United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses by Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
UNITED STATES – MEASURES RELATING TO ZEROING AND SUNSET REVIEWS
(WT/DS322)
Responses by Norway to the Questions of the Panel to the Parties and Third Parties in connection
with the first substantive meeting of the Panel with the Parties
(The numbering tracks the numbers in the e-mail from the Secretariat of 4 July 2005)
B.
AD ARTICLE 2.4.2
Question no. 12:
Parties and Third Parties: In interpreting AD Article 2.4.2, what significance should be attached to
the language "during the investigation phase"? Is the United States correct in arguing that this
language limits the application of Article 2.4.2 to the investigation phase of a proceeding?
Answer:
This question is dealt with in section 4 (paragraphs 32 – 44) of Norway’s Third Party Submission,
where references are also made to relevant statements of the Appellate Body. Norway refers the
Panel to these paragraphs of its submission for a detailed treatment of this issue.
It is clear, as stated therein, that the words “during the investigation phase” in Article 2.4.2 does not
limit the reach of the prohibition of “zeroing” to the original investigation. The prohibition of
“zeroing” is applicable to all calculations of dumping margins, and thus also applicable to the
calculations of dumping margins in “retrospective assessment reviews”, “new shipper reviews”,
“changed circumstances reviews” and “sunset reviews”. This is so because the prohibition of
“zeroing” is not based only on Article 2.4.2 as such, but on the duty to calculate a margin for the
product as a whole as well as Article 2.4 – and in particular the obligation to make a “fair
comparison”. We refer in this respect to the Appellate Body’s statement in EC – Bed Linen (para
55):
“Furthermore, we are also of the view that a comparison between export price and
normal value that does not fully take into account the prices of all comparable export
transactions – such as the practice of zeroing at issue in this dispute – is not a “fair
comparison” between export price and normal value, as required by Article 2.4 and by
Article 2.4.2.”1 (emphasis added)
Moreover, the Appellate Body has clearly stated that all calculations of dumping margins in the Antidumping Agreement must be in accordance with the provisions of Article 2.4 of the Agreement –
including Article 2.4.2. This was most recently stated in the US-Corrosion Resistant Steel Sunset
Review in connection with the interpretation of Article 11.3 of the Agreement concerning “sunset
reviews”:
“However, should investigating authorities choose to rely upon dumping margins in
making their likelihood determination, the calculation of these margins must conform to
1
Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of CottonType Bed Linen from India (“EC-Bed Linen”), WT/DS141/AB/R, para 55.
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
the disciplines of Article 2.4. We see no other provision in the Anti-Dumping Agreement
according to which Members may calculate dumping margins. In the CRS sunset review,
USDOC chose to base its affirmative likelihood determination on positive dumping
margins that had been previously calculated in two particular administrative reviews. If
these margins were legally flawed because they were calculated in a manner inconsistent
with Article 2.4, this could give rise to an inconsistency not only with Article 2.4, but
also with Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.” 2(emphasis added)
With regard to “retrospective assessment reviews“, this is furthermore, abundantly clear from the
chapeau to paragraph 3 of Article 9, which states that “[T]he amount of the anti-dumping duty shall
not exceed the margin of dumping as established under Article 2.” This creates a clear and
unambiguous link between the dumping duty imposed, reassessed or collected and the disciplines in
Article 2 governing the calculation of dumping margins.
We also note that what the US is doing in its “retrospective assessment reviews“, “new shipper
reviews”, “changed circumstances reviews” and “sunset reviews” is similar to what it does in original
investigations. For all practical purposes these are investigations, as the assessment is based on the
calculation of normal values compared to the export sales. This difference is “a margin” which is
then used to assess the duty to be paid. If the reach of Article 2.4.2 is excluded from all but original
investigations there would be no disciplines left to ensure fairly computed dumping margins. Such a
result would be contrary not only to the “fair comparison” requirement in Article 2.4, but create the
artificial dumping margins explicitly condemned by the Appellate Body in United States - Corrosion
Resistant Steel Sunset Review:
“When investigating authorities use a zeroing methodology such as that examined in ECBed Linen to calculate a dumping margin, whether in an original investigation or
otherwise, that methodology will tend to inflate the margins calculated. Apart from
inflating the margins, such a methodology could, in some instances, turn a negative
margin of dumping into a positive margin of dumping. As the Panel itself recognised in
the present dispute, “zeroing … may lead to an affirmative determination that dumping
exists where no dumping would have been established in the absence of zeroing.” Thus,
the inherent bias in a zeroing methodology of this kind may distort not only the
magnitude of a dumping margin, but also a finding of the very existence of dumping.” 3
(emphasis added)
In conclusion it is clear from the above that the language “during the investigation phase” refers to all
investigations, including reviews under Articles 9 and 11, and that consequently “zeroing” is
prohibited in all such investigations.
Question no. 13:
Parties and Third Parties: If AD Article 2.4.2 is limited to the investigation phase of a proceeding,
what disciplines apply to the calculation of margins of dumping in proceedings under Article 9 and 11
2
3
Appellate Body in United States – Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Duties on Corrosion
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (“United States - Corrosion Resistant Steel
Sunset Review” (WT/DS244/AB/R), para 127.
Appellate Body Report, US-Corrosion Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para 135.
2
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
of the AD Agreement? On what basis do such disciplines exclude zeroing in proceedings other than
the investigation phase?
Answer:
We refer to the answer given to question no. 12.
Question no. 14.
Parties and Third Parties: Where the third comparison methodology in AD Article 2.4.2 is of
application, is an investigating authority permitted to make a comparison based on prices of
individual export transactions that are limited to particular purchasers, regions or time periods
implicated in the "targeted dumping"? If so, is it possible that the use of the third methodology in this
way will yield a margin of dumping different from the margin that would result from the use of an
average-to-average comparison?
Answer:
The third methodology in Article 2.4.2 (“weighted to transaction”) is a limited exception from the
other methodologies in Article 2.4.2, and can only be applied where the criteria are fulfilled.
Article 2.4.2 must be read in conjunction with Article 6.10, which establishes the rule that each
exporter shall have an individual margin (except where “sampling” applies). Even where it is
permissible to apply the “weighted to transaction” methodology, the focus of the investigation into
“targeted dumping” is on the exporter and his sales. Where such differences are found of a regional
character or with respect to individual purchasers, there can still only be one single dumping margin
calculated for each exporter4.
Even where an investigating authority applies the “weighted to transaction” methodology, the chapeau
of Article 2.4 applies. This means that the requirement of a “fair comparison” as detailed therein,
including the prohibition of “zeroing” also applies to this methodology. If only one single export sale
is assessed, it is questionable whether this can at all fulfil the requirement of a fair comparison.
Where more than one, but not all, export sales are investigated, the choice of transactions must
comply with the stringent requirements of the chapeau of Article 2.4 (including the prohibition of
“zeroing”).
Where all transactions are assessed, the resulting margin will logically be the same as in “average to
average” calculations. In targeted dumping cases, not all sales are taken into account, but there is a
selection based on regions, time-periods or purchasers. Consequently, where not all export sale
transactions are taken into account, we do not exclude that the calculated margin may be different
from an “average to average” calculation. The requirement of “fair comparison”, and the criteria for
selecting the relevant transactions, should, however, ensure that the difference from the “average to
average” comparison is no more than what is derived from the use of transactions which are selected
on the basis of regions, time-periods or purchasers.
4
We note that the possibility of regional dumping provided for in Article 4.2 does not alter this.
3
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
Question no. 15.
Parties and Third Parties: What implications does the interpretation posited in paragraph 14 above
have for the "nullity" argument relied upon by the United States?
Answer:
The United States seems to argue that a prohibition of “zeroing” would render the third methodology
a “nullity”. As we have demonstrated above this is not correct, and misunderstands the application of
the methodologies in Article 2.4.2. We would like to note that what the United States does is in
Article 9 reviews, by assessing all export transactions, is not a correct application of the “third
methodology” in Article 2.4.2, but an “average to average” methodology in disguise – including
“zeroing”.
Question 16:
Parties and Third Parties: If the third methodology in AD Article 2.4.2 may be interpreted as posited
in paragraph 14 above, does it follow that a margin of dumping would not be calculated for the
product as a whole? If so, does this undermine the cogency of such an interpretation?
