International Trade Law News /title <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" ""> <html xmlns="" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <meta name="verify-v1" content="6kFGcaEvnPNJ6heBYemQKQasNtyHRZrl1qGh38P0b6M=" /> <head> <title>International Trade Law News

« Home | Senate Sets Vote to Confirm New Secretary of Comme... » | DDTC Creates Web Site Dedicated to Electronic Repo... » | ITC Holds Preliminary Conference In Antiduming Inv... » | CBP Issues Update Informed Compliance Publication ... » | Guilty Plea Entered in U.N. Oil-For-Food Program C... » | AAEI Extends Deadline for Customs Exam Data Collec... » | Jim Lyons Names as ITC's General Counsel » | ALJ Reduces Civil Penalties Proposed by OFAC for C... » | NYT Article Discusses Recent U.S. Sanctions Impose... » | President Continues to Suspend Lawsuit Provision o... » 

January 23, 2005 

Federal Circuit Upholds Use of Zeroing in Antidumping Investigations

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has recently upheld the Commerce Department's zeroing methodology in antidumping investigations. In Corus Staal BV v. Dep't of Commerce, released by the court on January 21, 2005, the CAFC affirmed the decision by the U.S. Court of International Trade in Corus Staal BV v. Dep't of Commerce, 283 F. Supp. 2d 1357 (Ct. Int'l Trade 2003), which affirmed the Commerce Department's zeroing methodology to calculate the weighted-average dumping margin for imports of Corus' hot-rolled steel products from the Netherlands in an antidumping investigation.

The "zeroing methodology" refers to the Commerce Department's practice of using only positive dumping margins for purposes of calculating the weighted-average dumping margin and giving negative dumping margins a value of zero. The
Cato Institute's Center for Trade Policy Studies calls the use of zeroing "
a significant cause of the systemic overestimation of dumping margins and subsequent application of inflated antidumping duties."

Corus argued that the Commerce Department's zeroing methodology was: (1) inconsistent with the statutory scheme for conducting antidumping investigations; and (2) violated the United States' obligation to conform to World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions prohibiting zeroing. However, the CAFC upheld the CIT's decision by finding that zeroing in antidumping investigations
is permitted under U.S. law and that the Commerce Department is not obligated to incorporate WTO decisions in its interpretation of U.S. law.

As a result of the CAFC's recent decision in Corus, and the CAFC's prior decision in Timken Co. v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (which upheld the use of zeroing in antidumping administrative reviews), the Commerce Department's use of zeroing will continue unless Congress amends the antidumping statute to conform to the WTO's Antidumping Agreement.

The CAFC's opinion in Corus Staal BV v. Dep't of Commerce can be viewed at the following link:

Very cool design! Useful information. Go on!
» » »

Post a Comment



Subscribe to our confidential mailing list

Mobile Version

Search Trade Law News

International Trade and Compliance Jobs

Jobs from Indeed




  • This Site is presented for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed when you use this Site. Do not consider the Site to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney. The information on this Site may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While we try to revise this Site on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed on this Site are the opinions of the individual author.
  • The content on this Site may be reproduced and/or distributed in whole or in part, provided that its source is indicated as "International Trade Law News,".
  • ©2003-2015. All rights reserved.

Translate This Site

Powered by Blogger