Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 18,400+ case briefs...

United States—Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel from Mexico

World Trade Organization, Appellate Body
47 I.L.M. 475 (2008)


Mexico (plaintiff) brought complaints against the United States (defendant) regarding the methodology for calculating the margins of dumping by the United States Department of Commerce under Article VI of the World Trade Organization’s (WTO) General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 and the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. The dispute was considered by a panel of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body’s (DSB) Appellate Body acting according to the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), an agreement stating procedural and jurisdictional requirements of the Appellate Body. The Appellate Body in general had previously considered similar dumping methodology questions in resolution of disputes between the United States and both the European Community and Japan. The separate panel established for resolving the dumping dispute between the United States and Mexico chose not to follow the Appellate body’s prior holdings, but to instead rely on findings in panel reports that the Appellate Body had reversed. After the panel issued its ruling, Mexico appealed on the ground that the panel acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the DSU by failing to follow well-established Appellate Body jurisprudence, and instead relying on findings in panel reports that the Appellate Body had reversed. Article 11 of the DSU states that “the function of panels is to assist the DSB in discharging its responsibilities” under the DSU and other covered agreements. Additionally, it states that a “panel should make an objective assessment of the matter before it, including an objective assessment of the facts of the case and the applicability of and conformity with the relevant covered agreements, and make such other findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in the covered agreements.”

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 496,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 496,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 18,400 briefs, keyed to 985 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial