DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS221

United States — Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act


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: 15 July 2002

 

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 Canada.

On 17 January 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the “URAA”) and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA. In Canada’s view, in a situation in which the DSB has ruled that the US has, in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding, acted inconsistently with US obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements, the US law prohibits the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law, determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the imports occur. With regard to imports that occurred prior to a date on which the US directs compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures require US authorities to disregard the DSB ruling in making such determinations, even where the determination whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In such circumstances, determinations by the US to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements.

Canada considered that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Article 21.3 of the DSU, in the context of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

Further to Canada’s request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 23 August 2001. Chile, EC, India and Japan reserved their third-party rights. On 30 October 2001, the Panel was composed. On 30 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months due to the complexity of the matter and that the Panel expected to issue its final report to the parties by the end of June 2002. On 15 July 2002, the Panel circulated its report to Members. The Panel concluded that that Canada had failed to establish that section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was inconsistent with Articles VI:2, VI:3 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement; Articles 10, 19.4, 21.1, 32.1 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. In the light of its conclusion, the Panel made no recommendations to the DSB.

On 30 August 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel 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.