Answer:
A dumping margin must always be calculated for the “product as a whole”, in all the three
methodologies. This may yield different dumping margins depending on the methodology used.
However, as we have demonstrated in the foregoing, the practice of “zeroing” (simple zeroing or
model zeroing) does not affect this and is prohibited regardless of methodology. The point of
departure is, as the Appellate Body pointed out in US – Softwood Lumber, that:
“[D]umping is defined in relation to a product as a whole as defined by the investigating
authority.....”Dumping” within the meaning of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, can therefore be
found to exist only for the product under investigation as a whole, and cannot be found to
exist only for a type, model, or category of that product.”5
The Appellate Body went on to say in that case that:
“We fail to see how an investigating authority could properly establish margins of dumping
for the product under investigation as a whole without aggregating all of the “results” of the
multiple comparisons for all product types.”6
It should be underlined that the “weighted to transaction” methodology is an exception, to be applied
only in very limited situations where the normal methodologies for calculating dumping margins are
not appropriate, and in full compliance with Article 2.4.
5
6
Appellate Body in United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from
Canada (WT/DS264/AB/R), para 93
id. para 98 (emphasis in the original)
4
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
Question 17:
Parties and Third Parties: What is the object and purpose of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2?
Answer:
The object and purpose of the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 is to provide for an alternative
comparison methodology in exceptional circumstances, when export prices to different purchasers
and regions differ significantly, and a weighted average to weighted average or a transaction-totransaction method will be misleading. Both the existence of such circumstances (sometimes referred
to as “targeted dumping”), and the reasons making the use of the other methodologies inappropriate,
must be duly substantiated by the investigating authorities.
Question 18:
Parties and Third Parties: Is the United States correct in arguing that the results of the application of
the third methodology in AD Article 2.4.2 are relevant to its correct interpretation?
Answer:
If the Panel queries whether the United States needs to fully substantiate that the conditions for the
use of the third methodology are met, then the answer is that the United States must do so in each and
every dumping calculation where this methodology is applied. As is clear from the written
submissions of the parties to this dispute, the United States has never justified the use of the third
methodology on the conditions set out in Article 2.4.2 – nor indeed that it is using this methodology
correctly.
If the question relates to the incorrect assertions by the United States in respect of “zeroing” and the
different methodologies, then the answer is “no”. We refer in this respect to our answers to questions
12 to 16 above.
Question 19
Parties and Third Parties: What is the relevance, if any, of the existence of the transaction-totransaction methodology in the first sentence of AD Article 2.4.2 to the argument of the United States
that a prohibition of zeroing would render the third methodology redundant?
Answer:
As explained in the proceeding, there is no relevance.
Question 20
Parties and Third Parties: Is the United States correct in asserting that absent zeroing the first and
third methodologies in Article 2.4.2 necessarily yield identical results?7 If the third methodology in
7
(Footnote 1 to the questions of the Panel): If you consider that the United States is incorrect,
please provide a numerical example demonstrating how (1) a comparison of an average of a
5
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
Article 2.4.2, absent zeroing, always yields the same results as an application of the first
methodology, does this require an interpretation of the third methodology that permits zeroing or
does it rather enjoin an interpretation that permits the investigating authority to limit its investigation
to export transactions targeted at particular regions, purchasers or time-periods?
Answer:
The correct answer is that the exceptional circumstances that permit an investigation into “targeted
dumping” (the “third methodology”) does not require an interpretation that permits “zeroing” when
applying the third methodology, but enjoin an interpretation that permits the investigating authority to
limit its investigation to export transactions targeted at particular regions, purchasers or time-periods.
We refer here also to our answers to questions 14 and 16, where we explained that this may yield
different results.
It is important to understand that the United States does not use the third methodology the way it was
intended, as they compare all export sales with no investigation into whether the criteria of “targeted
dumping” are present, and present no justifications. The arguments by the United States regarding
“zeroing” misses the point, as an investigation into their system makes clear.
The United States, by looking at all the export sales and by including only those export sales that are
below the average normal value, calculates a dumping margin for each exporter that is – in principle –
equal to the result of a comparison of “average to average” including “zeroing” – just like the EC did
in EC – Bed Linen and that was found inconsistent with the ADA by the Appellate Body.
