Skip to main content

United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China: never ending zeroing in the WTO?


Despite many legal rulings to clarify the WTO inconsistency of zeroing practices, in practically all aspects of antidumping proceedings, the United States declined to categorically rectify the illegal antidumping duties based on zeroing calculation methods. This dispute is merely example of a number of disputes where the US government had to exhaust the whole process for proper implementation of the WTO rulings under its domestic legal system. The US approach is starkly contrasted with the position taken by the European Union that categorically terminates zeroing practices pursuant to the WTO rulings. While the WTO system indeed recognizes individual Member's peculiar regulatory systems and policies during implementation phases, the current situation in which WTO Members must individually resort to the dispute settlement system in order to rectify the US zeroing practices raises a serious concern regarding the legitimacy and integrity of the WTO dispute settlement system. Maybe it is time for WTO Members to agree on better implementation mechanisms before more Members try to develop overly burdensome and complicated regulatory processes for compliance.

Corresponding author
Hide All
Ahn D. (2008), ‘Foe or Friend of GATT Article XXIV: Diversity in Trade Remedy Rules’, Journal of International Economic Law, 11(1): 107133.
Bagwell K. and Mavroidis P. (2005), ‘United States – Section 129(C)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Beating Around (the) Bush’, in Horn H. and Mavroidis P. (eds.), The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies on WTO Case Law: Legal and Economic Analysis, Cambridge University Press, pp. 315338.
Bown C. P. and Prusa T. J. (2010), ‘US Antidumping: Much Ado about Zeroing’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5352, The World Bank, Washington, DC.
Bown C. P. and Sykes A. O. (2008), ‘The Zeroing Issue: A Critical Analysis of Softwood V’, World Trade Review, 7(1): 121142.
Cho S. (2012), ‘No More Zeroing?: The United States Changes its Antidumping Policy to Comply with the WTO’, ASIL Insights, 16 (8).
Crowley M. and Howse R. (2010), ‘US – Stainless Steel (Mexico)’, World Trade Review, 9(1): 117150.
Grimmett J. J. (2011), ‘World Trade Organization (WTO) Decisions and Their Effect in US Law’, Congressional Research Service RL 22154 (4 February 2011).
Grimmett J. J. (2012), ‘WTO Dispute Settlement: Status of US Compliance in Pending Cases’, Congressional Research Service RL32014 (23 April 2012).
Grossman G. M. and Sykes A. O. (2006), ‘European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India: Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by India’, World Trade Review, 5(1): 133148.
Hoekman B. and Wauters J. (2011), ‘US compliance with WTO rulings on Zeroing in Anti-Dumping’, World Trade Review, 10(1): 543.
Lewis M. (2012), ‘Dissent as Dialectic: Horizontal and Vertical Disagreement in WTO Dispute Settlement’, Stanford Journal of International Law, 48(1): 145.
Nye W. W. (2009), ‘The Implications of “Zeroing” for Enforcement of US Antidumping Laws’, Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 12(4): 263271.
Prusa T. J. and Vermulst E. (2009), ‘A One–Two Punch on Zeroing: US–Zeroing (EC) and US–Zeroing (Japan)’, World Trade Review, 8(1): 187241.
Prusa T. J. and Vermulst E. (2011), ‘United States – Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology: The End of Zeroing?’, World Trade Review, 10(1): 4561.
Vandenbussche H. (2009) ‘United-States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing) (DS 294)’, World Trade Review, 8 (1): 255257.
Vermulst E. and Ikenson D. (2007), ‘Zeroing under the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement: Where Do We Stand?’, Global Trade and Customs Journal, 2 (6): 231242.
Vermulst E. (forthcoming), EU Anti-Dumping Law and Practice, 3rd edn, Sweet & Maxwell.
Voon T. (2011), ‘Orange Juice, Shrimp, and the United States Response to Adverse WTO Rulings on Zeroing’, ASIL Insights, 15 (2).
Wauters J. (2009), ‘Comment ‘United-States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing) (DS 294) and United-States – Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews (DS 322)’, World Trade Review, 8(1): 243253.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

World Trade Review
  • ISSN: 1474-7456
  • EISSN: 1475-3138
  • URL: /core/journals/world-trade-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 11
Total number of PDF views: 79 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 448 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 15th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.