English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In its Final Modification for Reviews the U.S. DOC announced on February 14, 2012 that it would cease the use of zeroing in the calculation of anti-dumping (AD) margins in all reviews as of April 16, 2012. However, it did not pertain to targeted dumping. In its Final Rule of April 22, 2014, it codified substantial discretion in calculating AD duties, including the use of zeroing, in targeted dumping. Thus the panel in Shrimp II erred in not finding “as such” inconsistency by the U.S. with the AD Agreement, despite this not being a targeted dumping complaint. Given the record of the U.S. in complying with zeroing petitions, it should have incurred the burden of proof, which is not satisfied by these pronouncements. Market structure should be used by panels in “as applied” inconsistency determinations. Viet Nam should have included an Art. 3 violation in its complaint.

It's Baaaack Zeroing, the US Department of Commerce, and US Shrimp II (Viet Nam)