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

Report of the Panel

(Continued)

3. Claims under Article 2.4 ("fair comparison")

(a) Arguments of the parties

6.102. Korea also claims the DOC's actions in respect of unpaid sales were inconsistent with the "fair comparison" requirement of Article 2.4. In Korea's view, the adjustments made by the DOC in respect of unpaid sales violated this requirement because non-payment is not a "difference affecting price comparability" for which adjustment may be made under Article 2.4. Korea further considers the DOC's treatment of unpaid debt was inconsistent with the "fair comparison" requirement because it is fundamentally unfair to penalize an exporter for an event that it could not have anticipated and that was beyond its control. In addition, Korea considers that the inclusion of the unpaid sales to the ABC Company in the calculation of the export price was inconsistent with the "fair comparison" requirement. In this respect, Korea considers that the unpaid sales in question were atypical, and that, where the inclusion of atypical sales would distort the results, their inclusion is unfair.

6.103. The United States considers that whether a comparison is "fair" within the meaning of Article 2.4 can only be judged in light of the explicit methodological requirements of that Article. The adjustment performed by the DOC was a permissible Article 2.4 adjustment for differences in terms and conditions of sale and was therefore fair. As for Korea's view that the DOC was required to exclude unpaid sales as "atypical", the United States considers that it is Article 2.1, not Article 2.4, which addresses the question what sales are to be used to establish export price and normal value. Thus, Article 2.4 does not require the exclusion of "atypical" sales when determining export price.

(b) Evaluation by the Panel

6.104. In the previous section of this Report, we have found that the United States's treatment of bad debt in the Plate and Sheet investigations was inconsistent with its obligations under the third sentence of Article 2.4 (in respect of its allowances for differences affecting price comparability) and under the fourth sentence of Article 2.4 (in respect of allowances to construct an export price). We note that "a panel need only address those claims which must be addressed in order to resolve the matter in issue in the dispute¹¹³". Having concluded that the United States acted inconsistently with its specific obligations under the third and fourth sentences of Article 2.4 in respect of allowances, we do not consider it necessary to examine Korea's claims that the United States' treatment of bad debt breached a more general "fair comparison" requirement under Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement

D. MULTIPLE AVERAGING

1. Factual background

6.105. The claims addressed in this section of our report relate to the division of the POI for the purpose of calculating the overall margin of dumping in the Plate and Sheet investigations into two averaging periods to take into account a major devaluation of the Korean won in the period November-December 1997. In the preliminary determinations in both investigations, the DOC used a single averaging period covering the whole POI to calculate the margin of dumping. In the final determinations, however, the DOC divided the POI into two sub-periods, corresponding to the pre- and post-devaluation periods. The DOC calculated a weighted average margin of dumping for each sub-period. When combining the margins of dumping calculated for the sub-periods to determine an overall margin of dumping for the entire POI, the DOC treated sub-periods where the average export price was higher than the average normal value as sub-periods of zero dumping.

2. Claim under Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement

(a) Arguments of the parties

6.106. Korea argues that Article 2.4.2 prohibits the comparison of multiple averages with multiple averages. Korea contends that Article 2.4.2 obligates a Member to either (i) compare a single weighted average normal value with a single weighted average export price, or (ii) compare individual home market transactions to individual export transactions. Korea considers that this conclusion is mandated by the reference in Article 2.4.2 to "a weighted average", i.e., one average, not two averages. It is confirmed by the reference to "all comparable export transactions" in Article 2.4.2, as there can only be one average if it takes into account all data. In these investigations the DOC acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.2 because it did not compare a single weighted-average normal value with a single weighted average export price, but rather divided the POI into sub-periods and calculated a separate dumping margin for each sub-period.

6.107. The United States responds that, while Article 2.4.2 provides that margins of dumping be based upon a comparison of an average of normal value prices with an average of the prices for export transactions, the transactions included in these averages must be "comparable". The reason for this limitation is that the inclusion in the averages to be compared of sales that are not comparable could result in a dumping margin based upon factors not related to dumping. The United States notes that Article 2.4.2 is subject to the provisions of Article 2.4, which requires that normal value and export price be compared "at the same level of trade . . . in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time" and that allowance be made for, inter alia, differences in physical characteristics. Thus, a Member may create multiple averages in order to ensure that comparisons are not distorted by averaging of non-comparable transactions, such as transactions involving different models or at different levels of trade.

