Complaint by China.
On 28 February 2011, China requested consultations with the United States regarding the latter's anti-dumping measures on certain frozen warmwater shrimp from China. China alleges that the US Department of Commerce's (“USDOC”) use of zeroing in the original investigation and several administrative reviews to calculate dumping margins for the subject imports is inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. China further asserts that the USDOC's reliance, in the sunset review, on the dumping margins calculated in the original investigation and administrative reviews is inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article 11.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 11 March 2011, Japan requested to join the consultations.
On 22 July 2011, China requested complementary consultations with the United States with regard to the zeroing practice by the USDOC in its anti-dumping measures on diamond sawblades and parts thereof from China. China alleges that the USDOC's zeroing practice has artificially created or, at a minimum, inflated dumping margins for the individually investigated respondents. China considers that the zeroing practices in the cited measures are inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2.1, 2.4, 2.4.2, 5.8, 9.2, 9.3, and 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
On 13 October 2011, China requested the establishment of panel. On 13 October 2011, China and the United States informed the DSB of an Agreement on Procedures.
The DSB established a panel on October 25, 2011 and the parties agreed to the composition of the panel on December 21, 2011, as follows: Mr. Alberto Juan Dumont, Chair; and Mr. Ernesto Fernández and Ms. Stephanie Sin Far Lee, Members.
The Panel circulated its report on June 8, 2012. The Panel found the use of zeroing in the two final less than fair value determinations and the antidumping duty orders was inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement.
Neither party appealed the Panel’s findings. On July 23, 2012, the DSB adopted its recommendations and rulings in this dispute. At that DSB meeting, the United States informed the DSB of its intention to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in connection with this matter. The United States and China agreed that the reasonable period of time for the United States to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB would end on March 23, 2013.
On March 4, 2013, Commerce issued to interested parties final determinations pursuant to section 129(b)(2) of the URAA with respect to issues in this dispute. On March 22, 2013, USTR directed Commerce to implement its final determinations. On March 28, 2013, a notice was published in the Federal Register announcing the implementation of Commerce’s final determinations, effective March 22, 2013 (78 FR 18958). On March 26, 2013, the United States reported to the DSB that it has brought the measures at issue in this dispute into full compliance with the DSB recommendations and rulings.
| Brief Date | Brief Description |
|---|---|
| 03/13/2012 | U.S. Answers to the Panel's Written Questions |
| 02/09/2012 | Non-Confidential Summary of China's First Written Submission |
| 02/09/2012 | First Written Submission of the United States |
