Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T18:30:58.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The WTO Panel Report: United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 February 2017

Claire Kelly
Claire Kelly*
Affiliation:
Dennis J. Block Center for the Study of International Business Law at Brooklyn Law School
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
International Legal Documents
Information
International Legal Materials , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , June 2010 , pp. 934 - 946
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Endnotes

* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text available at the World Trade Organization website (visited May 26, 2010) http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds383_e.htm.

1 See Marrakesh Protocol to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, 33 I.L.M. 1226 (1994).

2 Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Apr. 15, 1994, Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, Annex 1A, arts. 2.1, 9.1, 33 I.L.M. 1125 (1994) [hereinafter Anti-Dumping Agreement].

3 Id. art. 1.

4 Id. art. 9.

5 Id. art. 2.1.

6 Id. arts. 2.2, 2.4.

7 Id. art. 9.1.

8 Id. art. 11.3; 19 U.S.C. 1675(c).

9 Anti-Dumping Agreement, supra note 2, art. 2.2.2.

10 Id. art. 2.1.

11 See id. art. 9.3.

12 International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, Antidumping and Countervailing Duties, 19 C.F.R. § 351 (May 19, 1997).

13 NSK Ltd. v. United States, 510 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Corus Staal B.V. v. United States, 502 F.3d 1370, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

14 Appellate Body Report, US—Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology, ¶¶ 315–316, WT/DS350/AB/R (Feb. 4, 2009); Appellate Body Report, US—Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews (Japan), ¶¶ 125, 135, 190(b)-(f), WT/DS322/AB/R (Jan. 23, 2007); Appellate Body Report, US—Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (‘‘Zeroing’’), ¶¶ 168–169, WT/DS294/AB/R (May 9, 2006); Appellate Body Report, US— Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada, ¶ 117, WT/DS264/AB/R (Aug. 31, 2004); Appellate Body Report, US—Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico, ¶¶ 109–110, WT/DS344/AB/R (Apr. 30, 2008); Appellate Body Report, US—Sunset Review of Anti-Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Steel Flat Products from Japan, ¶¶ 133-138, WT/DS244/AB/R (Jan. 9, 2004).

15 Panel Report, US—Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/R (Mar. 31, 2000), rev’d, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS136/AB/R (Aug. 28, 2000); Panel Report, US—Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (‘‘Zeroing’’), WT/DS294/R (May 9, 2006), rev’d, Appellate Body Report, ¶¶ 132–135, WT/DS294/AB/R (May 9, 2006); Panel Report, US—Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico, WT/DS344/R (Dec. 20, 2007), rev’d, Appellate Body Report, ¶ 82, WT/DS344/AB/R (Apr. 30, 2008).

16 Panel Report, US—Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico, WT/DS344/R (Dec. 20, 2007), rev’d, Appellate Body Report, ¶¶ 158–162, WT/DS344/AB/R (Apr. 30, 2008).

17 See Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of the Weighted-Average Dumping Margin During an Antidumping Investigation, 71 Fed. Reg. 77,722 (Dec. 27, 2006).

18 See Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Taiwan: Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value, 75 Fed. Reg. 14,569 (Mar. 26, 2010) [hereinafter Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags].

19 19 U.S.C. 1677f-1(d)(1)(B)(i).

20 Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags, 75 Fed. Reg. at 14,570.

21 Panel Report, United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, ¶¶ 1.1, 1.5 n.4., WT/DS383/R (Jan. 22, 2010)Google Scholar.

22 Panel Report, United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, ¶¶ 3.3, 7.5, WT/DS383/R (Jan 22, 2010)Google Scholar.

23 Panel Report, United States—Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, ¶ 7.6, WT/DS383/R (Jan 22, 2010)Google Scholar.

24 Amy, Tsui, Commerce, USTR Striving to Resolve Zeroing Administratively, Sanchez Says , Bna Int’l Trade Rep., Apr. 15, 2010 Google Scholar, available at http://www.bna.com/itr/index.html.

25 See Rules: Anti-dumping, Subsidies, Negotiations to Clarify and Improve Discipline, WTO CancÚn Ministerial 2003 Google Scholar, available at http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/minist_e/min03_e/brief_e/brief11_e.htm (last visited June 2, 2010).

1 WT/DS383/1.

2 WT/DS383/2.

3 On 1 December 2009, the Treaty of Lisbon amending the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty establishing the European Community (done at Lisbon, 13 December 2007) entered into force. On 29 November 2009, the WTO received a Verbal Note (WT/L/779) from the Council of the European Union and the Commission of the European Communities stating that, by virtue of the Treaty of Lisbon, as of 1 December 2009, the European Union replaces and succeeds the European Community.

4 The parties submitted a joint procedural agreement providing, inter alia, that the parties should ask the Panel to accept only one written submission per party, that the parties should ask the Panel to forego meetings with the parties, that the United States would not contest Thailand’s claim, that Thailand should not ask the Panel to suggest ways in which the United States might implement the Panel’s recommendations pursuant to the second sentence of Article 19.1 of the DSU, and that the United States should implement the Panel’s recommendations using specified provisions of US law (WT/DS383/4).

5 Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber V, paras. 62-117.

6 We note that Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement – setting forth the special standard of review applicable to disputes under the Anti-Dumping Agreement – also applies to this dispute. Given that the United States does not contest Thailand’s claim, it is not necessary for us to consider the application of this provision in detail.

7 Panel Report, US – Shrimp (Ecuador) Google Scholar, paras. 7.7 – 7.11.

8 Exhibit THA-4.

9 United States’ Written Submission, para. 5.

10 Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber V, para. 64 (emphasis original; footnote omitted).

11 Notice of Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value and Postponement of Final Determination: Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand, 69 Fed. Reg. 3552, 3554 (26 January 2004), Exhibit THA-9.

12 Ibid., at 3555.

13 Ibid., at 3557.

14 Although some of this evidence pertains to the USDOC’s preliminary determination, the United States has not argued that the USDOC amended its methodology when making the Final Determination, or any amendment thereto.

15 Thailand’s Written Submission, para. 13.

16 Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber V, paras. 86-103.

17 Ibid., para. 98.

18 Appellate Body Report, Japan Alcoholic Beverages II, p. 14; Appellate Body Report, US – Shrimp (Article 21.5 – Malaysia), paras. 108-109; Appellate Body Report, US – Softwood Lumber V, paras. 109-112.

19 Appellate Body Report, US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 188.

20 Panel Report, US – Shrimp (Ecuador) Google Scholar, paras. 7.38 and 7.39 (footnotes omitted).

21 Panel Report, US – Shrimp (Ecuador) Google Scholar, para. 7.40.

22 United States’ Written Submission, para. 5.