Abstract
AbstractIn itsFinal Modification for Reviewsthe US DOC announced on 14 February 2012 that it would cease the use of zeroing in the calculation of anti-dumping (AD) margins in all reviews as of 16 April 2012. However, it did not pertain to targeted dumping. In itsFinal Ruleof 22 April 2014, it codified substantial discretion in calculating AD duties, including the use of zeroing, in targeted dumping. Thus the panel inUS‒Shrimp II (Viet Nam)erred in not finding ‘as such’ inconsistency by the US with the AD Agreement, despite this not being a targeted dumping complaint. Given the record of the US in complying with zeroing petitions, it should have incurred the burden of proof, which is not satisfied by these pronouncements. Market structure should be used by panels in ‘as applied’ inconsistency determinations. Viet Nam should have included an Article 3 violation in its complaint.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
