On April 30, 2008, the appellate body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued its report in the case regarding the US' final antidumping measures on stainless steel from Mexico.
On 26 May 2006, Mexico requested consultations with the United States concerning a series of final antidumping determinations by the US Department of Commerce (US DOC) concerning imports of stainless steel sheet and strip in coils from Mexico for the period covering January 1999 through June 2004.
In addition, when making its request Mexico addressed the following issues: certain sections of the US Tariff Act of 1930, as amended; the statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the Uruguay Round Agreements; specific sections of the US DOC's regulations codified at Title 19 of the US Code of Federal Regulations; the 1997 edition of the Import Administration Antidumping Manual; and the methodology employed by the US DOC to determine the overall margin of dumping for the product subject to the original investigation and administrative reviews, whereby it disregarded ("zeroed") negative dumping margins.
In its complaint, Mexico considered that the above laws, regulations, administrative practices and methodologies both "as such" and as applied in the above determinations resulted in the nullification and impairment of benefits directly or indirectly accruing to Mexico under the WTO Agreement and the agreements annexed thereto. In particular, Mexico claimed that the US laws, regulations, administrative practices, methodologies and determinations in question are inconsistent at least with: articles VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994; articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5, 6.10, 9 (including but not limited to 9.3), 11 and 18 of the Antidumping Agreement; and article XVI:4 of the WTO agreement.
In June 2006, Japan requested to join the consultations. Meanwhile, on October 12, 2006 Mexico requested the establishment of a panel, which request was granted on October 26.
Chile, China, the European Communities, Japan and Thailand reserved their third-party rights.
Based on careful consideration of reasons supplied by the complainant, the respondent and third parties, the appellate body has found that use of simple zeroing in periodic review is, as such, inconsistent with articles VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994 and articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5, 6.10, 9 (including but not limited to 9.3) of the Antidumping Agreement and, therefore, revised the panel previous findings. In addition, the appellate body has found that the United State acted inconsistently with article VI:1 of GATT 1994 and article 9.3 of the Antidumping Agreement by applying simple zeroing in the five reviews at issue in the dispute.
On Mexico's claim that simple zeroing in periodic reviews is, as such, and as applied in the five periodic reviews at issue in this dispute, inconsistent with article 2.4 of the antidumping agreement, and also on Mexico's related claim under article 11 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), the appellate body has found it unnecessary to make any additional changes for the purposes of resolving this dispute.
The appellate body has recommended to the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) to request the US to bring its measures, found to be inconsistent with GATT 1994 and with the Antidumping Agreement, into conformity with its obligations under those agreements.