What's New?
 - Sitemap - Calendar
Trade Agreements - FTAA Process - Trade Issues 

espa�ol - fran�ais - portugu�s
Search

WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION

WT/DS179/R
22 December 2000

(00-5484)

Original: English

UNITED STATES � ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON
STAINLESS STEEL PLATE IN COILS AND STAINLESS
STEEL SHEET AND STRIP
FROM KOREA

Report of the Panel

(Continued)


ANNEX 3-2

FIRST SUBMISSION OF JAPAN

(5 June 2000)

CONTENTS

  1. BURDEN OF PROOF 
     
  2. ARTICLE 2.3 OF THE ADA - CONSTRUCTION OF EXPORT PRICE 
  1. ADJUSTMENTS ALLOWED UNDER ARTICLE 2.3 ARE NOT WITHOUT LIMITATIONS 
     
  2. ARTICLE 2.4 ONLY ALLOWS ADJUSTMENTS "INCURRED BETWEEN IMPORTATION AND RESALE"
  1. ARTICLE 2.4 - "DIFFERENCES IN CONDITION AND TERMS OF SALE" 
  1. REQUIREMENT THAT A CONDITION IS AN "ELEMENT OF PRICE" WAS NOT MET 
     
  2. REQUIREMENT THAT THERE IS A "DIFFERENCE" WAS NOT MET 
     
  3. THE US HAS APPLIED INCONSISTENT POLICIES TO DISADVANTAGE FOREIGN RESPONDENTS 
  1. ARTICLE 2.4.2 - AVERAGE-TO-AVERAGE COMPARISONS
  1. VARIATIONS IN PRICING AMONG TIME PERIODS ARE ONLY RELEVANT FOR THE PURPO SES OF DETERMINING WHETHER TO USE A PREFERRED OR SECONDARY COMPARISON METHODOLOGY UNDER ARTICLE 2.4.2 
     
  2. VARIATIONS IN PRICING AFTER EXCHANGE RATE CONVERSIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER A SALE IS "COMPARABLE" 


I. BURDEN OF PROOF

1. It is well-established by panel and Appellate Body decisions that the initial burden of proof is on the complaining party to establish a prima facie case.1 Japan believes that Korea has met that burden in this proceeding.

2. In its submission, the US makes no specific allegations that Korea has failed to meet the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case. Instead, the US simply urges the panel to recognize the basic principle that the initial burden to establish a prima facie case lies with the complaining party.2

3. Although the US makes repeated references to the WTO decisions that have addressed burden of proof issues, the US fails to acknowledge that once the complaining party has established its prima facie case, the onus then shifts to the responding or defending party to bring forward evidence and argument.3 Furthermore, in the discussion of the burden of proof in this dispute, the relationship between Article VI of GATT 1994 and the Anti-Dumping Agreement ("ADA") on the one hand, and the other Articles of the GATT that establish primary obligations on the other should be dully considered.

4. In examining the relationship between Article VI and the primary obligations of the GATT 1994, it is important to recall that GATT 1994 and its associated agreements represent a collection of "positive rules" and "limited exceptions." As the Appellate Body has recently acknowledged, positive rules establish the basic obligations of any Member.4 Positive rules, such as Article I:1 and II:1, specify actions that must be taken by Members to ensure the integrity of the WTO. These obligations are not dependent on the actions of other Members, but rather are basic obligations that must be honoured by all Members. Limited exceptions, on the other hand, represent exceptions from the basic obligations established by positive rules.

5. Between these two categories, it is clear that Article VI and the ADA do not represent "basic rights" or "positive rules".5 Article VI and ADA are not positive rules because the disciplines in these provisions do not apply generally to all imports, and do not require a Member to take positive actions with respect to those imports. Article VI is not constructed or drafted to impose any positive obligation. Instead, Article VI provides a discretionary remedy that is allowable as a reaction to actions taken by particular companies within a Member. Article VI allows a "reaction" to commercial conduct of private parties.

6. This stands in contrast to Article I, which obligates Members to bestow most-favoured nation treatment on imports from WTO Members. Similarly, Article II is distinct in that the provision obligates Members to honour the schedule of tariff concessions. The basic obligations of these Articles are not in any way contingent on the actions of other Members. They are universal obligations that may be avoided only if a limited exception is invoked.

7. Thus, based on the architecture of GATT 1994, it is clear that Article VI and the ADA are distinct from the basic obligations such as those found in Article I, II, III or XI. Article VI and the ADA carve out a "limited exception" from the obligations established by the basic GATT Articles.

8. Taking these nature of Article VI and the ADA into consideration, whether the defending Member met the burden of justifying a measure under Article VI and the ADA after the complaining Member has established a prima facie case should be subjected to careful scrutiny.

II. ARTICLE 2.3 OF THE ADA - CONSTRUCTION OF EXPORT PRICE

9. As discussed in this section and in Section III below, Japan believes that the US has failed to demonstrate that the adjustments made to export price and normal value for the sales to the bad debt customer were in accordance with Article 2.3 and Article 2.4 of the ADA. As a result, the US did not ensure a fair comparison, as required by Article 2.4.

10. In both the stainless steel plate in coils and the stainless steel sheet and strip sheet investigations, the US made adjustments to POSCO for bad debt expenses incurred in the US With respect to sales made through POSCO's affiliate - POSAM-, the US asserts that the adjustment for bad debt expenses was authorized under Article 2.3.6 According to the US, it deducted the bad debt expenses in the US from the "starting export price" to derive a "constructed export price."7 The US position is that its deduction was permitted by Article 2.3, and the fourth sentence of Article 2.4, which authorizes deductions for certain costs associated with selling through an affiliated importer.8

A. ADJUSTMENTS ALLOWED UNDER ARTICLE 2.3 ARE NOT WITHOUT LIMITATIONS

11. The US position is untenable for several reasons. First, the US does not acknowledge that there are limitations or constraints on investigating Members in making a downward adjustment to starting export price pursuant to Article 2.3. Contrary to the US position, Article 2.3 does not authorize every conceivable adjustment to starting export price in deriving constructed export price. Instead, Article 2.3 limit the type of downward adjustments that may be made to the starting export price.

12. If there were no limitations to Article 2.3, investigating Members would be permitted to make any adjustment to the starting export price. In this scenario, there would be no requirement for the investigating Member, and this means that there would be a basis to infer that the expense was somehow "included in" or an "element of" the starting export price. Without any limitations on the operation of Article 2.3, there would be no analysis of whether the expense was incurred exclusively because the export was made through an affiliated importer, and not sold directly to an export customer.9 In short, the US reading of Article 2.3. would leave the investigating Member with unlimited discretion to make any downward adjustment to the starting export price, without any disciplines or restraints.

13. Contrary to the US interpretation, it is clear that there are some limitations as to what types of downward adjustments may be made to the starting export price when constructing export price. The position of Japan is that such an adjustment is authorized by Article 2.3 only if the investigating Member establishes affirmatively that there is a basis to infer that the underlying cost or expense was included in the composition of starting export price because the sale was made through an affiliated importer.

14. This interpretation recognizes that the purpose of Article 2.3 is to enable an authority to eliminate elements of export price that are attributable to the fact that the sale was made through an affiliated importer.

15. In this case, there is no evidence that the bad debt expense was included in starting export price of POSAM, and that a deduction was necessary to construct an export price. The US never established a nexus between this theoretical expense and the fact that it was sold through an affiliated importer. This deficiency is also demonstrated by the fact that the US made a similar adjustment for bad debt expenses for POSCO's sales made directly to US customers, (in this case, POSAM did not intervene in the transactions). The US seemed to conclude that the adjustment of the bad debt could be done without any particular connection to the fact that the sales were made through an affiliated importer. The US decision demonstrates that the US believed the bad debt expense had affected all US sales, not just those made through the affiliated importer. Thus the US adjustment was not authorized or appropriate by virtue of Article 2.3.

B. ARTICLE 2.4 ONLY ALLOWS ADJUSTMENTS "INCURRED BETWEEN IMPORTATION AND RESALE"

16. Second, the US argues that the adjustment to starting price in constructing export price was authorized by the fourth sentence of Article 2.4. According to the US, that sentence governs exclusively adjustments made to starting export price to derive constructed export price. However, the US ignores the plain language of that sentence. The fourth sentence of Article 2.4 allows adjustments for costs only if the costs are "incurred between importation and resale."

