DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

DS: Ecuador — Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Medium Density Fibreboard

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:

back to top

Current status

 

back to top

Key facts

Short title:
Complainant:
Respondent:
Third Parties:
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations)
Request for Consultations received:

 

back to top

Latest document

  

back to top

Summary of the dispute to date

The summary below was up-to-date at

Consultations

Complaint by Chile.

On 24 November 2003, Chile requested consultations with Ecuador in respect of a definitive safeguard measure applied by Ecuador on imports of medium density fibreboard.

Chile alleges that there were no “unforeseen developments”, no increase in imports and no threat of serious injury. Chile alleges that the Ecuadorian authorities’ investigation was flawed because it did not analyse all product sub-categories covered by the measure, and that their report was inadequate because it did not contain an adequate and reasoned explanation of all relevant factors having a bearing on the situation of the domestic industry, did not demonstrate a causal relationship between a supposed increase in imports and a supposed threat of serious injury, did not respect the principle of non-attribution of injury caused by other factors, did not determine the extent of application of the measure necessary to prevent serious injury and to facilitate adjustment and did not explain whether imports from countries excluded from the application of the measure were also excluded from the investigation.

Chile also alleges that Ecuador did not explain the method by which it will administer and allot quota shares among supplying countries, did not specify the critical circumstances which justified imposition of the prior provisional measure and was late in notifying the measure to the WTO.

Chile considers that the measure is inconsistent with substantive and procedural obligations in inter alia Article XIX:1(a) of GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards.

Share


  

Problems viewing this page? If so, please contact webmaster@wto.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.