Question 21
Parties and Third Parties: Is it significant that the first methodology in AD Article 2.4.2 refers to "all
comparable export transactions" and that the third methodology refers to "individual export
transactions"?
Answer:
The significance lies in the focus in the third methodology on “targeted dumping”, where the focus is
on those export transactions that show a pattern of “targeted dumping” (purchasers, regions, timeperiods). This difference has no bearing on “simple zeroing” (striking out all non-dumped
transactions) or on “model zeroing” (dividing the product in different models, and “zeroing out” those
that are not dumped). Both these types of “zeroing” are prohibited also in situations of “targeted
dumping”, as all export transactions to the purchasers or regions in question must be taken into
account to fulfil the “fair comparison” requirement of Article 2.4.8
8
number of export prices with an average normal value differs from (2) a comparison between
all the same export prices considered individually (including all export prices above the
average normal value and all export prices below the average normal value) and the same
average normal value.
We note that an allegation of “targeted dumping” in respect of different “time-periods” rarely
can justify the use of this third methodology, as punctual sales will appropriately be balanced
out by looking at averages for the whole of the “period of investigation”.
6
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
C.
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
MARGIN(S) OF DUMPING
Question 22
Parties and third parties: Is there an obligation under the AD Agreement or GATT Art VI to establish
an overall margin of dumping either for the product as a whole, for a country or in any other way? If
so, what is the textual basis for these obligations?
Answer:
The point of departure is that there is an obligation in ADA Article 2 to establish an overall margin of
dumping for the product as a whole, as a rule for each exporter. As the Appellate Body pointed out in
US – Softwood Lumber,:
“[D]umping is defined in relation to a product as a whole as defined by the investigating
authority.....”Dumping” within the meaning of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, can therefore be
found to exist only for the product under investigation as a whole, and cannot be found to
exist only for a type, model, or category of that product.”9
The Appellate Body went on to say in that case that:
“We fail to see how an investigating authority could properly establish margins of dumping
for the product under investigation as a whole without aggregating all of the “results” of the
multiple comparisons for all product types.”10
Article 6.10 which provides as a rule that there shall be individual margins for each exporter11. The
focus in the agreement is thus on the exporters individual actions, and not the totality of the exporters
of a given country. There are many instances where some exporters are found to be dumping and
others not from the same country.
The exception to this is when the number of exporters is so large as to permit the investigating
authorities to resort to “sampling”. In these circumstances, Article 6.10 and Article 9.4 allows the
investigating authorities to calculate one single “all others rate” applicable to those exporters that
were not individually examined. In these situations the “residual rate”, based on the averages of the
individual dumping margins of the companies investigated, applies to those individual companies of
the same country that were not investigated. The rate for each of these companies is exactly the same,
because the individual actions of these companies are not known, not because this is a “country
margin”.
There is one provision that would seem to imply a single “country wide” dumping margin. That is
Article 3.3 (cumulative assessment of injury). However the purpose of this provision is to define the
conditions under which authorities may cumulate imports from different countries for the purpose of
injury determination, not to establish a country-wide dumping margin as such.
9
10
11
Appellate Body in United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from
Canada (WT/DS264/AB/R), para 93
id. para 98 (emphasis in the original)
The principle of one dumping margin per exporter or producer is is also explicitly stated in
Article 9.5 in respect of “new shippers reviews”.
7
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
Question 23
Parties and Third Parties: Is there an obligation under the AD Agreement or GATT Art VI to
establish a margin of dumping for individual producers or exporters of the product under
investigation? If so, what is the textual basis for this obligation?
Answer:
Yes, as a rule, there is an obligation to establish a margin of dumping for each known exporter or
producer. This follows from Article 6.10 of the Agreement. We refer also to our answer to the
preceding question.
Question 24
Parties and Third Parties: The terms “margins of dumping” and “margin of dumping” appear in a
number of articles of the AD Agreement. How should these terms be interpreted in each place they
are found taking into account, as appropriate, context, object and purpose?
Answer:
As stated above, there shall as a rule be one single margin of dumping per exporter or producer (ADA
Article 6.10, cf. also Article 9.5). Where there are more than one exporter or producer, there may
consequently be more than one dumping margin.
