WT/DS162/R/Add.1 Page 2
be considered by the Panel in making its decision in the case initiated by the European Communities. The same holds true for Japan in its case. The apparent purpose for the request for expanded third party rights is to provide the third parties with an opportunity to make an additional submission in their own panel process. There is no provision in the DSU for such additional submissions.
The position taken by the Panel in the course of the proceedings vis-à-vis the European Communities' request is reflected in section VI.B.1 of this report.
B. OVERVIEW OF THE CLAIMS OF THE PARTIES AND FINDINGS REQUESTED
Japan contests the maintenance and application of the 1916 Act by the United States. Specifically, the maintenance and enforcement of the 1916 Act violates the following US obligations under the WTO agreements:
Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by allowing the application of penalties other than anti‑dumping duties to remedy dumping;
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by applying an anti‑dumping measure without conducting the requisite investigation and establishing the requisite facts;
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 2 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement, inter alia, by specifying a comparison for normal value that is not compatible with the comparison set forth in those articles;
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by providing for application of an anti‑dumping measure without establishing material injury or threat thereof;
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 4 and 5 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement, inter alia, by not limiting the parties that may pursue an anti‑dumping claim;
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 9 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by providing for the imposition of impermissible penalties outside the scope and directives of Article 9;
Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Article 11 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by not limiting the duration of an anti‑dumping measure and not providing for periodic reviews of the need for its continued imposition;
Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement by failing to comply with Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement;
Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 by providing less favourable treatment to imports via the 1916 Act versus domestic goods, which are subject to the far less restrictive, nearly moribund, Robinson-Patman Act;
Article XI of the GATT 1994 by providing for, via the 1916 Act, the improper application of an impermissible prohibition or restriction; and