Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T16:51:12.125Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Die Another Day: Zeroing in on Targeted Dumping – Did the AB Hit the Mark in US–Washing Machines?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2018

PETROS C. MAVROIDIS  and
THOMAS J. PRUSA
PETROS C. MAVROIDIS*
Affiliation:
Columbia Law School and University of Neuchâtel
THOMAS J. PRUSA*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University and NBER
*
*Email: Petros.Mavroidis@unine.ch
**Email: prusa@rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In US–Washing Machines, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) extended the prohibition of zeroing to the so-called exceptional (or W-T) methodology, where the dumping margin is established by comparing the weighted average normal value to export price of specific transactions. Given that the exceptional method was the only method under which the AB had not definitively rejected zeroing, this dispute may have hammered the last nail in the coffin of zeroing. Or, maybe not. The AB did not address a key issue, namely: What is the evidentiary standard that an investigating authority must meet in order to have legitimate recourse to W-T? In addition, the AB's suggested approach to aggregating dumping amounts across targeted and non-targeted groups may produce zeroing-like outcomes even if the authority does not resort to zeroing. It seems inevitable that future disputes will be required to address these issues, since history shows that at least some investigating authorities are gearing towards using this methodology ad nauseam. The AB has left zeroing to die another day.

Type
Review Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , April 2018 , pp. 239 - 264
Copyright
Copyright © Petros C. Mavroidis and Thomas J. Prusa 2018 

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.)

Footnotes

We would like to thank Jennifer Hillman, Andrea Mastromatteo, Damien J. Neven, Terry Stewart, and Jasper Wauters for many helpful discussions on this issue. Chad P. Bown and Edwin Vermulst are our shadow co-authors. Remaining errors are our own.

References

Bae, J. (2017), ‘Demise of Zeroing: Zeroing in Weighted Average-to-Transaction Calculations of Dumping’, Mimeo, Columbia Law School: New York City, New York.Google Scholar
Blase Caryl, B. (2015), ‘2014 Court of International Trade Reviews of Post-Sale Price Adjustments: Targeted Dumping and Zeroing in Antidumping Duties Cases’, Georgetown Journal of International Law, 47: 5–26.Google Scholar
Bown, C. P. and Prusa, T. J. (2011), ‘US Antidumping: Much Ado About Zeroing’, in Martin, W. J. and Mattoo, A. (eds.), Unfinished Business? The WTO's Doha Agenda, London: CEPR and World Bank, pp. 355–392 (chapter 14).Google Scholar
Bown, C. P. and Sykes, A. O. (2008), ‘The Zeroing Issue: A Critical Analysis of Softwood V’, World Trade Review, 7(1): 121–142.Google Scholar
Croley, S. and Jackson, J. H. (1996), ‘WTO Dispute Procedures, Standard of Review, and Deference to National Governance’, American Journal of International Law, 90: 193–213.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C. (2008), ‘No Outsourcing of Law? WTO Law as Practiced by WTO Courts’, American Journal of International Law, 102: 421–474.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C. (2016), The Regulation of International Trade, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. C., Messerlin, P. A., and Wauters, J.r M. (2008), The Law and Economics of Contingent Protection, Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
Prusa, T. J. and Rubini, L. (2013), ‘United States – Use of Zeroing in Antidumping Measures Involving Products from Korea: It's Déjà vu all Over Again’, in Bown, C. P. and Mavroidis, P.C. (eds.), The WTO Case Law of 2011: The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Prusa, T. J. and Vermulst, E. (2009), ‘A One-Two Punch on Zeroing’, in Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), The WTO Case-Law of 2006–7: The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 187–242.Google Scholar
Prusa, T. J. and Vermulst, E. (2010), ‘Guilt by Association’ in Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), The WTO Case-Law of 2008: The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 59–84.Google Scholar
Prusa, T. J. and Vermulst, E. (2011), ‘US – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology: The End of Zeroing? in Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. (eds.), The WTO Case-Law of 2009: The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 45–62.Google Scholar
Stewart, T. P., Markel, S. G., and Kerwin, M. T. (1993), ‘Antidumping’, in Stewart, T. P. (ed.), The GATT Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986– 1992), Deventer, The Netherlands and Boston, MA: Kluwer Law, pp. 1383–1710.Google Scholar
Sunstein, C. (1999), One Case at a Time, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar