5. Why is according to the Appellate Body ‘zeroing’ in general and ‘simple zeroing in period reviews’ in particular inconsistent with the provisions of the Anti-

Dumping Agreement? How did it come to this conclusion? Is this a correct interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, i.e., an interpretation pursuant to the customary rules of interpretation of public international law as codified in Article 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties (VCLT)? Is the interpretation of the provisions of the Anti-

Dumping Agreement subject to a different rule of interpretation (see Article 17.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement)?