INTRODUCTION

The United States and Argentina each appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina (the “Panel Report”). The Panel was established to consider a complaint by Argentina against the United States regarding the continuation of anti-dumping duties on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from Argentina following the conduct of a five-year, or “sunset”, review of those duties.

In June 1995, the United States Department of Commerce (the “USDOC”) imposed anti-dumping duties on OCTG from Argentina following an investigation that was initiated by the USDOC in 1994, before the entry into force of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement ”). The anti-dumping duty order imposed an anti-dumping duty of 1.36 per cent on Siderca, the only exporter from Argentina that had participated in the investigation, and a residual duty at the same rate for all other exporters from Argentina. Following the imposition of the anti-dumping duties, Siderca ceased exporting OCTG to the United States. In the five years following the imposition of these anti-dumping duties, the USDOC initiated four reviews of the anti-dumping duties on Siderca, at the request of the domestic producers in the United States. In each of these reviews, the USDOC determined, on the basis of Siderca's statements, that Siderca “had not made any shipment for consumption in the United States”. As Siderca was the sole exporter from Argentina for whom an administrative review had been requested by the domestic producers, the USDOC “rescinded the administrative review” on OCTG from Argentina.

In July 2000, the USDOC initiated, on its own initiative, a sunset review of anti-dumping duties on OCTG from Argentina. In its determination of the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, the USDOC concluded that “dumping has continued over the life of the Argentine order and is likely to continue if the order were revoked”.