DS: United States — Anti-Dumping measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea

back to top

Current status

 

back to top

Key facts

 

back to top

Latest document

  

back to top

Summary of the dispute to date

The summary below was up-to-date at

Consultations

Complaint by Korea.

On 30 July 1999, Korea requested consultations with the US in respect of Preliminary and Final Determinations of the US’s Department of Commerce (DOC) on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils from Korea dated 4 November 1998 and 31 March 1999 respectively, and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea dated 20 January 1999 and 8 June 1999 respectively. Korea considered that several errors were made by the US in those determinations which resulted in erroneous findings and deficient conclusions as well as the imposition, calculation and collection of anti-dumping margins which are incompatible with the obligation of the US under the provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994 and in particular, but not necessarily exclusively, Article 2, Article 6 and Article 12 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Korea believed that the US did not act in conformity with the cited provisions, among others, in its treatment of the following: certain US sales made to a bankrupt company; the calculation of two distinct exchange rate periods for export sales; and currency conversion for certain normal value sales made in US dollars.

On 14 October 1999, Korea requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 27 October 1999, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

Further to a second request to establish a panel by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 19 November 1999. The EC and Japan reserved their third-party rights. On 24 March 2000, the Panel was composed. The panel circulated its report on 22 December 2000. The panel concluded that:

1. with respect to “local sales”:

• the US in the Plate investigation did not act inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4.1, Article 2.4 chapeau (“fair comparison”), and Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement nor with its obligations under Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994;
   
• the US in the Sheet investigation acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement by performing a currency conversion that was not required.

2. with respect to the treatment of unpaid sales, the US:

• acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4 chapeau of the AD Agreement in both the Plate and Sheet investigations by making allowances in respect of sales through unaffiliated importers which were not permissible allowances for differences affecting price comparability;
   
• acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 2.4 chapeau of the AD Agreement in both the Plate and Sheet investigations by making allowances in respect of sales through an affiliated importer which were not permissible allowances in the construction of the export price for costs incurred between importation and resale.

3. with respect to multiple averaging, the panel concluded that:

• the US’s use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet investigations was inconsistent with the requirement of Article 2.4.2 to compare “a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of all comparable export transactions”;
   
• the US’s use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet investigations was not inconsistent with Article 2.4.1 of the AD Agreement;
   
• the US’s use of multiple averaging periods in the Plate and Sheet investigations was not inconsistent with the first sentence of the chapeau of Article 2.4 of the AD Agreement (“fair comparison”).

4. to the extent that the US has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the AD Agreement, it has nullified or impaired benefits accruing to Korea under that Agreement.

At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB adopted the panel report.

 

Implementation of adopted reports

At the DSB meeting of 1 March 2001, the US stated its intention to implement the DSB’s recommendations and indicated that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. On 26 April 2001, the parties to the dispute notified the DSB that they had mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time shall be 7 months and shall thus expire on 1 September 2001.

At the DSB’s meeting of 10 September 2001, the US announced that it had implemented the DSB’s recommendation on 1 September 2001. At that meeting, Korea acknowledged the implementation.