In this regard we also once more refer to the statements by the Appellate Body in respect of “product
as a whole” and “model zeroing” as referenced in our answers to questions 16 and 22 above. These
statements clearly show that although an investigating authority may calculate intermediate margins,
the end-result shall be one margin per exporter without application of any “zeroing”. Furthermore,
the Appellate Body in United States – Corrosion Resistant Steel Sunset Rreview made clear that all
calculations of dumping margins must be consistent with Article 2.412.
As regards the specific use of “margins of dumping” in Article 2.4.2, this does not imply anything
else than that the Article caters for the situation where there are several exporters involved.
We are not aware of any provision of the ADA that permits calculating margins differently from
Article 2.4, or permits multiple margins other than where there are more than one exporter or
producer involved. In particular there are no provisions that would allow calculating dumping
margins for particular importers based on their purchases.
Question 25:
Parties and Third Parties: Are there any methodologies other than those set out in AD Article 2.4.2
which may be used for the determination of a) "margins of dumping" or b) "a margin of dumping"
wherever those terms are used in the AD Agreement?
12
Appellate Body in United States – Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Duties on Corrosion
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (WT/DS244/AB/R), paras 127 – 130.
8
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
Answer:
As explained in previous answers, the answer here is “no”.
Question 26
Japan and Third Parties: Is the United States correct in arguing that a prohibition of zeroing cannot
be reconciled with the fact that the AD Agreement explicitly recognises the existence of different kinds
of duty assessment systems?
Answer:
No. There is nothing in the AD Agreement that has this effect. The retrospective assessment system
can easily be reconciled with a prohibition of “zeroing”. “Zeroing” relates to the margin calculations,
and is not dependent upon whether duties are levied retrospectively or prospectively.
That a prohibition of “zeroing” can be reconciled with a retrospective system can easily be seen from
the fact that the United States employs the “average to average” methodology in its original
investigation.
D.
FAIR COMPARISON
Question 27
Parties and Third Parties: Is the methodology set out in the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the AD
Agreement subject to the "fair comparison" requirement specified in Article 2.4? In other words,
does the introductory phrase in Article 2.4.2 also apply to the second sentence?
Answer:
The answer is yes, as already explained in our answers to questions 12, 16 and 24 above. As Article
2.4.2 refer to the “fair comparison requirement” in Article 2.4, it applies to all the three
methodologies. The methodology set out in the last sentence of Article 2.4.2 is an exception to the
normal methodologies in the first sentence, not an exception from the underlying principles on which
the calculations of dumping margins are based. We would in particular point to the statement by the
Appellate Body in United States – Corrosion Resistant Steel Sunset Review, where it made clear that
all calculations of dumping margins must be consistent with Article 2.4:
““However, should investigating authorities choose to rely upon dumping margins in
making their likelihood determination, the calculation of these margins must conform to
the disciplines of Article 2.4. We see no other provision in the Anti-Dumping Agreement
according to which Members may calculate dumping margins. [...]” 13
13
Appellate Body in United States – Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Duties on Corrosion
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (WT/DS244/AB/R), para 127.
9
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
Question 28
Parties and Third Parties: Is the content of the first sentence in Article. 2.4 exhausted by the
remaining sentences in Article 2.4? If not, what independent content should be attributed to the first
sentence in Article 2.4?
Answer:
The “fair comparison” requirement is an overarching requirement with respect to margin calculations.
The first sentence reflects this general principle. The sentences thereafter detail particular
adjustments, and Article 2.4.2 the permitted methodologies for calculating dumping margins.
The prohibition of “zeroing”, which is not explicitly addressed (prohibited or permitted) in the
remaining sentences of Article 2.4 on how to perform adjustments, is derived directly from the “fair
comparison” requirement and the focus on “the product as a whole” as explained by the Appellate
Body in EC – Bed Linen (para 55). This shows that the remaining sentences do not necessarily
exhaust the application of the “fair comparison” requirement in respect of adjustments.
Question 29
Parties and Third Parties: What discipline does the first sentence of Article 9.3 impose upon the
remaining part of Article 9.3?
Answer:
The first sentence makes clear that the disciplines for calculation of dumping margins in Article 2,
including Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2, apply to all calculations of dumping margins in Article 9.3 –
regardless of whether a Member applies a retrospective or prospective system.
