* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the World Trade Organization web site (visited January 22, 2007) < .http://www.wto.org>

* Partner, Sidley Austin LLP. The views expressed herein are those of the author alone, and do not represent those of Sidley Austin LLP or any other person or party.

1 See, e.g., Panel Report, United States - Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews, para. 7.30, WT/DS322/R (20 September 2006) (“Panel Report“).

2 See Jacob Viner, Dumping: A Problem in International Trade 4 (1922; August M. Kelley ed. 1966) (“price discrimination between purchasers in different national markets” is the “es sential characteristic of dumping“).

3 Annex 1A of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the WTO (15 April 1994) (“the Anti-Dumping Agreement“).

4 Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809 (1994) (“URAA“).

5 “Normal value” is typically the price at which the like merchandise is sold in the exporter's or manufacturer's home market, although in some situations it can also be defined on the basis of sales to third countries or the cost of producing the merchandise. Anti-Dumping Agreement, Art. 2.2. The different methods of calculating normal value are not relevant to the issues involved in the dispute on the zeroing procedures.

6 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(A). This difference has sometimes been called the results of “intermediate comparisons” in WTO dispute settlement proceedings.

7 19 U.S.C. § 1677(35)(B).

8 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-l(d)(l)(A)(i). This approach is sometimes called the “weighted average-to-weighted average” comparison methodology.

9 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-l(d)(l)(A)(ii). This approach is sometimes called the “transaction-to-transaction” (or “T-to-T“) comparison methodology.

10 19 U.S.C. § 1677f-l(d)(2). This approach is sometimes called the “weighted average-to-transaction” (or “W-to-T“) com-parison methodology.

11 See, e.g., Appellate Body Report, European Communities - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/AB/R (adopted 12 March 2001); Appellate Body Report, United States - Sunset Review of Anti- Dumping Duties on Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan, WT/DS244/AB/R (adopted 9 January 2004); Appellate Body Report, United States - Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/ DS264/AB/R (adopted 31 August 2004); Appellate Body Re port, United States - Final Dumping Determination on Soft wood Lumber from Canada - Recourse to Article 21.5 of theDSU by Canada, WT/DS264/AB/RW (adopted 1 September 2006); Appellate Body Report, United States - Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins, WT/DS294/AB/R (adopted 9 May 2006).

12 Panel Report, para. 6.2.

13 Appellate Body Report, United States - Final Dumping Deter mination on Softwood Lumber from Canada - Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada, WT/DS264/AB/RW (adopted 1 September 2006).

14 Panel Report, paras. 7.90-7.143.

15 See U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Ad ministration, Antidumping Proceedings: Calculation of theWeighted Average Dumping Margin During an Antidumping Duty Investigation, 71 Fed. Reg. 11189 (March 6, 2006).

16 Appellate Body Report, United States - Measures Relating to Zeroing and Sunset Reviews, paras. 78-97 WT/DS322/AB/ R (adopted 23 January 2007) (“Appellate Body Report“).

17 Appellate Body Report, para. 108.

18 Appellate Body Report, para. 115, quoting US - Softwood Lumber V(Article 21.5- Canada), para. 87 (footnote omitted).

19 Appellate Body Report, para. 120, quoting US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 122.

20 Appellate Body Report, paras. 130-136.

21 Appellate Body Report, para. 146, quoting US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 142 (brackets in original).

22 Appellate Body Report, para. 146, quoting US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 142.

23 Appellate Body Report, para. 151.

24 Appellate Body Report, paras. 151, 155-156.

25 Appellate Body Report, para. 168.

26 Appellate Body Report, paras. 172-176.

27 Appellate Body Report, para. 183, quoting US - Corrosion- Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 127

1 WT/DS322/R, 20 September 2006.

2 See Panel Report, paras. 2.1 and 7.1. The Panel noted that, “with regard to periodic reviews and new shipper reviews, Japan challenges zeroing not only with respect to the calcula tion ofmargins of dumping but also with respect to the calcula tion of assessment rate.s.“(Panel Report, footnote 630 to para. 7.1) (original emphasis)

3 Before the Panel, Japan used the term “zeroing” to denote the methodology under which the United States Department of Commerce (the “USDOC“) “disregards intermediate negative dumping margins … through the USDOC's AD Margin Calcu lation Computer Programme and other related procedures, in the process of establishing the overall dumping margin for the product as a whole”. (Panel Report, footnote 668 to para. 7.45, quoting Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Japan, para. l(a)-(d) (attached as Annex III to this Report)) The Panel used the term “zeroing procedures” to refer to “the zeroing methodology per se, as distinguished from the standard zeroing line”. (Ibid., para. 7.47)

4 The term “standard zeroing line” is used in the Panel Report to refer to a specific line of computer programming code used by the USDOC when it develops a specific computer program to calculate a margin of dumping in a particular anti-dumping proceeding. (See Panel Report, paras. 4.17 and 7.20, and foot note 644 to para. 7.20)

5 In our discussion, we use the term “original investigations“ to refer to investigations within the meaning of Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

6 In our discussion, we use the term “periodic review” to de scribe the periodic review of the amount of anti-dumping duty, as required by Section 751 (a) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (the “Tariff Act“).