17. In its submission, the US relies on the clause "costs incurred between importation and resale" in order to justify this deduction. In particular, the US states that the adjustment was " a deduction made to construct the export price."10 However, the US never establishes or even assumes that this was a cost that was incurred between importation and resale. In fact, it is clear that the bad debt expense was an expense incurred after resale. Given the explicit temporal limitation of the fourth sentence of Article 2.4, the US was not authorized to make an adjustment to starting export price to construct an export price for an event that occurred after the resale to the first unaffiliated customer.

18. As such, the panel should find that the US decision to make an adjustment to starting export price for the unpaid sales was not consistent with the requirements of Article 2.3 and Article 2.4 of the ADA.

III. ARTICLE 2.4 - "DIFFERENCES IN CONDITION AND TERMS OF SALE"

19. During the period of investigation, POSCO made sales in the US through its affiliated importer, as well as directly to US customers. For those sales made directly to US customers, the US also made an adjustment for the bad debt expenses. The US asserts that this adjustment was justified by the third sentence of Article 2.4. In particular, the US argues that the adjustment for lack of payment was permitted under the clause "differences in conditions and terms" of the third sentence of Article 2.4. The US states that "it interprets differences in 'conditions and terms of sale' as including differences in selling expenses such as bad debt."11 Moreover, the US clarifies that it believes the bad debt expense is a "condition," implicitly conceding that bad debt expense is not a "term" of sale.12

A. REQUIREMENT THAT A CONDITION IS AN "ELEMENT OF PRICE" WAS NOT MET

20. The US acknowledged that, in order for a condition of sale to qualify for a due allowance adjustment stipulated in Article 2.4, the condition must be an "element of price"13, because it is fair to presume that the condition affects price comparability if there is a basis to conclude that a factor is an "element of price". According to the US, if a condition affects price comparability, it is eligible for an Article 2.4, third sentence, due allowance adjustment.14

21. The critical aspect of the US analysis relates to when there is a basis to conclude that a condition is an "element of price." The US and Korea appear to agree that in some cases the seller will know of the conditions at the time of sale.15 In its submission, however, the US argues that there is a second category of conditions where the conditions, and the cost of the conditions, are not known precisely to the seller.16 In these circumstances, the US argues, that the seller nevertheless "anticipates" or should anticipate the cost. In these cases, the US appears to believe it is fair to presume that these costs are also an element of price.17

22. The US analysis is generally correct that in order for a cost to affect price comparability, it must be an element of price. The US analysis is also correct in concluding that some costs are not known precisely to a seller at the time of sale. Last, the US is generally correct that where the condition is not known to the seller, but there is a basis to conclude the seller "anticipated" the costs, it is reasonable to presume the cost was an element of price. The important implication of this last observation is that unless a seller knows of a condition, or is in a position to anticipate the condition, there is no basis to conclude the condition was an element of price.

23. Japan believes that even based on the analysis advanced by the US, the US has failed to demonstrate that the bad debt adjustment was warranted under Article 2.4. In particular, the US provides no evidence that POSCO anticipated or should have anticipated the bad debt expenses related to the US sales during the period of investigation. Therefore there is no basis to conclude that POSCO was mindful of this condition in its composition of price to any of its US customers.

24. The US decision that the bad debt expenses were an element of price is unusual given the US conventional treatment of home market warranty expenses.18 In its anti-dumping investigations, the US has a practice of evaluating a company's prior knowledge when addressing warranty expenses in its home market. In its investigations, the US requires exporters to provide an overview of their warranty expenses for three years prior to the period of investigation.19

25. There is no evidence in the proceedings underlying this dispute that the US requested or considered a history of default expenses in the US relevant in establishing a likelihood of default (and therefore an impact on price comparability for sales made during the period). Since there was no basis to conclude that POSCO anticipated, or should have anticipated, these default expenses in the US, there is no basis to conclude that these expenses were an "element of price." Therefore, the expenses were not a "condition" for the sales made during the period of investigation.20

B. REQUIREMENT THAT THERE IS A "DIFFERENCE" WAS NOT MET

26. Furthermore, the US analysis fails to consider the important requirement of Article 2.4 that any adjustment or allowance be based on a finding of a "difference." Thus, in order for the US to justify the upward adjustment to normal value for the US bad debt expenses, the US would need to establish there was some "difference" between the composition of price for US sales related to potential bad debt, and the composition of price for home market sales related to potential bad debt.

