DS: United States — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures on Steel Plate from India
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.
back to top
(as cited in request for consultations)
|Request for Consultations received:|
|Panel Report circulated:||28 June 2002|
back to top
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at
Complaint by India.
On 4 October 2000, India requested consultations with the United States concerning:
- final affirmative determinations of sales of
certain cut-to-length carbon quality steel plate products from India at
less than fair value by US Department of Commerce (DOC) on 13 December
1999 and affirmed on 10 February 2000;
- interpretation and use of provisions relating to
facts available in the anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations
by DOC; and
- determination and interpretation by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) of negligibility, cumulation and material injury caused by the said Indian steel imports.
India considered that these determinations are erroneous and based on deficient procedures contained in various provisions of US anti-dumping and countervailing duty law. According to India, these determinations and provisions raise questions concerning the obligations of the United States under the GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the Agreement establishing the WTO (WTO Agreement). India considered that the provisions of these agreements with which these measures and determinations appear to be inconsistent, include, but are not limited to, the following: Articles VI and X of the GATT 1994; Articles 1, 2, 3 (especially 3.3), 5 (especially 5.8), 6 (especially 6.8), 12, 15, 18.4 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Articles 10, 11 (especially 11.9), 15 (especially 15.3), 22 and 27 (especially 27.10) of the SCM Agreement; Article XVI of the WTO Agreement.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
Further to India’s request, the DSB established a Panel at its meeting of 24 July 2001. Chile, the EC and Japan reserved their third-rights. On 16 October 2001, India requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 26 October 2001, the Director-General composed the Panel. On 16 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months in light of scheduling conflicts. The Panel expected to complete its work in June 2002, depending on translation.
On 28 June 2002, the Panel circulated its report to Members. The Panel concluded that:
- the United States statutory provisions governing
the use of facts available, sections 776(a) and 782(d) and (e) of the
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, are not inconsistent with Articles 6.8 and
paragraphs 3, 5, and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement.
- the United States did not act inconsistently with Article 15 of the AD Agreement with respect to India in the anti-dumping investigation underlying this dispute.
The Panel also concluded that the “practice” of the USDOC concerning the application of “total facts available” was not a measure which can give rise to an independent claim of violation of the AD Agreement, and have therefore not ruled on India’s claim in this regard.
With respect to India’s claims not addressed above, the Panel concluded that:
- it would not rule on India’s abandoned claim; and
- in light of considerations of judicial economy, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to make findings with respect to the remainder of India’s claims.
The Panel therefore recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the AD Agreement.
At its meeting on 29 July 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report.
Implementation of adopted reports
On 1 October 2002 the United States and India informed the DSB that pursuant to Article 21.3(b) of the DSU they have mutually agreed that the reasonable period of time to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute shall be five months, i.e., from 29 July 2002 to 29 December 2002. On 17 January 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they had mutually agreed to modify the reasonable period of time for implementation so as to expire on 31 January 2003.
On 14 February 2003, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed on certain procedures under Article 21 and 22 of the DSU.
At the DSB meeting on 19 February 2003, the United States informed the DSB that it had implemented the DSB's recommendations and rulings.
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact email@example.com giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.