7 In our discussion, we use the term “new shipper review” to describe the review to establish an individual weighted-aver age dumping margin for the exporter or foreign producer, as required by Section 751(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Tariff Act. That provision requires the USDOC to review and determine the individual dumping margin for an exporter or foreign producer that did not export the product during the original period of investigation.

8 In our discussion, we use the term “changed circumstances review” to describe the review of a final affirmative dumping determination or suspension agreement, as required by Section 751(b) of the Tariff Act. That provision requires the USDOC to review a final dumping determination or a suspension agreement based upon a request by an interested party demon-strating that changed circumstances warrant a review of such a determination.

9 In our discussion, we use the term “sunset review” to describe the review of an anti-dumping duty order at the end of five years, as required by Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act. That provision requires the USDOC to conduct a review to determine whether revocation of the anti-dumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury five years after the date of publication of an anti-dumping duty order.

10 See Exhibit JPN-10 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3.

11 The 11 periodic reviews challenged by Japan are listed in Exhibits JPN-11 through JPN-21 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3.

12 The two sunset reviews challenged by Japan are listed in Exhibits JPN-22 and JPN-23 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3.

13 The Panel used the term “model zeroing” to refer to the methodology whereby the USDOC “makes [weighted] aver¬age-to-[weighted] average [(“W-W“)] comparisons of export price and normal value within individual ‘averaging groups’ established on the basis of physical characteristics ('models’) and disregards any amounts by which average export prices for particular models exceed normal value in aggregating the results of these multiple comparisons to calculate a weighted average margin of dumping.” (Panel Report, para. 7.2) (footnote omitted)

14 The Panel used the term “simple zeroing” to refer to the methodology whereby the USDOC “determines a weighted average margin of dumping based on [weighted] average-to- transaction [(“W-T“)] or transaction-to-transaction [(“T-T“)] comparisons between export price and normal value and disre gards any amounts by which export prices of individual trans actions exceed normal value in aggregating the results of these multiple comparisons.” (Panel Report, para 7.3)

15 See Panel Report, paras. 7.258-7.259. The Panel decided to exercise judicial economy and did not rule on Japan's claim that maintaining model zeroing procedures in the context of original investigations was inconsistent with Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 3.1-3.5, 5.8, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, Articles VI: 1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994, and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. The Panel also decided to exercise judicial economy and did not rule on Japan's claim that the use of model zeroing in the anti-dumping investigation of imports of cut-to-length carbon quality steel products from Japan was inconsistent with Articles 1, 2.4, and 3.1-3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (Ibid., para. 7.260)

16 WT/DS322/12 (attached as Annex I to this Report).

17 WT/AB/WP/5, 4 January 2005.

18 Pursuant to Rule 21 of the Working Procedures.

19 WT/DS322/13 (attached as Annex II to this Report).

20 Pursuant to Rule 23(3) of the Working Procedures.

21 Pursuant to Rules 22 and 23(4) of the Working Procedures.

22 Pursuant to Rule 24(1) and (3) of the Working Procedures.

23 Pursuant to Rule 24(2) of the Working Procedures.

26 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 82 (referring to Appel late Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, paras. 97-98; Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 132; and Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), paras. 89 and 122).

27 Ibid, para. 11.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid., para. 96.

30 required by Section 751(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Tariff Act. That provision requires the USDOC to review and determine the individual dumping margin for an exporter or foreign producer that did not export the product during the original period of investigation. In our discussion, we use the term “changed circumstances review” to describe the review of a final affirmative dumping determination or suspension agreement, as required by Section 751(b) of the Tariff Act. That provision requires the USDOC to review a final dumping determination or a suspension agreement based upon a request by an interested party demon-strating that changed circumstances warrant a review of such a determination. In our discussion, we use the term “sunset review” to describe the review of an anti-dumping duty order at the end of five years, as required by Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act. That provision requires the USDOC to conduct a review to deter¬mine whether revocation of the anti-dumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury five years after the date of publication of an anti-dumping duty order. See Exhibit JPN-10 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3. The 11 periodic reviews challenged by Japan are listed in Exhibits JPN-11 through JPN-21 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3. The two sunset reviews challenged by Japan are listed in Exhibits JPN-22 and JPN-23 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3. The Panel used the term “model zeroing” to refer to the methodology whereby the USDOC “makes [weighted] average-to-[weighted] average [(“W-W“)] comparisons of export price and normal value within individual ‘averaging groups’ established on the basis of physical characteristics ('models’) and disregards any amounts by which average export prices for particular models exceed normal value in aggregating the Ibid., para. 98 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 Canada), para. 91).

