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
back to top
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at
Complaint by the United States.
On 16 June 2003, the United States requested consultations with Mexico concerning its definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and long grain white rice as well as certain provisions of Mexico’s Foreign Trade Act and its Federal Code of Civil Procedure.
The US claimed that these measures were inconsistent with Mexico’s obligations under the provisions of GATT 1994, the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement. In particular, the US claimed that:
- Mexico’s definitive anti-dumping measures on beef and
long grain white rice were inconsistent with at least Articles 3, 5.8, 6,
9, 12, 11.1 and Annex II of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
- Certain provisions of Mexico’s Foreign Trade Act and
its Federal Code of Civil Procedure were inconsistent with Articles 5.8,
6, 6.1.1, 6.8, 7, 9, 9.5, 10.6, 11 and 11.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
and Articles 11.9, 12.1.1, 12.7, 17, 19, 19.3, 20.6, 21 and 21.1 of the
- The US also claimed that Mexico’s measures appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to the US directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.
On 19 September 2003, the US requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 2 October 2003, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
Further to a second request to establish a panel by the US, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 7 November 2003. China, the European Communities and Turkey reserved their third-party rights.
On 4 February 2004, the United States requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 13 February 2004, the Director-General composed the panel.
On 11 August 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it 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 in November 2004. On 26 November 2004, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that it expected to complete its work in March 2005.
On 6 June 2005, the Report of the Panel was circulated to Members. In its Report:
- The Panel upheld all of the United States’ claims concerning both the injury and the dumping margin determination of the Mexican investigating authority in the rice investigation, applying judicial economy with respect to some other related claims.
- With regard to the claims concerning Mexico’s Foreign Trade Act as such, the Panel also finds in favour of the United States on practically all accounts. The Panel rejected the US claim with regard to Mexico’s Federal Code of Civil Procedure.
(Although the United States had originally included in its request for consultations the definitive anti-dumping measures imposed by Mexico on imports of beef from the United States, in its request for the establishment of a panel the United States did not include the beef-related claims.)
On 20 July 2005, the notification of an appeal was submitted by Mexico. On 14 September 2005, the Appellate Body informed the DSB that it would not be able to provide its Report within 60 days in the light of the participants’ request for translation of participants’ and third participants’ submissions, and that the Report would be circulated to Members no later than 29 November 2005.
On 29 November 2005, the Appellate Body circulated its Report to Members. In its Report, the Appellate Body upheld, in large part, the Panel's findings. The Appellate Body rejected the Panel's findings that Mexico acted inconsistently with Articles 6.1, 6.10, and 12.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
At its meeting of 20 December 2005, the DSB adopted the Appellate Body report and Panel report, as modified by the Appellate Body report.
Implementation of adopted reports
At the DSB meeting on 20 January 2006, Mexico stated that it intended to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB but that it would need a reasonable period of time to do so. Mexico was ready to consult with the United States with a view to agreeing on the duration of the reasonable period of time. On 18 May 2006, the parties informed the DSB that they had agreed that the reasonable period of time:
- with respect to paragraphs 8.1 and 8.3 of the panel report, and paragraph 350(b) and (c) of the Appellate Body report, shall be 8 months, expiring on 20 August 2006
- with respect to paragraph 8.5 of the panel report and paragraph 350(d) of the Appellate Body report, shall be 12 months, expiring on 20 December 2006.
On 16 January 2007, the parties informed the DSB of an Understanding regarding procedures under Articles 21 and 22 of the DSU.
Follow this dispute
Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.