## Facts

- The European Communities challenged the U.S. Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, a statute imposing criminal liability and authorizing private civil actions (including treble damages) for importation and sale of foreign goods at prices substantially below foreign market value, coupled with specified anticompetitive intent.
- The statute targeted import pricing conduct linked to “dumping” and operated outside the later U.S. administrative anti-dumping regime.
- The European Communities alleged the statute functioned as an anti-dumping measure but lacked the substantive prerequisites and procedural safeguards required by GATT 1994 Article VI and the Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA).
- The United States argued the statute was an unfair-competition/antitrust-type measure rather than an anti-dumping measure and contended any WTO-inconsistent outcomes were not mandated by the legislation.
- A WTO panel found the statute inconsistent “as such” with GATT Article VI and the ADA, and also inconsistent with GATT Article III:4; the United States appealed.
- The Dispute Settlement Body adopted the Appellate Body and Panel reports on September 26, 2000; the statute was later repealed, with certain pending proceedings allowed to continue.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1916 Act is a measure “against dumping” subject to GATT 1994 Article VI and the ADA, notwithstanding antitrust-like intent elements.
2. Whether the Act’s criminal penalties and treble-damages civil remedies are permissible responses to dumping under GATT Article VI and the ADA.
3. Whether the Act is inconsistent “as such” with ADA Articles 1–5 and GATT Article VI:1–2 because it authorizes action without the required dumping, injury, and causation determinations and investigation procedures.
4. Whether the Act accords imported products less favorable treatment than like domestic products in violation of GATT Article III:4.
5. Whether the Act is “mandatory” legislation susceptible to an “as such” challenge because it requires WTO-inconsistent action when its conditions are met.

## Decision

- The Appellate Body upheld the core findings that the 1916 Act falls within the scope of GATT Article VI and the ADA.
- It upheld that the Act’s remedies (criminal sanctions and treble-damages civil liability) are not among the forms of action against dumping permitted by GATT Article VI and the ADA.
- It upheld findings of inconsistency “as such” with ADA Article 1 in conjunction with ADA Articles 2–5, and with GATT Article VI:1–2.
- It upheld the finding that the Act violates GATT Article III:4 because it applies only to imported products and not to like domestic products.
- It upheld that the legislation is mandatory in relevant respects and may be challenged “as such.”

## Legal Principles

- Measures whose design, structure, and expected operation address dumping of imports fall within the disciplines of GATT 1994 Article VI and the ADA, regardless of domestic-law labeling.
- GATT Article VI and the ADA confine permissible anti-dumping responses to those contemplated by the WTO anti-dumping system (not criminal punishment or private treble-damages regimes targeted at dumping).
- Anti-dumping action must be preceded by determinations and procedures consistent with the ADA, including investigation-based findings of dumping, material injury (or threat), and causal link.
- A law that singles out imported products for a more burdensome regime affecting internal sale can breach GATT Article III:4 by according less favorable treatment to imports than to like domestic products.
- Legislation is actionable “as such” where it mandates WTO-inconsistent outcomes when statutory criteria are satisfied, including through required application by domestic courts.

## Conclusion

The WTO Appellate Body concluded that the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 was an anti-dumping measure subject to GATT Article VI and the ADA, that its criminal and treble-damages remedies were not permitted forms of anti-dumping action, that it violated national treatment under GATT Article III:4, and that it was mandatory legislation inconsistent with WTO obligations “as such,” requiring the United States to bring the measure into conformity.


United States—Anti-Dumping Act of 1916, WT/DS136/AB/R (WTO App. Body Aug. 28, 2000)