31 required by Section 751(2)(B)(i)(II) of the Tariff Act. That provision requires the USDOC to review and determine the individual dumping margin for an exporter or foreign producer that did not export the product during the original period of investigation. In our discussion, we use the term “changed circumstances review” to describe the review of a final affirmative dumping determination or suspension agreement, as required by Section 751(b) of the Tariff Act. That provision requires the USDOC to review a final dumping determination or a suspension agreement based upon a request by an interested party demon-strating that changed circumstances warrant a review of such a determination. In our discussion, we use the term “sunset review” to describe the review of an anti-dumping duty order at the end of five years, as required by Section 751(c) of the Tariff Act. That provision requires the USDOC to conduct a review to deter¬mine whether revocation of the anti-dumping duty order would likely lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and of material injury five years after the date of publication of an anti-dumping duty order. See Exhibit JPN-10 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3. The 11 periodic reviews challenged by Japan are listed in Exhibits JPN-11 through JPN-21 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3. The two sunset reviews challenged by Japan are listed in Exhibits JPN-22 and JPN-23 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3. The Panel used the term “model zeroing” to refer to the methodology whereby the USDOC “makes [weighted] average-to-[weighted] average [(“W-W“)] comparisons of export price and normal value within individual ‘averaging groups’ established on the basis of physical characteristics ('models’) and disregards any amounts by which average export prices for particular models exceed normal value in aggregating the Ibid., para. 101 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Soft wood Lumber V (Article 21.5 Canada), para. 87).

32 Ibid, para. 102.

33 Ibid., para. 104 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.100).

34 Ibid., para. Ill (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 127).

35 Panel Report, para. 7.127 (quoted in Japan's appellant's sub mission, para. 116). (emphasis added)

36 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 117 (referring to Appel late Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 97).

37 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 97 (quoted in Japan's appellant's sub mission, para. 117).

38 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 118 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Can ada), para. 98).

39 Ibid.

40 Ibid., para. 128.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid., para. 129 (referring to Panel Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 5.75).

43 Ibid, (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 136).

44 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 130 (referring to Panel Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 5.75).

45 Ibid, para. 130.

46 Ibid, para. 134.

47 Ibid, (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 99).

48 Ibid, para. 134.

49 Ibid., para. 142 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 132).

50 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 155 (referring to Appel late Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 129). (emphasis by Japan)

51 Ibid,, (original emphasis)

52 Ibid., para. 159 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC) para. 132; and Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 112).

53 Ibid., para. 161. (footnote omitted)

54 Ibid., para. 166.

55 Ibid,, para. 167.

56 Ibid., para. 171 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 133).

57 Ibid., para. 147 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 133).

58 Ibid., para. 181 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.194).

59 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 182 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 127).

60 Ibid.

61 Ibid., para. 190.

62 Ibid., para. 178.

63 Ibid., para. 196.

64 Ibid, paras. 191 and 193.

65 Ibid., paras. 197.

66 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 197. (footnote omitted)

67 United States’ appellee's submission, para. 11.

68 Ibid., para. 11 (referring to Japan's appellant's submission, para. 92).

69 Ibid., para. 13 (referring to Panel Report, footnote 715 to para. 7.92).

70 Ibid., para. 18.

71 Ibid., para. 19 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.107).

72 United States’ appellee's submission, para. 24. (footnote omit ted)

73 Ibid., para. 25 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.119).

74 Ibid., para. 29. (footnote omitted)

75 Ibid., para. 32. (footnote omitted)

76 Ibid., para. 35 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.127).

77 Ibid., para. 39 (referring to Japan's oral statement at the first Panel meeting, para. 52). (originalemphasis)

78 Ibid., para. 41. (original emphasis)

79 Ibid., para. 37 (referring to Japan's appellant's submission, para. 117, where Japan quotes the Appellate Body Report in US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), at para. 97, as rejecting the so-called “mathematical equivalence” ar gument on the basis that it “rests on a non-tested hypothesis“).

80 United States’ appellee's submission, para. 44 (referring to Case T-274/02, Ritek Corp. and Prodisc Technology Inc. v. Council of the European Union, 24 October 2006, para. 94, annexed as Attachment-1 to the United States’ appellee's sub mission).

81 Ibid., para. 48.

82 Ibid., para. 49.

83 Ibid., para. 50.

84 Ibid., para. 51.

85 Ibid.

86 Ibid., para. 52 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 243).

87 Ibid., para. 54 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.199).

88 Ibid., para. 55.

89 United States’ appellee's submission, para. 55 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.204).

90 Ibid, (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.204).

91 Ibid., para. 56.

92 Ibid., para. 60.

93 Ibid., para. 61.

94 Ibid., para. 64. (original emphasis)

95 Ibid., para. 67 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.205). (original emphasis)

96 Ibid., para. 69.

97 Ibid., para. 70 (referring to Japan's appellant's submission, para. 180).

98 See United States’ appellee's submission, para. 71.

99 Ibid., para. 70 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.194).

100 Ibid., para. 73.

101 See Exhibits JPN-11 through JPN-21 submitted by Japan to the Panel.

102 United States’ appellee's submission, para. 74.

103 Ibid., para. 75.

104 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 26. The United States does not challenge the Panel's finding regarding zeroing procedures as they relate to original investigations based on W-W comparisons. The United States acknowledges that “there is at least an evidentiary record in connection with those questions”. (Ibid., para. 3)

105 Ibid., para. 2.

106 Ibid., para. 14. (footnote omitted)

107 Ibid., footnote 22 to para. 14.

108 Ibid.

109 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 29 and foot note 45 thereto.

