DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS132

Mexico — Anti-Dumping Investigation of High-Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States


This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.

  

See also:
One-page summary of key findings of this dispute
The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO
Computer based training on dispute settlement
Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding


Current status  back to top

 

Key facts  back to top

Short title:
Complainant:
Respondent:
Third Parties:
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations)
Request for Consultations received:
Panel Report circulated: 28 January 2000
Article 21.5 Panel Report circulated: 22 June 2001
Article 21.5 Appellate Body Report circulated: 22 October 2001

  

Summary of the dispute to date  back to top

The summary below was up-to-date at
See also: One-page summary of key findings of this dispute

Consultations

Complaint by the United States.

On 8 May 1998, the US requested consultations with Mexico in respect of an anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup (HFCS) grades 42 and 55 from the US, conducted by Mexico. The US alleged that on 27 February 1997, the Government of Mexico published a notice initiating this anti-dumping investigation on the basis of an application dated 14 January 1997 from the Mexican National Chamber of Sugar and Alcohol Producers. The US further alleged that on 23 January 1998, Mexico issued a notice of final determination of dumping and injury in that investigation, and consequently imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on these imports from the United States. The US contended that the manner in which the application for an anti-dumping investigation was made, as well as the manner in which a determination of threat of injury was made, is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 8 October 1998, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 21 October 1998, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 25 November 1998. Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-party rights. On 13 January 1999, the Panel was composed. The report of the panel was circulated to Members on 28 January 2000. The Panel found that:

  • Mexico’s initiation of the anti-dumping investigation on imports of HFCS from the US was consistent with the requirements of Articles 5.2, 5.3, 5.8, 12.1 and 12.1.1(iv) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
     
  • Mexico’s imposition of the definitive anti-dumping measure on imports of HFCS from the US was inconsistent with the following provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement: Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i); Article 7.4; Article 10.2; Article 10.4; and Articles 12.2 and 12.2.2.

The DSB adopted the panel report at its meeting on 24 February 2000.

 

Implementation of adopted reports

Pursuant to Article 21.3 of the DSU, Mexico informed the DSB on 20 March 2000 that it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. Mexico also indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time in order to implement the DSB recommendations. On 19 April 2000, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed, pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU, on a reasonable period of time to be granted to Mexico to implement the recommendations of the DSB. That period expired on 22 September 2000. At the DSB meeting of 26 September 2000, Mexico stated that it had published on 20 September 2000 the final determination on anti-dumping investigation of high-fructose corn syrup from the US and thereby complied with the DSB’s recommendation. US stated that it would examine Mexico’s final determination.

 

Compliance proceedings

On 12 October 2000, the US requested that the DSB refer the matter to the original panel, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU, in order to establish whether Mexico had correctly implemented the DSB’s recommendations. At its meeting of 23 October 2000, the DSB referred the matter to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC, Jamaica and Mauritius reserved their third-party rights. The US and Mexico informed the DSB that they were discussing mutually agreeable procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU in relation to this matter. On 13 November 2000, the Panel was composed.

The Article 21.5 Panel circulated its report on 22 June 2001. The Panel concluded that Mexico’s imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the US on the basis of the SECOFI redetermination was inconsistent with the requirements of the AD Agreement in that Mexico’s inadequate consideration of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry, and its inadequate consideration of the potential effect of the alleged restraint agreement in its determination of likelihood of substantially increased importation, are not consistent with the provisions of Articles 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the AD Agreement. The Panel therefore considered that Mexico has failed to implement the recommendation of the original Panel and the DSU to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement.

On 24 July 2001, Mexico appealed the above Panel report. In particular, Mexico requested the Appellate Body to examine and reverse the Panel’s conclusions that Mexico’s imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of HFCS from the United States, on the basis of SECOFI’s redetermination, was inconsistent with the requirements of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, in that

  • Mexico’s inadequate consideration of the impact of dumped imports on the domestic industry, and its inadequate consideration of the potential effect of the alleged restraint agreement in its determination of likelihood of substantially increased importation, are not consistent with the provisions of Article 3.1, 3.4, 3.7 and 3.7(i) of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and
     
  • Mexico therefore failed to implement the recommendation of the original Panel and of the DSB to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement;
     
  • and that it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to the United States under that Agreement.

According to Mexico, these conclusions are based on erroneous matters of law and legal interpretations of various provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the DSU.

On 20 September 2001, the Appellate Body informed that the issuance of the report would be delayed. The Report was circulated to the Members on 22 October 2001. The Appellate Body upheld the contested findings of the Panel and therefore recommended the DSB to request Mexico to bring its anti-dumping measure into conformity with its obligations under that Agreement. On 21 November 2001, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body Report and the Panel Report, as upheld by the Appellate Body Report.

image 160 pixels wide
  

Find all documents from this case
(Searches Documents Online, most recent documents appear on top)

quick help with downloading
> comprehensive help on Documents Online

all documents

  

Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.