27. The US presumption of a difference at the time the prices were composed in the respective markets is unsupported by the evidence in the underlying proceedings.

28. The fact remains that the US never established a "difference" in the conditions of sale as an element of price as between the US market and the Korean market at the time the sales were made in the respective markets. Absent some reason to conclude that, at the time POSCO established its prices with the customers in the two markets, POSCO included a different and exceptional mark-up for bad debt expenses in the US market, the adjustment proposed by the US is not authorized by Article 2.4. The US failed to demonstrate that: (1) the post-facto bankruptcy of the US customer (ABC company) was a condition of sale at the time the prices for all US sales were established (i.e., there was no basis to conclude this condition was an element of price) and (2) there was in fact a "difference" in the composition of pricing in either market for this element for this condition.

C. THE US HAS APPLIED INCONSISTENT POLICIES TO DISADVANTAGE FOREIGN RESPONDENTS

29. In its submission, Korea establishes that the US decision to make a downward adjustment to US price for the unpaid sales violates Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994. In particular, Korea demonstrates that the US decision was not a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner in accordance with the obligation of Article X:3(a).

30. The bias in the US methodology is especially pronounced when one considers how the US reacts in situations where an exporter had delinquent customer in the home market, and a downward direct selling expense adjustment to normal value would have benefited the exporter in the margin calculations. In a recent proceeding involving a Brazilian exporter, a Brazilian company had sales in the home market where it was doubtful that the company would ever be paid by the home market customers.21 In the proceeding, the US did not make a downward "due allowance" adjustment to normal value for the expense of these sales, consistent with the principles of its decision in the Korean cases underlying this dispute. Instead, in the underlying proceeding, the US reversed its philosophy completely to avoid a favorable downward adjustment to normal value.

31. In that proceeding, the US elected to "presume" that the company would ultimately collect payment from the home market customers, and also that the company would collect penalty interest for the period between the original due date and the ultimate date payment was received. This presumption was made despite the company's affirmations that it was unlikely to collect the underlying value for the sale from the customer.22

32. In justifying its decision, the US noted that it is reasonable to presume that a company, when faced with non-paying customers, would take prospective action. The US Department of Commerce ("DOC") observed: "if a company over time does not receive a significant portion of payments, the company would certainly try to minimize this loss by discontinuing selling to, or altering the level of business conducted with these customers."23

33. Importantly, the US DOC's decision emphasizes an impact of the non-payment on future sales. That is, it is only proper to presume that a seller will take into account this "condition" prospectively. Thus, the DOC has recognized the important requirement of knowledge at the time of sale in order to find an impact on pricing and price comparability.

34. The US DOC's analysis in the Brazilian proceeding reveals that its evaluation of the facts with respect to POSCO, and whether the facts demonstrated a difference that affected price comparability, was biased. Apparently, when faced with non-payment in the home market, the US will make the adverse assumption that payment and penalty interest will be received. Said differently, the US will assume that the anticipation of customer's default in the home market was not an element of price, because it can be presumed that the seller will eventually be paid for the sales, and recover its revenue.

35. On the other hand, when faced with non-payment related to export sales, the US will make the opposite assumption (i.e., that payment and penalty interest will not be received, and that the exporter anticipated, or should have anticipated this at the time it made the export sales). Such inconsistent policies fails the requirements of the authorities in Article 17.6 (i) that the establishment of facts be "proper" and the evaluation of those facts be "unbiased and objective." To the contrary, the US approach reflects an outcome determinative approach to its investigations. This outcome determinative approach also violates the requirement of Article X:3(a) that the US administration of its anti-dumping laws be impartial.