6.108. The United States considers that the DOC's conclusion that the collapse of the won rendered transactions before and after the devaluation "not comparable" is a permissible interpretation of the term as used in Article 2.4.2. In stating that comparisons should be "in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time", Article 2.4 recognizes that time is a fundamental aspect of comparability. In fact, Article 2.4.2 could permissibly be interpreted as expressing a preference for daily averages, an approach that would be similar to the transaction-by-transaction methodology approved by Article 2.4.2. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the DOC presumes sales made within a one-year period to be sufficiently close in time to satisfy the "same time" requirement of Article 2.4. Where facts indicate that changes within the year have the potential to affect comparability, however, the DOC will divide the POI into sub-periods. As the dollar values of pre- and post-devaluation home market sales were sharply different, the DOC permissibly determined that sales before and after the devaluation were not comparable and that it was therefore appropriate to divide the POI into sub-periods and calculate a margin of dumping for each such sub-period.

6.109. Korea disputes the United States' view that the depreciation of Korea's currency rendered pre- and post-devaluation sales non-comparable such that the use of multiple averaging is appropriate. Korea considers that substantive limitations in the AD Agreement on the transactions that can be compared define the transactions that are "comparable". There are however no provisions of the AD Agreement that limit the transactions that may be included in comparisons due to movements in exchange rates. Article 2.4.1 addresses exchange rates, but does not establish a limit on which exchange rates may be comparable. Nor does the Article 2.4 requirement that comparisons be made "in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time" justify multiple averaging in the case of exchange rate movements. Korea considers that, in the case of average to average comparisons, this provision requires only that sales in each market should, on average, have been made at the same time in order to be considered comparable.

(b) Evaluation by the Panel 

(i) Does Article 2.4.2 prohibit multiple averaging?

6.110. Korea's first claim regarding the use by the DOC of multiple averaging is based upon Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement. Article 2.4.2 provides as follows:

"Subject to the provisions governing fair comparison in paragraph 4, the existence of margins of dumping during the investigation phase shall normally be established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of prices of all comparable export transactions or by a comparison of normal value and export prices on a transaction to transaction basis. A normal value established on a weighted average basis may be compared to prices of individual export transactions if the authorities find a pattern of export prices which differ significantly among different purchasers, regions or time periods, and if an explanation is provided as to why such differences cannot be taken into account appropriately by the use of a weighted average to weighted average or transaction to transaction comparison."

6.111. In considering this claim, we first make clear that we do not consider that Article 2.4.2 prohibits the use of multiple averaging per se, as Korea's first submission could be taken to suggest. To the contrary, Article 2.4.2 provides that the existence of dumping shall normally be established "on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of all comparable export transactions" (emphasis added). The inclusion of the word "comparable" is in our view highly significant, as in its ordinary meaning it indicates that a weighted average normal value is not to be compared to a weighted average export price that includes non-comparable export transactions¹¹⁴. It flows from this conclusion that a Member is not required to compare a single weighted average normal value to a single weighted average export price in cases where certain export transactions are not comparable to transactions that represent the basis for the calculation of the normal value.

6.112. We recall Korea's view that the reference in the singular to "a weighted average normal value" means that the use of multiple averages is prohibited. In our view, however, the reference in the singular to "a weighted average normal value" means simply that there must be a single weighted average normal value and export price in respect of comparable transactions. It does not mean that a Member is required to compare a single weighted average normal value to a single weighted average export price in cases where some of the export transactions are not comparable to the transactions that represent the basis for the normal value.

6.113. An examination of the context of the provision in question and of its object and purpose in our view provide further support for the above conclusion. The chapeau of Article 2.4 states that "[a] fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value." Whatever the relationship of the fair comparison language of the chapeau to the specific requirements of Article 2.4 � an issue of dispute between the parties¹¹⁵ � it is evident to us that the provisions of Article 2.4.2 must be read against the background of this basic principle. In fact, the provisions of Article 2.4.2 itself are "subject to the provisions governing fair comparison in paragraph 4." An interpretation of Article 2.4.2 that required a Member to compare transactions that were not comparable would run counter to this basic principle.

6.114. Accordingly, we conclude � and by the later phases of this dispute the parties agreed¹¹⁶ � that Article 2.4.2 does not preclude the use of multiple averages per se. Rather, Article 2.4.2 requires a Member to compare a single weighted average normal value to a single weighted average export price in respect of all comparable transactions. A Member may however use multiple averages in cases where it has determined that non-comparable transactions are involved.

(ii) Was the use of multiple averaging permissible in these investigations?

6.115. Having established that the use of multiple averages is permissible where transactions are not "comparable", the question remains whether the DOC was justified in determining in these investigations that multiple averaging was appropriate. In considering this question, we must first consider the explanation provided by the DOC in these two investigations for its decision to divide the POI into two sub-periods.

6.116. In the Plate final determination, the DOC explained its decision to divide the POI into two periods as follows:

"[W]e agree with petitioners that separate averaging periods should be used. Under Section 777A(d)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department has wide latitude in calculating the average prices used to determine whether sales at less than fair value exist. More specifically, under 19 CFR 351.414(d)(3), the Department may use averaging periods of less than the POI when normal value, export price, or constructed export price varies significantly over the POI. In the instant case, NV (in dollars) in the last two months of the POI differs significantly from NV earlier in the POI due primarily to a significant change in the underlying dollar value of the won. In this case, the change is evidenced by the precipitous drop in the won's value that began in November 1997 and continued through the end of the POI without a quick, significant rebound. In the span of two months, the won's value decreased by more than 40 per cent in relation to the dollar. Consequently, it was appropriate to use two averaging periods to avoid the possibility of a distortion in the dumping calculation. Moreover, we disagree with respondent's claim that the use of averaging periods is dependent upon a change in a respondent's selling practices. In the final determination of certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia, the Department stated that, 'in addition to changes in selling practices, we believe that we should also consider other factors, such as prolonged large changes in exchange rates, in determining whether it is appropriate to use more than one averaging period." See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia, 63 FR 72268, 72272 (December 31, 1998). Therefore, we have used two averaging periods for the final determination: January through October and November through December, 1997¹¹⁷." (emphasis added).

6.117. The Sheet final determination contains an explanation for the DOC's determination that closely parallels that in the Plate final determination. The DOC found that:

"Under section 777A(d)(1)(A) of the Act, the Department has broad authority to use a number of methodologies in calculating the average prices used to determine whether sales at less than fair value exist. More specifically, under 19 CFR 351.414(d)(3), the Department may use averaging periods of less than the POI when normal value, export price, or constructed export price varies significantly over the POI. In this investigation, in the last five months of the POI, NV (in dollars) differed significantly from NV earlier in the POI, due primarily to a significant change in the underlying dollar value of the won, evidenced by the precipitous drop in the won's value that began in November 1997 and continued through December 1997. In the span of two months, the won's value decreased by more than 40 per cent in relation to the dollar. Consequently, it is appropriate to use two averaging periods to avoid the possibility of a distortion in the dumping calculation. Moreover, we disagree with respondent's claim that the use of averaging periods is dependent upon change in a respondent's selling practices. In the final determination of certain preserved mushrooms from Indonesia, the Department stated that 'in addition to changes in selling practices, we believe that we should also consider other factors, such as prolonged large changes in exchange rates, in determining whether it is appropriate to use more than one averaging period." See Notice of Final Determination of Sales at Less than Fair Value: Preserved Mushrooms from Indonesia, 63 FR 72268, 72272 (December 31, 1998). Therefore, for both POSCO and Inchon, we have used two averaging periods for the final determination: January through October 1997 and November 1997 through March 1998." (emphasis added)¹¹⁸.

6.118. It is evident from the DOC's determinations in these investigations that the DOC's decision to divide the POI into two sub-periods was based on the authority granted it by regulation to use multiple averaging periods in cases where "normal values, export prices or constructed export prices differ significantly over the course of the period of investigation¹¹⁹." It is further clear that the determination to use sub-periods in these investigations was based exclusively upon the DOC's conclusion that the normal value in the latter part of the POIs in these investigations, expressed in dollars, differed significantly from the normal value in the earlier part of the POIs. Accordingly, the question before us is whether the existence of significant differences in normal value over the course of an investigation, by itself, is a sufficient basis to conclude that export and home market transactions at different points in the POI are not comparable such that the use of multiple averages is permissible under Article 2.4.2 of the AD Agreement.

6.119. The United States does not of course assert that differences in price between export transactions and normal value are in and of themselves differences which would render such transactions non-comparable within the meaning of Article 2.4.2. Obviously, the purpose of Article 2 as a whole is to provide a methodology for determining whether a product is dumped, i.e., whether the export price is less than the normal value. Thus, to decline to compare transactions because they were made at different prices would defeat the entire purpose of the exercise. Rather, the United States asserts that the existence of differences in the timing of sales in the home market and the export market render transactions non-comparable, at least in cases where there are significant differences in the normal value, export price or constructed export price over the course of the investigation.

6.120. In examining this question, we first note that the term "comparable" has been defined to mean "able to be compared (with)".¹²⁰ This definition however does not cast great light on the meaning of the term as used in Article 2 of the AD Agreement. Thus, we consider it useful to turn to the context in which this term appears. In this respect, we agree with the parties that the meaning of the term "comparable" as used in Article 2.4.2 can best be established by an examination of other provisions of Article 2 of the AD Agreement that address the issue of comparability. We further note that the chapeau to Article 2.4 provides that the comparison between the export price and the normal value shall be made "in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time"¹²¹. Thus, we consider it clear that the timing of sales may have implications in respect of the comparability of export and home market transactions¹²².

6.121. This does not mean, however, that where an average to average comparison methodology is used, individual home market and export sales that are not made at the same time necessarily are not comparable and thus cannot be included in the weighted averages. To the contrary, it is in the very nature of an average to average comparison that, for example, transactions made at the beginning of the averaging period in the export market will be made at a different moment in time than sales in the home market made at the end of averaging period. If the drafters had considered that this situation would necessarily give rise to a problem of comparability, surely they would not have explicitly authorized the use of averaging in Article 2.4.2. Thus we consider that, in the context of weighted average to weighted average comparisons, the requirement that a comparison be made between sales made at as nearly as possible the same time requires as a general matter that the periods on the basis of which the weighted average normal value and the weighted average export price are calculated must be the same.

6.122. The United States argues, in effect, that the "same time" requirement of Article 2.4 implies a preference for shorter rather than longer averaging periods¹²³. In our view, however, the US argument proves too much. If the requirement to compare sales at "as nearly as possible the same time" means that sales within an averaging period covering a POI are not comparable, then a Member presumably would be obligated to break a POI into as many sub-periods as possible. Yet to interpret the word "comparable", when combined with the requirement that sales be compared "at as nearly as possible the same time", to obligate Members to perform numerous average to average comparisons based on the shortest possible time periods would in effect read the Article 2.4.2 authorization to perform average to average comparisons out of the AD Agreement, leaving Members with only the second option, the comparison of normal values and export prices on a transaction-by-transaction basis¹²⁴.

6.123. We do not preclude that there may be factual circumstances where the use of multiple averaging periods could be appropriate in order to insure that comparability is not affected by differences in the timing of sales within the averaging periods in the home and export markets. We note that, where changes in normal value, export price or constructed export price during the course of the POI are combined with differences in the relative weights by volume within the POI of sales in the home market as compared to the export market, the use of weighted averages for the entire POI could indicate the existence of a margin of dumping that did not reflect the situation at any given moment within the POI¹²⁵. In this situation a Member might in our view be justified in concluding that differences in timing of sales in the home and export markets give rise to a problem of comparability that could be addressed through multiple averaging periods¹²⁶. We recall however that this situation only arises where two elements � a change in prices and differences in the relative weights by volume within the POI of sales in the home market as compared to the export market � exist. Thus, while a change in normal value, export price or constructed export price may be a necessary condition for the conclusion that the passage of time affects comparability in the case of an average-to-average comparison, the existence of such a change is not in itself a sufficient condition to conclude that the export transactions are not comparable to the normal value¹²⁷.

6.124. Turning to the case at hand, we recall that the DOC's determination to use sub-periods in these investigations was based exclusively upon its conclusion that the normal value in the latter phase of the POIs in these investigations, expressed in dollars, differed significantly from the normal value in the earlier phase of the POIs. There is no suggestion in the DOC's determinations or in the final analysis memoranda underlying them that the reason for the DOC's decision to divide up the POI was based upon the existence of a difference in the relative weights by volume of sales within the POI between the home and export markets. In light of the foregoing discussion, we do not consider that this represented a permissible determination of non-comparability.

6.125. Accordingly, we conclude that the United States' use of multiple averaging periods in these investigations was inconsistent with the requirement of Article 2.4.2 to compare "a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of all comparable export transactions"¹²⁸.

3. Claim under Article 2.4.1

(a) Arguments of the parties

6.126. Korea observes that the DOC used multiple averaging periods to account for the depreciation of the Korean won during the POI in these two investigations. Korea contends however that Article 2.4.1 is the only provision of the AD Agreement that addresses exchange rates or the permissible modification to the dumping calculation methodology to account for exchange rate fluctuations. Article 2.4.1 sets forth special rules that apply to situations when the exporting country's currency has been appreciating. However, Article 2.4.1 does not permit any adjustment to the dumping calculations to account for a depreciation of the exporting country's currency. Consequently, because the DOC adopted a multiple-averaging methodology in these investigations to account for the depreciation of the Korean won, it was inconsistent with the requirement of Article 2.4.1 that the price comparisons not be modified to account for depreciation in the exporting country's currency.

6.127. The United States responds that Article 2.4.1 provides guidance to Members in selecting the exchange rates for use in anti-dumping investigations. The issue raised by Korea, although precipitated by a currency situation, relates to the DOC's construction of averages under Article 2.4.2, rather than its selection of exchange rates under Article 2.4.1. Thus, Article 2.4.1 does not address the currency conversion problem faced by the United States in these investigations and is not relevant to the issue raised by Korea.

(b) Evaluation by the Panel

6.128. Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement provides as follows:

6.129. In our view, Article 2.4.1 relates to the selection of exchange rates to be used where currency conversions are required. It establishes a general rule � conversion should be made using the rate of exchange on the date of sale � and an exception to this general rule for sales on forward markets. It also establishes special rules in the case of fluctuations and sustained movements in exchange rates. We note Korea's view that the requirements of the second sentence of Article 2.4.1 prescribe specific results, rather than describing a method for selecting exchange rates. It appears to us, however, that, read in context, these special rules also relate to the selection of exchange rates, and not to the construction of averages. Rather, the permissibility of the use of multiple averaging is an issue addressed by Article 2.4.2.

6.130. Even if Article 2.4.1 were not restricted to the issue of the selection of exchange rates, we find nothing in that Article that would prohibit a Member from addressing, through multiple averaging, a situation arising from a currency depreciation. Korea contends, and the United States does not dispute, that the provision of Article 2.4.1 requiring Members to allow exporters sixty days to adjust their export prices to sustained movements in exchange rates applies only in the case of currency appreciation, and not in the case of currency depreciation. Assuming that the parties are correct in this regard, the requirement that a Member take certain actions in the case of currency appreciation does not in our view mean that Members are prohibited from taking any action to address a situation arising from a currency depreciation¹²⁹.

6.131. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the United States' use of multiple averaging periods in these investigations was not inconsistent with Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement.

113. United States - Shirts and Blouses, supra, p. 18

114. We note that insertion of the word "comparable" into Article 2.4.2 represented the only modification to that Article between the date of the Draft Final Act and the text as adopted. See Draft Final Act Embodying the Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations, MTN.TNC/W/FA, 20 December 1991. This suggests that its inclusion was not merely incidental but reflected careful consideration by the drafters.

115. Korea considers that the chapeau to Article 2.4 creates a fair comparison requirement that is independent of the other requirements of Article 2.4. The United States contends that, while the first sentence of Article 2.4 establishes a requirement to make a "fair comparison", the remainder of Article 2.4 defines how such a comparison is made.

116. See Oral Statement of Korea at the Second Meeting of the Panel, para. 44, Annex 1-6 ("Article 2.4.2 does not require one average of every single home-market sale and another average of every single export sale. Rather, it requires a single average for all comparable transactions."); Second Submission of the United States, para. 43, Annex 2-5 ("Article 2.4.2 clearly permits creation of multiple averages where transactions are not comparable.")

117. Final Determination on Plate, p. 15452, Korea Exhibit 11.

118. Final Determination on Sheet, p. 30676, Korea Exhibit 24.

119. 19 CFR Section 351.414(d)(3).


120. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Oxford University Press, p. 457.

121. We recall that Korea and the United States have identified other provisions of Article 2 that they agree justify the use of multiple averaging based, for example, on differences in level of trade and differences in physical characteristics. The United States also argues that it is appropriate to use multiple averaging in the case of hyperinflationary economies. These other forms of multiple averaging are not at issue in this dispute.