It also makes clear that a duty may not be imposed or collected if it exceeds the dumping margin
calculated in accordance with Article 2.4 (including Article 2.4.2).
Question 30
Parties and Third Parties: Do the disciplines contained in the provisions of AD Article 2 and in
particular AD Article 2.4 apply to (a) “margin(s) of dumping’ and (b) "a margin of dumping" where
these terms are referred to in the AD Agreement?
Answer:
Yes. There is only one way of calculating dumping margins in the AD Agreement and that is in
accordance with Article 2, including Articles 2.4 and 2.4.2. We refer here also to our answer to
question 26.
10
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
Question 31
Parties and Third Parties: What interpretative significance, if any, should be attributed to the explicit
reference to AD Article 2 in the first sentence of Article 9.3 where no other express reference to
Article 2 is made elsewhere in Article 9 and Article 11?
Answer:
Article 2.1 of the AD Agreement defines dumped imports “[F]or the purpose of this Agreement...”.
This makes it clear that the definition of dumped imports applies throughout the Agreement. To
establish whether imports are dumped, an investigating authority must go through the relevant steps
detailed in the following paragraphs of Article 2.
The language “[F]or the purpose of this Agreement...” ensures the application of Article 2 throughout
the Agreement, even where there is no explicit mentioning of it. This has also been stated by the
Appellate Body. We refer in particular to the statement by the Appellate Body in United States –
Corrosion Resistant Steel, where it stated:
“We agree with Japan that the words "[f]or the purpose of this Agreement" in Article 2.1
indicate that this provision describes the circumstances in which a product is to be considered
as being dumped for purposes of the entire Anti-Dumping Agreement, including Article 11.3.
This interpretation is supported by the fact that Article 11.3 does not indicate, either expressly
or by implication, that "dumping" has a different meaning in the context of sunset reviews
than in the rest of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. [...]”14
“However, as we have already observed, the opening words of Article 2.1 ("[f]or the purpose
of this Agreement") go beyond a cross-reference and indicate that Article 2.1 applies to the
entire Anti-Dumping Agreement. By virtue of these words, the word "dumping" as used in
Article 11.3 has the meaning described in Article 2.1. [...]”15
(emphasis added)
The Appellate Body went on to apply Article 2.4 to sunset reviews, and found that “zeroing” was
prohibited also in margin calculations for “sunset reviews”.
It is clear that the same reasoning applies to the application of Article 2 to Article 9, which
consequently is applicable to all dumping calculations under Article 9. The express reference to
Article 2 in Article 9.3 is not inconsistent with the general system of cross-references, as it makes
explicit the additional requirement that the duty actually imposed or collected may not exceed the
margin calculated in full conformity with Article 2 (including 2.4 and 2.4.2). (A Member may of
course also impose a “lesser duty” than the margin according to Article 9.1.)
Question 32
Parties and Third Parties: If there is a general principle of fair comparison deriving from the first
sentence of Article 2.4 that is of application to proceedings under Article 9 and Article 11, is the
practice of zeroing prohibited by this principle and, if so, why?
14
15
Appellate Body in United States – Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Duties on Corrosion
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (WT/DS244/AB/R), para 109
id, para 126. (Footnote in original omitted.)
11
United States – Measures relating to zeroing and
sunset reviews (WT/DS322)
Responses of Norway to the questions of the Panel
after the first substantive meeting
20. July 2005
Answer:
Yes. The requirement of “fair comparison” in Article 2.4 is applicable to Article 9 and Article 11
proceedings and “zeroing” is in violation of the “fair comparison” requirement in Article 2.4. This is
clear from the Appellate Body ruling in EC-Bed Linen where it was stated that “zeroing” is not just
inconsistent with Article 2.4.2, but also with the “fair comparison” requirement in Article 2.416. It is
also clear from the Appellate Body statement in United States – Corrosion Resistant Steel Sunset
Review 17. We refer also to our answer to question 12 in this respect.
16
17
Appellate Body Report EC-Bed Linen, para 55.
Appellate Body in United States – Sunset Review of Anti-dumping Duties on Corrosion
Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan (WT/DS244/AB/R), para 127
12