110 Ibid., para. 30.

111 Ibid.

112 Ibid.

113 Ibid., para. 31.

114 Ibid, (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 198).

115 Ibid, para. 31.

116 Ibid., para. 4 (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.43; and Appel late Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 198).

117 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 6 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), footnote 342 to para. 198).

118 Ibid., para. 31.

119 Ibid, para. 18.

120 Ibid, footnote 29 to para. 18.

121 Ibid (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Carbon Steel, para. 123).

122 Ibid, para. 33.

123 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 68.

124 Ibid., para. 67.

125 See Ibid, paras. 72-85.

126 Ibid., para. 92.

127 Ibid., para. 93.

128 Ibid, para. 95.

129 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 101. (footnote omitted)

130 Ibid, para. 108. (footnote omitted)

131 Ibid, para. 21.

132 Ibid, para. 22. (footnote omitted)

133 China's third participant's submission, para. 23.

134 Ibid, para. 25. (original emphasis)

135 Ibid., para. 30.

136 Ibid, para. 31.

137 Ibid., para. 45 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Corro sion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 135). See also para. 48.

138 Ibid., para. 58.

139 China's third participant's submission, para. 15.

140 Ibid., para. 68.

141 European Communities’ third participant's submission, para. 2. (emphasis omitted)

142 Ibid., para. 5. (original emphasis)

143 See Ibid., paras. 6-7.

144 Ibid., para. 7.

145 Ibid.

146 European Communities’ third participant's submission, para. 10 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lum ber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 147).

147 Ibid., para. 11 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 135).

148 Ibid, paras. 12 and 13. (original emphasis)

149 Ibid., para. 15. (original emphasis)

150 Ibid., para. 16.

151 Ibid., para. 17. (original emphasis)

152 Ibid, para. 18.

153 European Communities’ third participant's submission, para. 15. (original emphasis)

154 Ibid, para. 19.

155 Ibid., para. 22.

156 Ibid.

157 Ibid., para. 24 (referring to Exhibits JPN-6 and JPN-7 submit ted by Japan to the Panel).

158 Korea's third participant's submission, para. 5.

159 Ibid., para. 7.

160 Korea's third participant's submission, para. 8.

161 Ibid., para. 9 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 123).

162 Ibid.

163 Ibid.

164 Ibid, para. 10 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 132).

165 Ibid.

166 Ibid., para. 11.

167 Ibid, para. 13 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC - Bed Linen, paras. 55 and 59; Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 134; Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 63; and Appel late Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 138).

168 Ibid., para. 14 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), paras. 138 and 142).

169 Korea's third participant's submission, para. 15. (original em phasis)

170 Ibid.

171 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 8 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US-Zeroing (EC), para. 126, in turn, quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, paras. 92-93); see also Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), paras. 89 and 91; and Appellate Body Report, EC - Bed Linen, para. 53).

172 Ibid., para. 12 (quoting Japan's appellant's submission, para. 11).

173 Ibid., para. 15.

174 Ibid, para. 18.

175 Ibid, para. 19.

176 Ibid., para. 20.

177 Mexico's third participant's submission, para. 36 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 138).

178 Ibid., paras. 42 and 43 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 93; and Appellate Body Report, EC - Bed Linen, para. 51).

179 Ibid, para. 47. (footnote omitted)

180 Ibid., para. 49 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 132). (emphasis added by Mexico)

181 Ibid, para. 51.

182 Ibid, para. 52 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), paras. 130-131).

183 Mexico's third participant's submission, paras. 58-61.

184 Ibid, para. 63.

185 Norway's third participant's submission, para. 7 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC - Bed Linen, para. 53; Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 99; Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para 127; and Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Can ada), paras. 89 and 122).

186 Ibid., paras. 10-20 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC - Bed Linen, para. 53; Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, paras. 93 and 99; Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para 126; and Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), paras. 105,107, and 108).

187 Ibid., para. 24 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 135; and Ap pellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 98).

188 Ibid., para. 27 (referring to Japan's appellant's submission, para. 82).

189 Norway's third participant's submission, para. 30.

190 Ibid, para. 32.

191 Ibid., para. 34 (referring to Appellate Body Report, EC - Bed Linen, para. 55; Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion- Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 135; and Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 142).

192 Ibid, para. 35.

193 Ibid., para. 37 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 133).

194 Ibid., para. 39.

195 Ibid, para. 38.

196 Ibid, (referring to Panel Report, para. 7.256).

197 Ibid, para. 38.

198 Thailand's third participant's submission, para. 7.

199 Ibid., paras. 8 and 9 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 94).

200 Ibid.,para. 14 (referring to GATT Second Report of the Group of Experts, Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties, 171141, adopted 27 May 1960, BISD 9S/194).