 122. As an additional contextual argument, Korea argues that devaluation cannot be considered to affect comparability because there is no provision in the AD Agreement specifying that sales made at one exchange rate cannot be compared with sales at another exchange rate. Rather, the only provision of the AD Agreement that addresses exchange rates is Article 2.4.1, which the United States concedes does not establish a limit on what sales may be considered comparable. We do not however place any weight on Korea's argument in this respect. In our view � and absent the unusual situation of multiple exchange rates � there will at any given moment in time be only one exchange rate. Thus, any problem of comparability does not relate to exchange rates per se, but rather to differences in timing of sales. Thus it is on this issue that we focus.

123. The United States goes so far as to suggest that the AD Agreement could be interpreted as expressing a preference for daily averages. Second Submission of the United States, para. 47, Annex 2-5.

124. The United States' argument seems to be posited on its view that the best comparison for measuring dumping is a transaction-to-transaction comparison, and that average-to-average comparisons are a second-best approach allowed because of practical problems with the transaction-to-transaction methodology. See US answer to question 2 from the Panel posed at the second meeting of the Panel with the parties. We perceive no valid textual basis for such a conclusion, however. To the contrary, the AD Agreement sets forth two options for a comparison methodology � average-to-average and transaction-to transaction � and expresses no preference between them.

125. A particularly dramatic example of this situation would arise where, during a substantial portion of the POI, there were no sales in one of the two markets.

126. The combination of these two factors could even result in a situation where, although at any given moment in time throughout the POI, the exporter was charging an identical price (after all appropriate allowances had been made), a margin of dumping could nevertheless be found to exist. For example, imagine that there were two home market sales (HM-1 and HM-2) and two export sales (EX-1 and EX-2) during the POI. HM-1 and EX-1 occurred on day 1 and were both at a price of $10. HM-2 and EX-2 occurred on day 90 and were both at a price of $15. Thus, neither of the individual export transactions was dumped when compared to the simultaneous home market transactions. If all these sales were in the same volumes, then a weighted average to weighted average would also show no dumping. Assume however that HM-1 and EX-2 involved a volume of ten units, while HM-2 and EX-1 involved a volume of twenty units. In this case, the weighted average normal value would be (10 units x $10/unit) + (20 units x $15/unit) = $400/30 units = $13.33/unit. The weighted average export price would be (20 units x $10/unit) + (10 units x $15/unit) = $350/30 units = $11.27/unit. Thus, the weighted average margin of dumping would be 18 per cent.

127. As Korea explained, "[a]s long as the sales in both markets are spread in a similar manner throughout the period, the averaging process will result in an average home-market sale and an average export sale made, on average, at the same time. Thus, the averaging process necessarily takes care of the timing requirement of Article 2.4 (unless the sales in the two markets are weighted disproportionately in different parts of the period)." Oral Statement of Korea at the Second Meeting of the Panel, para. 58, Annex 1-6.

128. During the course of this dispute, the methodology used by the United States to derive a single dumping margin on the basis of the calculations for each sub-period was also placed at issue by Korea. In Korea's view, "splitting the period, calculating separate averages for the sub-periods, 'zeroing out' the negative averages and recombining the separate averages into an overall dumping margin were all part of a single methodology" described in Korea's request for establishment of a panel and thus within our terms of reference. In the view of the United States, the methodology challenged by Korea was limited to the division of the POI into two sub-periods and the calculation of separate weighted average normal values for each sub-period. See Responses of Korea and the United States to Questions Posed by the Panel at the Second Meeting of the Panel, question 1 on multiple averaging, Annexes 1-7 and 2-7. Korea further indicated, however, that "[i]f the Panel finds that it was improper for the United States to split the investigation periods . . . then zeroing simply disappears from this case". Ibid. Having so found, we need not further address this issue.

129. The provision relied upon by Korea is the language in Article 2.4.1 stating that, "in an investigation the authorities shall allow exporters at least 60 days to have adjusted their export prices to reflect sustained movements in exchange rates during the period of investigation". Korea is in effect asking us to read this provision to further say that "in an investigation the authorities shall take no actions to address currency depreciations". We can perceive no textual basis to imply such an additional rule into Article 2.4.1.

To continue with 4. Claim under Article 2.4 ("fair comparison")

Return to Table of Contents