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:|
|Mutually Agreed Solution notified:||16 May 2007|
back to top
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at
Complaint by Mexico.
On 3 February 2003, Mexico requested consultations with the US concerning several antidumping measures imposed by the US on imports of Gray Portland cement and cement clinker from Mexico, including:
- the final determinations in several administrative and
- the US authorities’ determination regarding the
continuation of the antidumping orders; and
- the US authorities’ rejection of a request by Mexican producers to initiate an administrative review based on changed circumstances as well as.
In addition to the above measures, Mexico’s request included a number of laws, regulations and administrative practices (such as “zeroing”) used by the US authorities in the above determinations. Mexico considered that the above antidumping measures are incompatible with Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 18 of the Antidumping Agreement, Articles III, VI and X of the GATT 1994 and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
On 29 July 2003, Mexico requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 August 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
Further to a second request to establish a panel by Mexico, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 29 August 2003. China, the EC, Japan and Chinese Taipei reserved their third-party rights. On 5 September 2003, Canada reserved its third-party rights.
On 24 August 2004, Mexico requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 3 September 2004, the Director-General composed the panel.
On 1 March 2005, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it would not be able to complete its work in six months, inter alia due to the large number of claims involved, the complexity of the issues and certain postponements in the Panel’s timetable and that the Panel hoped to complete its work by the end of October 2005. On 3 October 2005, the Panel informed the DSB that due to its continued consideration of the issues in this dispute, it would not be possible for the Panel to complete its work by the end of October, and that the Panel expected to complete its work in January 2006.
On 16 January 2006, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that in the context of negotiations to find a mutually acceptable solution to this dispute, Mexico had requested the Panel to suspend its proceedings, in accordance with Article 12.12 of the DSU, until further notice. The Panel agreed to this request. Since the Panel was not requested to resume its work, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, the authority for establishment of the panel lapsed as of 14 January 2007.
Mutually agreed solution
On 16 May 2007, the United States and Mexico notified the DSB of a mutually agreed solution under Article 3.6 of the DSU. The mutually agreed solution was in the form of an agreement between the United States and Mexico, dated 6 March 2006 (the “Trade in Cement Agreement”). The Trade in Cement Agreement makes possible increased imports of Mexican cement, encourages US cement exports to Mexico, and settles outstanding litigation relating to the US anti-dumping order on Mexican cement. The Agreement also provides for the anti-dumping order to be revoked as of 1 February 2009.
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact email@example.com giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.