UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON SHRIMP FROM ECUADOR
Document: Request for Consultations by Ecuador
Date: 21 November 2005
Document codes: WT/DS335/1; G/L/762; G/ADP/D63/1
Complainant: Ecuador
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, Chile, China, EU, India, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Thailand
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 2.4.2  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURE ON SHRIMP FROM ECUADOR

Request for Consultations by Ecuador

 The following communication, dated 17 Nove mber 2005, from the delegation of Ecuador to
the delegation of the United States and to the Chairm an of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated
in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

 My authorities have asked me to request consultations with the Government of the
United States under Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(GATT 1994) and Article 17 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994
(Anti-Dumping Agreement) concerning the final affirm ative determination of sales at less than fair
value with respect to certain frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecua dor (Inv. No. A-331-802) published
by the United States Department of Commerce (D OC) on 23 December 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 76913).
This request for consultations includes two additiona l measures: the amended final determination of
sales at less than fair value that the DOC published on 1 February 2005 and the accompanying
anti-dumping duty order (70 Fed. Reg. 5156).

 Specifically, the Government of Ecuador re quests consultations on the DOC's practice of
"zeroing" negative anti-dumping margins. Through th is practice, the DOC treats transactions with
negative dumping margins as having margins equal to zero in determining weighted average
anti-dumping margins in an anti-dumping investigation. The DOC applied its practice of zeroing in
its investigation of certain frozen warmwater shri mp from Ecuador. Had the DOC not applied this
practice, the two named Ecuadorian respondents and the "all others" for which it determined
anti-dumping margins above the de minimis level would have been found not to have been dumping
and, as a result, the DOC would not have issued an affirmative final dete rmination, an amended
affirmative final determination, or an anti-dumping duty order. Instead, the DOC would have
calculated de minimis margins for the two named respondents and for "all others" in Ecuador.

 The Government of Ecuador considers the DOC's use of its practice of zeroing in its final
determination, amended fi nal determination and anti-dumping duty or der to violate Article VI of the
GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 6.10, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement. Zeroing resulted in unfair and impr oper comparisons between the export price and the
normal value, resulting in artificial and inflated margins of dumping where none existed.

 The zeroing methodology that the DOC used in its anti-dumping investigation of certain
frozen warmwater shrimp from Ecuador is virtually id entical to the methodology that was held to be
inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement in European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on
Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India (Panel Report, WT/DS141/R, and Appellate Body

Report, WT/DS141/AB/R, adopted 12 March 2001, and also in United States – Final Dumping
Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada (Panel Report, WT/DS264/R, and Appellate Body
Report, WT/DS264/AB/R, adopted 31 August 2004).

 Ecuador reserves the right to raise additional claims and legal matters concerning the DOC's
zeroing practice during the course of consultations.

 I look forward to receiving your reply to this request and, in accordance with Article 4.3 of
the DSU, to selecting a mutually acceptable date for holding consultations. Ecuador welcomes any
suggestions that the United States may have concerning the date and venue for these consultations.