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