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 European Communities.
On 7 March 2002, the European Communities
requested consultations with the United States regarding the definitive
safeguard measures imposed by the US in the form of an increase in
duties on imports of certain flat steel, hot-rolled bar, cold-finished
bar, rebar, certain welded tubular products, carbon and alloy fittings,
stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill products and
stainless steel wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports
of slabs effective as of 20 March 2002. The European Communities
considered that the aforementioned US measures were in breach of US
obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994, and in
particular Articles 2.1, 2.2 ,3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1 and 9.1
of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, XIII and XIX:1 of GATT
1994. The European Communities also reserved all its rights regarding
the pursuit of the remedies provided for under the Agreement on
Safeguards and the DSU.
On 14 March 2002, Japan and Korea requested to
join the consultations. On 15 March 2002, Switzerland and Canada also
requested to join the consultations. On 20 March 2002, Venezuela also
requested to join the consultations. On 21 March 2002, Norway and China
requested to join the consultations as well. On 22 March 2002, Mexico
also requested to join the consultations. On 25 March 2002, New Zealand
also requested to join the consultations. The US informed the DSB that
it had accepted the requests of Canada, China, Japan, Korea, Mexico, New
Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and Venezuela to join the consultations.
On 20 March 2002, Japan (WT/DS249) requested
consultations with the United States also with regard to the definitive
safeguard measures imposed by the US on the imports of certain steel
products and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1,
4.2, 5.1, 7.1, 7.4. 8.1, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards
and Articles I:1, II, X:3, XIII and XIX:2 of GATT 1994. On 27 March,
Norway requested to join the consultations. On 5 April, Mexico requested
to join the consultations. On 9 April 2002, New Zealand requested to
join the consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the
requests of Mexico, New Zealand and Norway to join the consultations.
On 20 March 2002, Korea (WT/DS251) requested
consultations with the United States also with regard to the definitive
safeguard measures imposed by the US on the imports of certain steel
products and the related laws of the US, including Sections 201 and 202
of the Trade Act of 1974 and Section 311 of the NAFTA Implementation
Act. Korea claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 7.4,
8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, Articles X:3 and XIX:1
of GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement. On 27 March
2002, Japan and Norway requested to join the consultations. On 5 April,
Mexico and New Zealand requested to join the consultations. The US
informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Japan, Mexico, New
Zealand and Norway to join the consultations.
On 26 March 2002, China (WT/DS252) requested
consultations with the United States also with regard to the definitive
safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel
products and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1,
4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Articles I:1, II, X:3, XIX:1 and XIX:2 of GATT 1994. On 4 April 2002,
Japan requested to join the consultations. On 5 April 2002, New Zealand
also requested to join the consultations. The US informed the DSB that
it had accepted the requests of Japan and New Zealand to join the
consultations.
On 3 April 2002, Switzerland (WT/DS253) also
requested consultations with the United States with regard to the
definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain
steel products and claimed violations of Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3, 4.1, 4.2,
5.1, 7.1, 8.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1 and
XIX:1 of GATT 1994. On 11 April 2002, New Zealand requested to join the
consultations. On 15 April 2002, Japan requested to join the
consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests
of Japan and New Zealand to join consultations.
On 4 April 2002, Norway (WT/DS254) requested
consultations with he United States with regard to the same
safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel
products and claimed violations of Articles 3, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1,
9.1 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, II, X:3 and
XIX of GATT 1994. On 11 April 2002, New Zealand requested to join the
consultations. On 15 April 2002, Japan requested to join the
consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests
of Japan and New Zealand to join consultations.
On 14 May 2002, New Zealand (WT/DS258)
requested consultations with the United States with regard to the same
safeguard measures on steel imposed by the US and claimed violations of
Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1 and 12 of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, X and XIX:1 of GATT 1994. On
24 May 2002, the European Communities requested to join the
consultations. On 27 May 2002, Japan requested to join the
consultations. On 30 May 2002, Korea requested to join the
consultations. On 31 May 2002, Norway, China and Mexico requested to
join the consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the
requests of China, the EC, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Norway to join
consultations.
On 21 May 2002, Brazil (WT/DS259) requested
consultations with the United States with regard to the same definitive
safeguard measures imposed by the US on imports of certain steel
products. On 24 May 2002, the European Communities requested to join the
consultations. On 27 May 2002, Japan requested to join the
consultations. On 30 May 2002, Korea requested to join the
consultations. On 31 May 2002, Norway, China and Mexico requested to
join the consultations. The US informed the DSB that it had accepted the
requests of China, the EC, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Norway to join
consultations.
