The American Institute for International Steel (AIIS) reported in a press release Thursday that it applauds the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body's ruling earlier this week in which it upheld a compliance panel's ruling that the US failed to implement an earlier WTO ruling against the practice of zeroing in a dispute involving steel products. (Zeroing is a technical administrative antidumping issue that inflates antidumping margins by ignoring sales above normal value in the calculation of antidumping margins.)
AIIS says the latest finding will allow the Japanese Government to proceed with its WTO request to impose $248.5 million in retaliation against US exports to Japan. The EU, India, Mexico, China and others joined Japan in this case. The EU and Mexico have already begun the process of obtaining approval from the WTO to impose retaliatory tariffs against US exports for similar zeroing rulings.
“This is the 15th ruling that the WTO has made against the US and 17 in total against the practice of zeroing, which unfairly inflates anti-dumping margins. Over two administrations, the US has steadfastly first fought against the rulings, ignored the findings and then refused to implement the rulings. There is no justification for further delay in complying with the WTO ruling, all the issues have been adjudicated and the US position is clearly seen by our trading partners to be a violation of our international obligations” said Phelps, president, AIIS.
“By inflating anti-dumping margins zeroing adds costs to US manufacturing companies trying to compete in the global marketplace and endangers US jobs. [Steel consuming industries, including construction, equipment, autos, auto parts, etc. employ 60 jobs for every steel-producing job.] Now, with the potential of retaliation against hundreds of millions of dollars of US exports, other American companies will find their business and jobs at risk if the US Government does not comply with the findings of the WTO. It is time to end the discussion about zeroing and eliminate this pernicious practice. The Department of Commerce has the authority to make the change itself and should do so – legislation is not required,” concluded Phelps.