201 Ibid, para. 15.

202 Ibid., paras. 14 and 15. (original emphasis)

203 Ibid, para. 15.

204 Thailand's third participant's submission, para. 18.

205 Ibid, para. 19 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.158).

206 Ibid.

207 Ibid, para. 20.

208 In our discussion, we use the term “original investigations“ to refer to investigations within the meaning of Article 5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

209 The term “standard zeroing line” is used in the Panel Report to refer to a specific line of computer programming code used by the USDOC when it develops a specific computer program to calculate a margin of dumping in a particular anti-dumping proceeding. (See Panel Report, paras. 4.17 and 7.20, and foot note 644 thereto)

210 The term “zeroing procedures” is used in the Panel Report to refer to the United States’ “zeroing methodology” per se, as distinguished from the “standard zeroing line”. (See Panel Report, para. 7.47) The Panel concluded that the “standard zeroing line” is not a measure that can be challenged as such. (See Ibid., para. 7.46) This finding of the Panel is not appealed by Japan. For a description of the United States’ “zeroing procedures”, see supra, footnote 3.

211 Ibid., para. 7.37 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 81).

212 Ibid, (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 82).

213 Ibid, para. 7.39 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 88).

214 Ibid., para. 7.43 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US-Zeroing (EC), para. 196).

215 Ibid, (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 198).

216 Ibid, para. 7.45.

217 Panel Report, para. 7.50.

218 Ibid., para. 7.55.

219 Ibid, para. 7.58.

220 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 3.

221 Ibid.

222 United States’ response to questioning at the oral hearing.

223 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 26.

224 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 2.

225 Ibid, para. 14. (footnote omitted)

226 Ibid., footnote 22 to para. 14.

227 Ibid., para. 31.

228 Ibid, (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 198).

229 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 93.

230 See Ibid., para. 95.

231 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 68.

232 Ibid, para. 67.

233 See Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 132. See also Appellate Body Report, EC - Sardines, para. 299.

234 Appellate Body Report, US - Carbon Steel, para. 142. See also Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 133.

235 Ibid. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Wheat Gluten, paras. 160-162.

236 See Appellate Body Report, US - Gambling, para. 330.

237 Exhibits JPN-6, at 15, and JPN-7, at 16, submitted by Japan to the Panel.

238 Exhibits JPN-8, JPN-10A, JPN-22A, JPN-22B, and JPN-23C submitted by Japan to the Panel.

239 Exhibit JPN-9 submitted by Japan to the Panel.

240 Exhibits JPN-11 through JPN-21 submitted by Japan to the Panel; further details may be found in Panel Report, para. 2.3.

241 Panel Report, para. 7.46.

242 Panel Report, para. 7.51.

243 Ibid.

244 Ibid.

245 Ibid, para. 7.52.

246 Ibid.

247 Ibid, (footnotes omitted)

248 Ibid, (footnote omitted)

249 Ibid.

250 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 29. (foot note omitted)

251 Appellate Body Report, EC - Hormones, para. 132.

252 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 14 and foot note 22 thereto.

253 Panel Report, para. 7.51.

254 The United States acknowledges that there is an evidentiary record to support a finding as to theexistence of the “zeroing procedures” in these contexts. (United States’response to questioning at the oral hearing. See also United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 3)

255 The United States attributes significance to the fact that Japan abandoned its claim before the Panel regarding the consistency of zeroing in the context of W-T comparisons in original investigations. According to the United States, this confirms that Japan “appreciated that the evidence [before the Panel] did not support the existence of a [United States] unwritten measure” as it relates to W-T comparisons in original investi gations. (United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 23) Before the Panel, Japan rejected the notion that the with drawal of its claim regarding the use of zeroing under the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 indicated a lack of evidentiary basis upon which to conclude that the zeroing procedures apply in the context of the W-T comparisons in original inves tigations. Japan claimed, instead, that “there is a single [zeroing] measure that applies to [W-W] comparisons, [T-T] com parisons and IW-T] comparisons, used in any type of anti dumping proceeding” and that “[w]ith respect to [that] single zeroing measure, Japan makes a series of claims.” (Panel Report, para. 6.19) (original emphasis)

256 See Panel Report, footnote 688 to para. 7.53.

257 Ibid., para. 7.53. (footnote omitted)

258 See Request for Consultations by Japan, WT/DS322/1, 29 November 2004.

259 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 17. The United States referred to Articles 6.2 and 7.1 of the DSU in its Notice of Other Appeal and in its other appellant's submission. However, at the oral hearing, the United States explained that it is not requesting the Appellate Body to make a specific finding that the Panel failed to comply with these provisions. Instead, the United States refers to those provisions as arguments in support of its claim that the Panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU. We understand the references to Articles 3.3 and 4.2 in the United States’ Notice of Other Appeal and in the United States’ other appellant's submission in the same way.

260 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 18.

