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.
> 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
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.
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.