IV. ARTICLE 2.4.2 - AVERAGE-TO-AVERAGE COMPARISONS

36. In its submission, Korea addresses the US decision to split the period of investigation for purposes of its average-to-average comparisons.24 In response, the US argues that its decision to split the period was allowable under Article 2.4.2 because Article 2.4.2. requires average-to-average comparisons of only "comparable" transactions. The US position is that since home market sales before the devaluation are not comparable to export sales made after the devaluation, it adopted an average-to-average comparison methodology that separately compared US sales before the devaluation with Korean sales before the devaluation.25

A. VARIATIONS IN PRICING AMONG TIME PERIODS ARE ONLY RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINING WHETHER TO USE A PREFERRED OR SECONDARY COMPARISON METHODOLOGY UNDER ARTICLE 2.4.2

37. The US position fails to take into account the hierarchy of comparisons within Article 2.4.2. In addition, the US methodology fails to recognize the limited circumstances in which Article 2.4.2 authorizes investigating Members to depart from the preferred methodologies identified in the first sentence of Article 2.4.2.

38. Article 2.4.2 creates a plain hierarchy between "preferred" comparison methodologies in the first sentence (i.e., average-to-average, or transaction-to-transaction), and a "secondary" methodology in the second sentence (i.e., export sale to average normal value). Article 2.4.2 is explicit in that it authorizes the use of the secondary methodology only in certain circumstances. One of the primary conditions for the use of the secondary methodology in Article 2.4.2 is if there are variations in export pricing such that an average-to-average comparison would not take the variations into account. The US has not claimed that the circumstances in the underlying investigations warranted the use of this secondary methodology of Article 2.4.2. Importantly, Article 2.4.2 does not authorize the use of the secondary comparison methodology if there are variations in normal value pricing, either before or after conversion into a particular currency.

39. Recognizing that Article 2.4.2. authorizes the use of a secondary methodology only in the particular circumstances in which the preferred comparison methodologies will not account for export pricing variations over a period, it would be an impermissible interpretation of Article 2.4.2. to conclude that a modification to the average-to-average comparison methodology under the first sentence is permissible when there are variations in normal value pricing. That is, the investigating authority must decide whether an average-to-average approach over the entire period does or does not capture variations in pricing over the period of investigation. If the Member decides circumstances do not justify the use of the secondary methodology, then the Member must use one of the preferred methodologies, without outcome - determinative modifications.

40. Thus, Article 2.4.2 allows avoidance of the preferred comparison methodologies in one circumstance: when export pricing varies among purchasers, regions, or periods of time, and if an explanation is provided as to why such differences cannot be taken into account by the preferred methodologies. Given the clear designation of a specific exception to the preferred methodologies in Article 2.4.2, common rules of interpretation dictate that Article 2.4.2 does not contemplate other exceptions to the preferred methodologies.26 That is, Article 2.4.2 does not authorize a Member to create exceptions within the categories of preferred methodologies for variations in prices among different time periods.

41. Despite this clear and transparent structure, the US has taken the position that Article 2.4.2 permits an investigating member to modify the mandate to use average-to-average comparisons in certain circumstances. The US average-to-average comparison within split periods is contrary to Article 2.4.2.

B. VARIATIONS IN PRICING AFTER EXCHANGE RATE CONVERSIONS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER A SALE IS "COMPARABLE"

42. The US concludes that a variation in pricing after an exchange rate conversion is a relevant criterion in determining whether sales are comparable under Article 2.4.2. However, this position wrongly confuses the role of the currency conversion in the dumping calculation.

43. The structure of the paragraphs of Article 2 of the ADA demonstrates that there are several steps to a price-to-price dumping comparison. The steps generally follow the sequential of the paragraphs within Article 2. These steps may be generally categorized as follows:27

Step #1 Identification of comparable sales that will be used in the dumping comparisons. Article 2.2 and Article 2.4 govern the selection of which sales are comparable. For example, Article 2.2.1 permits authorities to exclude normal value sales that are outside the ordinary course of trade. In addition, Article 2.4. demands that the sales compared be at the same level of trade.

Step #2 Due allowance adjustments to export price and normal value for differences to ensure fair comparisons pursuant to Article 2.4. and 2.3

Step #3 Conversion, if necessary, of either export price or normal value into a uniform currency to enable pricing comparisons.28 Article 2.4.1 governs this conversion.

Step #4 Comparison between normal values and export prices using one of the methodologies identified in Article 2.4.2.

44. Based on this overview of the dumping calculation, it is plain that the conversion of pricing from one currency to another currency in Step #3 is separate and independent from the identification of which normal value sales are "comparable" to export price in Step #1. The conversion of normal value into the same currency as export price, for example, simply allows a useful numeric comparison between the export and normal value sales selected in Step #1. The conversion is subsequent to a selection of sales for comparison.