261 Ibid., para. 18 and footnote 29 thereto.

262 Article 7.1 of the DSU. Article 6.2 of the DSU provides that a panel request shall “identify the specific measures at issue and provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint sufficient to present the problem clearly.“

263 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Japan, WT/ DS322/8, 7 February 2005 (attached as Annex III to this Report), p. 2, item B.I.(a).

264 Request for Consultations by Japan, WT/DS322/1,29 Novem ber 2004, p. 1.

265 Ibid., p. 2, item (6).

266 Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU do not “require a precise and exact identity between the specific measures that were the subject of consultations and the specific measures identified in the [panel] request” (Appellate Body Report, Brazil-Aircraft, para. 132 (emphasis in original)), as long as the complaining party does not expand the scope of the dispute. Requiring such an identity “would substitute the request for consultations for the panel request.” (Appellate Body Report, US - Upland Cotton, para. 293) We need not reach this question because we have found above that the use of “zeroing procedures” in the context of all types of anti-dumping proceedings, and regardless of the comparison methodology used, was covered in both the request for consultations and in the panel request, which defines a panel's terms of reference.

267 United States’ other appellant's submission, para. 18.

268 Japan's appellee's submission, para. 18 (quoting Appellate Body Report, Mexico - Corn Syrup (Article 21.5 - US), para. 63).

269 United States’ other appellant's submission, paras. 32-33 and 34(b).

270 We examine the WTO-consistency of zeroing under the T-T comparison methodology below.

271 These issues are described, supra, in para. 71(b)-(d).

272 For a description of “model zeroing” and “simple zeroing“ See,supra, footnotes 13 and 14.

273 Panel Report, para. 7.86.

274 Panel Report, para. 7.142.

275 Ibid., para. 7.112.

276 Ibid., para. 7.119.

277 Ibid.

278 Ibid., para. 7.114.

279 Ibid., para. 7.127.

280 See Ibid., para. 7.139.

281 Panel Report, para. 7.143.

282 Ibid., para. 7.158.

283 See Ibid., para. 7.159.

284 See Ibid., paras. 7.210, 7.211, 7.216, 7.218 and 7.219.

285 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 9. (footnote omitted)

286 Ibid., para. 15.

287 See Ibid., paras. 9 and 16.

288 Ibid., para. 16 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), paras. 130-133).

289 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 17. (original emphasis)

290 United States’ appellee's submission, para. 18.

291 Ibid.

292 Ibid., para. 51.

293 Ibid.

294 Ibid., para. 54 (quoting Panel Report, para. 7.199).

295 United States’ appellee's submission, para. 73.

296 See Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 93. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, paras. 109 and 127.

297 See Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 125.

298 Article 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

299 In certain cases, however, an investigating authority may, in accordance with Articles 6.10 and 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, determine an anti-dumping duty rate to be applied to exporters and foreign producers who were not individually examined. Article 8.1 also speaks of voluntary undertakings in relation to exporters.

300 In this regard, Article VI: 1 of the GATT 1994 states that dumping “is to be condemned if it causes or threatens material injury to an established industry in the territory of a Member or materially retards the establishment of a domestic industry'. Article VI:6(a) also stipulates that no anti-dumping duty shall be levied unless the importing Member “determines that the effect of the dumping… is such as to cause or threaten material injury to an established domestic industry, or is such as to retard materially the establishment of a domestic industry.” Article 11.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement further provides that “[a]n anti-dumping duty shall remain in force only as long as and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury.“

301 We note in this regard that Article 9.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement encourages levy of anti-dumping duties at less than the margin of dumping if such lesser duty would be adequate to remove the injury to the domestic industry.

302 This definition is usually made in the light of an application under Article 5.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement or, in special circumstances, under Article 5.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

303 See Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, paras. 93 and 96.

304 See Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5-Canada), paras. 87-93. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, paras. 93 and 96.

305 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 97; Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 87.

306 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 87. See also paras. 94 and 114 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 98).

307 The Panel noted that the withdrawal of Japan's claim under the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 “does not in any way detract from the significance of this sentence as an important contextual element that must necessarily be taken into account in any analysis of the issue of zeroing.” (Panel Report, para. 7.127 and footnote 765 thereto) We agree that the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 may be relevant for the interpretation of the first sentence, irrespective of the withdrawal by Japan of its claim under that sentence.

308 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 87. The Appellate Body explained that the reference in the first sentence of Article 2.4.2 to “export prices”, in the plural, in the phrase “a comparison of normal value and export prices on a [T-T] basis” “suggests that the comparison will generally involve multiple transactions”. (Ibid.)

309 Ibid.

310 Ibid.

311 Ibid, para. 122.

312 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 98. (original emphasis)

313 See Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 64.

314 The Panel in this dispute adhered to the finding of the Appel late Body in Softwood Lumber V, and concluded that the model zeroing procedures of the United States in W-W com parisons in the context of original investigations are, as such, inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. (Panel Report, para. 7.85) The United States has not appealed this finding of the Panel.

315 See Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 91.

316 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 93.

