DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

DS: United States — Anti-Dumping Duty on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) of One Megabit or Above from Korea

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

 

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 Korea.

On 14 August 1997, Korea requested consultations with the US in respect of a decision of the US Department of Commerce (DoC) not to revoke the anti-dumping duty on dynamic random access memory semi-conductors (DRAMS) of one megabyte or above originating from Korea. Korea contended that the DoC’s decision was made despite the finding that the Korean DRAM producers have not dumped their products for a period of more than three and a half consecutive years, and despite the existence of evidence demonstrating conclusively that Korean DRAM producers will not engage in dumping DRAMS in the future. Korea considered that these measures are in violation of Articles 6 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 6 November 1997, Korea requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 18 November 1997, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.

 

Panel and Appellate Body proceedings

Further to a second request to establish a panel by Korea, the DSB established a panel at its meeting on 16 January 1998. On 10 March 1998, Korea requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the Panel. On 19 March 1998, the Panel was composed. The report of the Panel was circulated on 29 January 1999. The Panel found the measures complained of to be in violation of Article 11.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. At its meeting on 19 March 1999, the DSB adopted the Panel Report.

 

Implementation of adopted reports

On 13 April 1999, the United States informed the DSB it was studying ways in which to implement the recommendations of the DSB. At the DSB meeting on 26 July 1999, the two parties notified the DSB that they had agreed on an implementation period of 8 months effective from the date of adoption of the report, i.e. from 19 March 1999. The reasonable period of time expired on 19 November 1999.

At the DSB meeting on 27 January 2000, the US stated that it considered to have implemented the recommendations and rulings by the DSB. The US recalled that the Commerce Department had amended section 351.222(b) by deleting the “not likely” standard and incorporating the “necessary” standard of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Commerce Department then issued a revised Final Results of Redetermination in the Third Administrative Review on 4 November 1999, concluding that, because a resumption of dumping was likely, it was necessary to leave the anti-dumping order in place.

 

Compliance proceedings

On 9 March 2000, Korea informed the DSB that it believed that the measures taken by the United States to comply with the rulings and recommendations of the DSB were not consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X:1 of GATT 1994. Korea therefore requested that this matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. On 6 April 2000, Korea submitted a new request to the effect that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. At its meeting on 25 April 2000, the DSB agreed to reconvene the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU. The EC reserved its reserved its third-party rights. On 11 May 2000, the Compliance Panel was composed.

On 19 September 2000, Korea requested the Panel to suspend its work, including the issuance of the interim report, “until further notification” pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU. The Panel, in a letter sent to the parties on 21 September 2000, agreed to this request.

 

Mutually agreed solution

On 20 October 2000, the parties notified the DSB of a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter, involving the revocation of the antidumping order at issue as the result of a five-year “sunset” review by the US Department of Commerce.

Share


Follow this dispute

  

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