United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology: the end of Zeroing?

Abstract

This is the eighth Appellate Body Report in which some aspect of zeroing was adjudicated. As in the prior cases, the AB again found the US practice inconsistent with several aspects of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The novelty in this dispute was the EC attempt to broaden the concept of what constitutes an appealable measure. The EC challenged whether a WTO decision regarding zeroing could apply to subsequent proceedings that might modify duty levels and asked the AB to decide whether the United States' continued use of zeroing in the context of a given case was consistent with WTO obligations. The AB stated that in its attempt to bring an effective resolution to the zeroing issue, the EC is entitled to frame the subject of its challenge in such a way as to bring the ongoing use of the zeroing methodology in these cases, under the scrutiny of WTO dispute settlement. The AB then cautiously applied the new perspective to US zeroing practice.

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, andUS‒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 US‒Shrimp II (Viet Nam) , 4 for which a request for consultations was filed on 16 February 2012.…”

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.…”