317 Ibid. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), footnote 238 to para. 141.

318 See,supra, paras. Ill, 112, and 114, and Articles 6.10 and 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

319 For example, when the investigating authority considers im ports as being “dumped” for the purposes of an injury determi nation under Article 3; and, when assessing the amount of anti-dumping duty to be levied on the “product” under Articles 9.2-9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.

320 See,supra, paras. 113-114.

321 We recognize that the issue of injury determination is not before us in this case. We are not suggesting that an injury determination would be vitiated if the volume of imports involved in the zeroed transactions is not taken into account for the purposes of the injury determination.

322 In US - Softwood Lumber V, the Appellate Body stated: Our view that “dumping” and “margins of dumping “can only be established for the product under investigation as a whole is in consonance with the need for consistent treatment of a product in an anti-dumping investigation. Thus, having de fined the product under investigation, the investigating author ity must treat that product as a whole for, inter alia, the following purposes: determination of the volume of dumped imports, injury determination, causal link between dumped imports and injury to domestic industry, and calculation of the margin of dumping. Moreover, according to Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, an anti-dumping duty can be levied only on a dumped product. For all these purposes, the product under investigation is treated as a wholef.] (Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 99) (original emphasis)

323 See Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V, para. 97; Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 132; and Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), paras. 87-93.

324 See Panel Report, para. 7.112.

325 Ibid., para. 7.119.

326 Panel Report, para. 7.119.

327 Ibid., para. 7.114.

328 Panel Report, paras. 7.138 and 7.139.

329 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 99. (emphasis added)

330 Ibid., para. 97.

331 See Ibid., para. 99.

332 Ibid., para. 100. (original emphasis) See also Panel Report, para. 7.125. There, the Panel recognized that “to interpret Article 2.4.2 as permitting the use of zeroing under the [T-T] methodfology] raises the question under what circumstances it would not be possible to take account of a pattern of export prices described in the second sentence of Article 2.4.2 by using the [T-T] method[ology].“

333 See Panel Report, para. 7.139.

334 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 122.

335 See Appellate Body Report, US - FSC (Article 21.5 - EC), para. 85. See also Appellate Body Report, US - DRAMS, para. 205 and footnote 377 thereto.

336 Appellate Body Report, Australia - Salmon, para. 223. We recognize that Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 is not merely a definitional provision. Nevertheless, given our finding under Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, we do not con sider it necessary to make an additional finding on Japan's claim under Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 for purposes of resolving this dispute.

337 Panel Report, para. 7.158.

338 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 133.

339 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 134.

340 Ibid.

341 United States’ appellee's submission, para. 51.

342 Ibid., para. 52 (referring to Appellate Body Report, US - Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 243).

343 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 139.

344 Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 142.

345 Ibid.

346 See,supra, para. 137. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 -Canada), para. 122.

347 See,supra, footnote 3.

348 Panel Report, paras. 7.216, 7.219, 7.222, and 7.259(b).

349 Panel Report, para. 7.194.

350 See,supra, paras. 108-115.

351 See Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 104; AppellateBody Report, US - Zero ing (EC), para. 126; and Appellate Body Report, US - Soft wood Lumber V, para. 93.

352 Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 132. Rather, they are merely “inputs that are aggregated in order to establish the margin of dumping of the product under investigation for each exporter or producer.” (Appellate Body Report, US - Softwood Lumber V (Article 21.5 - Canada), para. 87)

353 Panel Report, para. 7.196.

354 Ibid.

355 Ibid., para. 7.198. (original emphasis)

356 Article 9.4(ii) provides that an anti-dumping duty applied to imports from exporters or foreign producers not examined individually shall not exceed, “where the liability for payment of anti-dumping duties is calculated on the basis of a prospec tive normal value, the difference between the weighted aver age normal value of the selected exporters or producers and the export prices of exporters or producers not individually examined.“

357 Panel Report, para. 7.198.

358 Ibid, (original emphasis)

359 Ibid., para. 7.199.

360 Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 130.

361 The chapeau of Article 9.3 provides that “[t]he amount of anti-dumping duty shall not exceed the margin of dumping as established in Article 2.“

362 Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 130. (original emphasis)

363 Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 131. The Appellate Body has stated that, “under the methodology cur-rently applied by the USDOC to assess anti-dumping duties, the aggregation of the results of the multiple comparisons performed at an intermediate stage might result in a negative value, for a given importer, if zeroing is not allowed. Of course, this would not mean that the authorities would be required under the Anti-Dumping Agreement or Article VI of the GATT 1994 to compensate an importer for the amount of that negative value (that is, when export prices exceed normal value).” (Ibid., footnote 234 to para. 131)

364 Ibid, (original emphasis)

365 Panel Report, para. 7.199.

366 Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 129.

367 In a prospective normal value system, the authorities announce in advance a prospective normal value that applies to future entries of a given product and anti-dumping duties are assessed on the basis of the difference between this “prospective normal value” and the prices of individual export transactions for that product.

