United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China: never ending zeroing in the WTO?

Abstract

Despite many legal rulings to clarify the WTO inconsistency of zeroing practices, in practically all aspects of antidumping proceedings, the United States declined to categorically rectify the illegal antidumping duties based on zeroing calculation methods. This dispute is merely example of a number of disputes where the US government had to exhaust the whole process for proper implementation of the WTO rulings under its domestic legal system. The US approach is starkly contrasted with the position taken by the European Union that categorically terminates zeroing practices pursuant to the WTO rulings. While the WTO system indeed recognizes individual Member's peculiar regulatory systems and policies during implementation phases, the current situation in which WTO Members must individually resort to the dispute settlement system in order to rectify the US zeroing practices raises a serious concern regarding the legitimacy and integrity of the WTO dispute settlement system. Maybe it is time for WTO Members to agree on better implementation mechanisms before more Members try to develop overly burdensome and complicated regulatory processes for compliance. *

It's Baaaack: Zeroing, the US Department of Commerce, andUS‒Shrimp II (Viet Nam)

“…This is worrisome, as Ahn and Messerlin (2014) have noted that the DOC recently has utilized targeted dumping in investigations against ‘Bottom Mount Combination Refrigerator-Freezers’ from Korea 14 (final determination on 26 March 2012), and against ‘Large Residential Washers’ from Korea 15 (final determination on 26 December 2012). Thus I concur with Ahn and Messerlin (2014) that the definition of targeted dumping lacks discipline, and add that so does ‘necessary’, ‘appropriate’, and ‘desirable’.…”

“…As there have been several analyses of panel and Appellate Body (AB) reports of simple and model zeroing 1 in antidumping (AD) investigations (Bown and Sykes, 2008; Hoekman and Wauters, 2011; Prusa and Vermulst, 2011; Broude and Moore, 2013; Prusa and Roubini, 2013; Saggi and Wu, 2013; and Ahn and Messerlin, 2014), 2 it would be tempting to dismiss another panel report on this topic as having nothing novel of legal and economic interest 3 . However, there are three novel legal issues in US‒Shrimp II (Viet Nam) , 4 for which a request for consultations was filed on 16 February 2012.…”

US–Shrimp II (Vietnam): Dubious Application of Anti-Dumping Duties – Should Have Used Safeguards

“…For over a decade now, the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) has been causing controversy with its approach to anti-dumping (AD) proceedings. This controversy has focused largely on the use of so-called ‘zeroing’ (Bown and Sykes, 2008, Hoekman and Wauters, 2011, Prusa and Vermulst, 2011, Broude and Moore, 2013, Prusa and Roubini, 2013, Saggi and Wu, 2013, Ahn and Messerlin, 2014, and Hartigan, 2016). According to this practice, transactions with negative dumping margins are ignored in the determination of whether dumping has occurred and in the calculation of average dumping margins.…”

It's Baaaack Zeroing, the US Department of Commerce, and US Shrimp II (Viet Nam)

“…As there have been several analyses of Panel and Appellate Body (AB) reports of simple and model zeroing 1 in antidumping (AD) investigations (Bown and Sykes 2008, Hoekman and Wauters 2011, Prusa and Vermulst 2011, Broude and Moore 2013, Prusa and Roubini 2013, Saggi and Wu 2013, and Ahn and Messerlin 2014, 2 it would be tempting to dismiss another panel report on this topic as having nothing novel of legal and economic interest 3 . However, there are three novel legal issues in DS429 US-Certain Frozen Warmwater Shrimp (Viet Nam), for which a request for consultations was filed on February 16, 2012.…”