactive application without prior notice has imposed new
requirements on Tamsa in order for the anti-dumping measures to be revoked, which is
inconsistent with Articles X:2 and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 11.2 of the ADA.
3. The methodology used by the Department, base d on the practice known as "zeroing", which
was applied to a negative dumping margin calculated for one of the products exported by
Hylsa and which led to the application of a dumping margin of 0.79 per cent, is inconsistent
with Articles 2.4 and 11.2 of the ADA.
D. The aforementioned US laws, regulations and administrative provisions compel both the
Department and the Commission to act inconsistently with the United States' obligations
under the WTO, or prevent the Department or the Commission from acting in conformity
with the United States' obligations under th e WTO, particularly in the determination of
dumping. These laws, regulations and administrative provisions are therefore inconsistent per
se with the United States' obligations under Articles 1, 2, 11 and 18 of the ADA and Article
VI of the GATT 1994. Moreover, insofar as these laws, regulations and administrative
provisions are inconsistent with the above provisions, they are inconsistent with Article 18.4
of the ADA and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
The above claims, viewed cumulatively, show that the United States maintained an anti-
dumping duty longer than and beyond the exte nt necessary to counteract dumping, and in
circumstances neither contemplated by nor consistent with the ADA, thereby acting inconsistently
with Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 11.1 of the ADA. They likewise demonstrate that the

United States failed to administer its laws, regulations and administrative provisions in a uniform,
impartial and reasonable manner, thereby acting inconsistently with Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
Mexico reserves the right to raise further factual and legal claims during the course of the
consultations. It looks forward to receiving the US Government's response to this request in order to
set a mutually convenient date for consultations.