368 Panel Report, para. 7.202 (quoting Japan's oral statement at the second Panel meeting, para. 32). (emphasis added)

369 Ibid., para. 7.204. (original emphasis)

370 Ibid, (emphasis added by the Panel)

371 Ibid, (original emphasis)

372 Ibid.

373 Ibid, para. 7.205.

374 See,supra, para. 114.

375 Panel Report, para. 7.198.

376 Ibid, para. 7.205.

377 Ibid.

378 Ibid., paras. 7.206.

379 See Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 131.

380 See,supra, paras. 150 and 151.

381 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 180.

382 This is subject to the proviso that such new shippers “can show that they are not related to any of theexporters or producers in the exporting country who are subject to the anti-dumping duties on the product.” (Article 9.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement)

383 See,supra, paras. 111-112 and 114.

384 For our interpretation of Article 2.4 See,supra, para. 146.

385 See,supra, para. 155.

386 Our approach here is consistent with the Appellate Body's approach in US - Zeroing (EC). (See Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 147)

387 Panel Report, paras. 7.225-7.227.

388 Panel Report, para. 7.226.

389 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 178.

390 See Ibid, and footnote 213 thereto. Japan also states that it is not pursuing its claim under Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

391 See,supra, paras. 166 and 169.

392 Appellate Body Report, US - Zeroing (EC), para. 133.

393 See,supra, para. 140.

394 “Final Results of Expedited Sunset Reviews: Antifriction Bearings From Japan” (USDOC sunset review in case number A-588-804), United States Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 213 (4 November 1999), p. 60275 (Exhibit JPN-22 submitted by Japan to the Panel); “Final Results of Full Sunset Reviews: Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Japan“ (USDOC sunset review in case number A-588-826), United States Federal Register, Vol. 65, No. 149 (2 August 2000), p. 47380 (Exhibit JPN-23 submitted by Japan to the Panel).

395 See Panel Report, para. 7.255. In our discussion, we refer to the USDOC's determination of continuation or recurrence of dumping as the “likelihood-of-dumping determination”.

396 Ibid, para. 7.256.

397 See Ibid, para. 7.257.

398 Japan's appellant's submission, para. 196.

399 Ibid., para. 197. We note that, on appeal, Japan does not pursue its claims regarding Articles 1, 2.4.2, 9.1-9.3, 11.1, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. (See Ibid, para. 197 and footnote 233 thereto) We further note that Japan does not appeal the Panel's conclusion regarding the USITC's likelihood-of-in- jury determination. Nor does Japan appeal the Panel's finding that Japan had failed to make a prima facie case that, by maintaining zeroing procedures in the context of changed circumstances and sunset reviews, the USDOC acted inconsistently with Articles 2 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

400 See United States’ appellee's submission, para. 75.

401 Appellate Body Report, US - Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 283 (quoting Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 111).

402 Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 113.

403 Ibid., para. 114 (quoting Panel Report in US - Corrosion- Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 7.271).

404 Ibid.

405 Ibid., para. 127. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 180.

406 Appellate Body Report, 175 - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 127. See also Appellate Body Report, US - Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews, para. 180; and Appellate Body Report, US - Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods, para. 181.

407 Appellate Body Report, US - Corrosion-Resistant Steel Sunset Review, para. 130.

408 Panel Report, para. 7.255.

409 Ibid, para. 7.256.

410 See supra, paras. 166 and 169.

411 Appellate Body Report, Australia - Salmon, para. 223. See also Japan's responses to questions at the oral hearing.

412 See Panel Report, para. 7.142. See also United States’ appel lee's submission, paras. 30 and 34.

413 See Panel Report, paras7.143, 7.161 and 7.259(a).

414 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.92 to 7.102, 7.104 to 7.112, 7.118 to 7.120, 7.139, and 7.141to 7.143.

415 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.118 to 7.120, 7.127 to 7.143.

416 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.157 to 7.161.

417 See Panel Report, paras. 7.216, 7.219, 7.222, and 7.259(b).

418 See, for example. Panel Report, paras. 7.194 to 7.209, 7.216, 7.221 and 7.222.

419 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.194 to 7.209, 7.216, 7.221 and 7.222.

420 See, for example. Panel Report, paras. 7.218 and 7.219. See also Panel Report, paras. 7.157 to 7.160, and 7.196 to 7.209.

421 See Panel Report, paras. 7.227 and 7.259(c).

422 See Panel Report, paras. 7.226 and 7.227.

423 See Panel Report, paras. 7.216, 7.219, 7.222, and 7.259(b).

424 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.194 to 7.209, 7.216, 7.221 and 7.222.

425 See, for example, Panel Report, paras. 7.218 and 7.219. See also Panel Report, paras.7.157 to 7.160 and 7.196 to 7.209.

426 See Panel Report, paras. 7.257 and 7.259(e).

427 See also Panel Report, paras. 7.256 and 7.257.

428 Panel Report, paras. 7.34 through 7.59, 7.90, 7.143, 7.161, 7.166, 7.170, 7.175, and 7.259(a).

429 WT/DS322/1 (24 November 2004).