Further to individual requests for the
establishment of a panel submitted by the eight complainants at the
following DSB meetings:
- 3 June 2002 — the EC claimed that the US
measures violated Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a), 4.2(b), 4.2(c) and 5.1 of
the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994;
- 14 June 2002 — Japan claimed that the US
measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards
and Articles I:1, X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994. Korea claimed that the US
measures violated Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1 and 12 of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Articles X:3, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994;
- 24 June 2002 — China claimed that the US
measures violated Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 5.2, 8.1, 9.1 and 12
of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I:1, II and XIX of GATT
1994. Switzerland claimed that the US measures violated Articles 2.1,
2.2, 3.1, 4, 5.1 and 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article
XIX:1 of GATT 1994. Norway claimed that the US measures violated
Articles 2, 3, 4, 5.1, 7.1 and 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Articles I:1, X:3(a) and XIX of GATT 1994;
- 8 July 2002 — New Zealand claimed that the
US measures violated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7 and 8.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Articles X:3(a) and XIX:1 of GATT 1994;
- 29 July 2002 — Brazil claimed that the US
measures violated Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4 and 5 of the Agreement on
Safeguards and Articles I:1, X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994;
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
The DSB established a single Panel, pursuant
to an agreement between the parties and in accordance with Article 9.1
of the DSU.
The Members which had reserved their
third-party rights in the Panels established at the request of these
parties were also considered as third parties in the single Panel.
Canada, Chinese Taipei, Cuba, Malaysia, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey and
Venezuela have reserved their rights to participate in the Panel
proceedings as a third party.
On 15 July 2002, the DSB was notified of a
procedural agreement between the United States and the European
Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand.
On 18 July 2002, the DSB was notified of a procedural agreement between
the United States and Brazil.
On 15 July 2002, the European Communities,
Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand requested the
Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 25 July
2002, the Panel was composed.
On 23 October 2002, Malaysia decided to
withdraw as a third party from the panel proceedings.
On 20 February 2003, 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 volume, complexities and sensitivity of the
legal and factual questions that had been raised. The Panel hoped to
complete its work by the end of April 2003.
The Panel circulated its Reports1
to Members on
11 July 2003. The Panel concluded that all the United States’ safeguard
measures at issue were inconsistent with at least one of the following
WTO pre-requisites for the imposition of a safeguard measure: lack of
demonstration of (i) unforeseen developments; (ii) increased imports;
(iii) causation; and (iv) parallelism. The Panel thus requested the
United States to bring the relevant
safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under the
Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
On 11 August 2003, the US notified its decision to
appeal to the Appellate Body certain issues of law covered in the Panel
Report and certain legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
On 8 October 2003, the Chairman of the Appellate Body
informed the DSB that the Appellate Body would not be able to circulate
its Report within 60 days due to the time required for completion and
translation of the Report and that it estimated that the Appellate Body
Report in this appeal would be circulated to WTO Members no later than 10
November 2003.
On 10 November 2003, the Appellate Body Report was
circulated to Members. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel’s
ultimate conclusions that each of the ten safeguard measures at issue in
this dispute was inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under
Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards. The
Appellate Body reversed the Panel’s findings that the US failed to
provide a reasoned and adequate explanation on “increased
imports” and on the existence of a “causal link” between
increased imports and serious injury for two of the ten safeguard
measures. Ultimately, however, even these measures were found to be
inconsistent with the WTO Agreement on other grounds.
At its meeting on 10 December 2003, the DSB adopted the
Appellate Body report and the Panel report, as modified by the Appellate
Body report.
Implementation of adopted reports
At the DSB meeting of 10 December 2003, the US
informed Members that, on 4 December 2003, the President of the United
States had issued a proclamation that terminated all of the safeguard
measures subject to this dispute, pursuant to section 204 of the US
Trade Act of 1974.
1. Although all complaints made by the eight
co-complainants were considered in a single panel process, the United
States requested the issuance of eight separate panel reports, claiming
that to do otherwise would prejudice its WTO rights, including its right
to settle the matter with individual complainants. The complainants
vigorously opposed this request, stating that to grant it would only
delay the panel process. The Panel decided to issue its decisions in the
form of “one document constituting eight Panel Reports”. Thus,
for WTO purposes, this document is deemed to be eight separate reports,
relating to each of the eight complainants in this dispute. The document
comprises a common cover page, a common descriptive part and a common
set of findings. However, the document also contains conclusions and
recommendations that are “particularized” for each of the
complainants, with a separate number (symbol) for each individual
complainant. In the Panel’s view, this approach respected the rights of
all parties while ensuring the prompt and effective settlement of the
disputes. back to text
|
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using. |