45. Article 2.4.1 provides the exclusive rules that govern currency conversions. However, there is no support in Article 2.4.1 or any other Article within the ADA for the conclusion that an investigating authority may determine in step #1 whether a particular group of sales is "comparable" after the sales are converted into the common currency. The currency conversion is simply designed to reflect the current value of a particular sale in another currency as of the date of the sale. It is a step and procedure that is entirely disconnected from the process of identifying which sales are comparable, or even whether there is a variation in pricing.

46. Thus, the US proposal that it may decide which normal value sales are comparable to export price after the conversion into a common currency is inconsistent with the dumping comparison methodology contemplated by Articles 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4. The US proposal to elevate currency conversion to a step prior to the determination of comparability is inconsistent with the structure of Article 2 of the ADA. As such, the US position that it was authorized to assess comparability after currency conversion violates the disciplines of the ADA. The panel should conclude that the US justification for making average-to-average comparisons only within split sub-periods of the period of investigation violates the rules of the ADA.


1 EC - Measures Concerning Meat And Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, Report of the Appellate Body adopted 13 February 1998 (hereinafter "EC-Hormones"), para. 104.

2 US First Submission , para. 40.

3 United States - Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R, Report of the Appellate Body adopted 23 May 1997 (hereinafter "Wool Shirts") at 16.

4 Id.

5 The US does not argue affirmatively that Article VI of GATT 1994 and the ADA are positive rules. However, the US misinterprets the Appellate Body's decision in Wool Shirts to argue broadly that "trade remedies authorized by the WTO agreements do not constitute 'exceptions'. . ." US First Submission, para. 38. The US fails to recall that the dispute in that proceeding focused on the relationship between Article s within the WTO Agreements on Textiles and Clothing, and not on the relationship between GATT Article s. Wool Shirts at 16. In fact, the Appellate Body stated in that decision that the previous GATT panel decisions and the relationship between various GATT Article s was irrelevant in that proceeding.

6 US First Submission, para. 76.

7 For the purposes of this submission, "starting export price" refers to the "price at which the imported products are first resold to an independent buyer" as used in Article 2.3. The phrase "constructed export price" is used to refer to the export price derived or constructed from the "starting export price."

8 US First Submission, paras. 74-80.

9 Article 2.3 also allows the construction of export price when the exporter price is unreliable because of a "compensatory agreement" between the exporter and importer. As this situation was not relevant in the underlying proceedings, the following discussion addresses circumstances where there is an "association" between the exporter and importer.

10 US First Submission, para. 76 (emphasis in original).

11 Id. at para. 82.

12 Id. at para.84.

13 Id. at paras. 84, 86.

14 Id.

15 Id. at para. 86.

16 Id.

17 Id.

18 In its submission, the US argues that bad debt expense are like warranty expenses in that they are not known with precision at the time of sale, but instead are anticipated by the seller. US First Submission at para. 86.

19 See Standard US DOC Anti-dumping Questionnaire, Section B, Field 34, Warranty Expenses (requiring an exporter to submit a schedule of home market warranty expenses for three calendar years to support a request for a warranty adjustment to normal value).

20 Japan notes that this does not preclude the possibility that these expenses would be an element of price for future sales to the US Given the customer's default, it is plain that POSCO may decide to include in its composition of price for future US sales a mark-up in anticipation of future bankruptcies. This would have to be established in a subsequent review. However, the US efforts to designate this default as a condition for sales in the original investigation are, at best, premature.

21 Certain Cold-rolled Flat-rolled Carbon-Quality Steel Products from Brazil, 65 Fed. Reg. 5554, 5574 (4 February 2000).

22 Id.

23 Id.

24 ROK First Submission, para. 4.45.

25 US First Submission, para. 145.

26 Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another).

27 With the apparent exception of the underlying disputes, the US dumping calculations are made pursuant to the steps in the sequence below.

28 In the underlying investigations, the US converted all normal value (i.e., Korean home market), sales into US dollars. US First Submission, para. 122. However, the same dumping comparisons could be generated by converting all US sales dollars into Korean currency. Mathematically, the result of the dumping comparison would be the same. The ADA is silent as to the direction of the conversion.


To continue with ANNEX 3-3

Return to Table of Contents