DS: United States — Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures Involving Products from Korea
This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
back to top
back to top
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at
Complaint by Korea.
On 24 November 2009, Korea requested consultations with the United States regarding their use of zeroing in three anti‑dumping cases involving certain products from Korea, namely, stainless steel plate in coils, stainless steel sheet and strip in coils, and diamond sawblades and parts thereof.
Korea claimed that the effect of the use of zeroing by the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) in these three cases has been either to artificially create margins of dumping where none would otherwise have been found, or to inflate margins of dumping.
In its consultation request, Korea alleged that the USDOC's use of zeroing in its final determinations, amended final determinations, and anti-dumping duty orders in the three cases in question was inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article VI of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, and 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 3 December 2009, Japan requested to join the consultations.
On 8 April 2010, Korea requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 20 April 2010, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
At its meeting on 18 May 2010, the DSB established a panel. China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, Thailand and Viet Nam reserved their third-party rights. On 8 July 2010, the panel was composed.
On 18 January 2011, the panel report was circulated to Members. Before the panel, Korea restricted its claim to an allegation that the zeroing methodology used by the United States in the anti-dumping investigations at issue was inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The United States did not contest Korea's claim. In particular, the United States did not contest the factual assertions made by Korea regarding the United States' actions, nor the legal relevance of the Appellate Body reports cited by Korea as applicable to those facts.
The Panel upheld Korea's claim. Specifically, the Panel found that the “zeroing” methodology used by the USDOC in calculating the margins of dumping in the three anti-dumping investigations at issue was inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and therefore concluded that the United States had acted inconsistently with its obligations under this provision.
On 24 February 2011, the panel report was adopted by the DSB.
Implementation of adopted reports
At the DSB meeting of 25 March 2011, the United States stated that it intended to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in a manner that respects its WTO obligations and added that it would need a reasonable time to do so. On 17 June 2011, Korea and the United States informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed on the reasonable period of time for the United States to comply with the DSB recommendations and rulings. With respect to the calculation of certain margins of dumping in the Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coils from Korea investigations, the reasonable period of time shall be 9 months, expiring on 24 November 2011. With respect to the calculation of certain margins of dumping in the Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from Korea investigation, the reasonable period of time shall be 8 months, expiring on 24 October 2011.
At its meeting on 19 December 2011, the United States reported that it had fully implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings within the reasonable period of time agreed by the parties.
Follow this dispute
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.