That's from the panel in U.S. - Zeroing (Korea) (DS402), circulated today. Here's the full context (without footnotes):
7.29 Korea relies upon the Appellate Body report in US – Softwood Lumber V to argue that the United States acted inconsistently with the first sentence of Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. In particular, Korea relies on the Appellate Body's finding that, under the weighted average-to-weighted average methodology provided for under the first sentence of Article 2.4.2, "dumping ... margins must be, and can only be, established for the product under investigation as a whole". Therefore, model-specific results are only intermediate calculations and "[i]t is only on the basis of aggregating all such intermediate values that an investigating authority can establish margins of dumping for the product under investigation as a whole". A proper aggregation of the intermediate results of model-specific comparisons must reflect the result of all such comparisons.
7.30 In relation to the reliance by Korea on the Appellate Body's report in US – Softwood Lumber V, both the United States and Korea agree that the Panel is not bound by the reasoning in prior Appellate Body reports. However, the United States recognizes that prior adopted panel and Appellate Body reports may be taken into account by a panel. According to Korea, adopted reports create legitimate expectations among WTO Members and that, where the issues are the same, following Appellate Body conclusions is what would be expected from panels. In contrast, in its third party submission, the European Union argues that the "Panel should follow the rulings of the Appellate Body". The European Union supports this position by referring to Appellate Body statements in US – Stainless Steel (Mexico), including that "absent cogent reasons, an adjudicatory body will resolve the same legal question in the same way in a subsequent case".
7.31 In our view, there is not a system of precedent within the WTO dispute settlement system and panels are not bound by Appellate Body reasoning. However, we agree with Korea that adopted reports create legitimate expectations among WTO Members and that "following the Appellate Body's conclusions in earlier disputes is not only appropriate, but is what would be expected from panels, especially where the issues are the same".
