Appellate Body Reports

On 3 May 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States. The request concerned the final affirmative countervailing duty determination by the US Department of Commerce (File No. C‑122839) issued on 25 March 2002, with respect to certain softwood lumber from Canada. The measures at issue include the initiation and conduct of the investigation, the final determination, provision of expedited reviews, and other matters related to these measures. Canada contended that these measures were inconsistent with, and violate the United States’ obligations under Articles 1, 2, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 22 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement and Articles VI:3 and X:3 of the GATT 1994.

The European Communities, Japan, Korea, Switzerland, Canada, Venezuela, Norway, China, Mexico, New Zealan and Brazil requested consultations with the United States regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the US in the form of an increase in duties on imports of certain flat steel, hot-rolled bar, cold-finished bar, rebar, certain welded tubular products, carbon and alloy fittings, stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod, tin mill products and stainless steel wire and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of slabs effective as of 20 March 2002.

On 30 January 2002, Japan requested consultations with the United States in respect of the final determinations of both the United States Department of Commerce (DOC) and the United States International Trade Commission in the full sunset review of the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports of corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products from Japan. These determinations were issued on 2 August 2000 and 21 November 2000, respectively. Japan claimed that these determinations were erroneous and based on deficient rulings, procedures and provisions pertaining to the United States Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (“the Act”) and related regulations. Japan further claimed that the procedures and provisions of the Act and related regulations as well as the above determinations were inconsistent with, inter alia, Articles VI and X of GATT 1994; Articles 2, 3, 5, 6 (including Annex II), 11, 12, and 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

On 21 December 2000 and 21 May 2001 respectively, the complainants requested consultations with the US concerning the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed on 28 October 2000 with the title of “Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000” (the “Act”) usually referred to as “the Byrd Amendment”. According to the complainants the Act is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under several provisions of the GATT, the AD Agreement, the SCM Agreement, and the WTO Agreement. In particular, the Act is alleged to be inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under: (i) Article 18.1 of the ADA in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA; (ii) Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10, 7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; (iii) Article X(3)(a) of the GATT; (iv) Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; (v) Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement; (vi) Article 5 of the SCM Agreement; and (vii) Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO, Article 18.4 of the ADA and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement.

On 20 March 2001, Peru requested consultations with the EC concerning Regulation (EEC) 2136/89 which, according to Peru, prevents Peruvian exporters to continue to use the trade description “sardines” for their products. Peru submitted that, according to the relevant Codex Alimentarius standards (STAN 94-181 rev. 1995), the species “sardinops sagax sagax” are listed among those species which can be traded as “sardines”. Peru, therefore, considered that the above Regulation constitutes an unjustifiable barrier to trade, and, hence, in breach of Articles 2 and 12 of the TBT Agreement and Article XI:1 of GATT 1994. In addition, Peru argues that the Regulation is inconsistent with the principle of non-discrimination, and, hence, in breach of Articles I and III of GATT 1994.

On 10 November 2000, the EC requested consultations with the US concerning the continued application by the United States of countervailing duties on a number of products. In particular, the EC claimed that the application of the “same person” methodology by the US, and the continued imposition of duties based on it, are in breach of Articles 10, 19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, because there is no proper determination of a benefit to the producer of the goods under investigation, as required by Article 1.1(b) of the SCM Agreement. The EC included in this request for consultations 14 US countervailing duty orders1 where this “same person” methodology was applied. All these cases involve alleged non-recurring subsidies granted to firms prior to a change of ownership.

On 13 June 2000, Korea requested consultations with the United States in respect of the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on imports of circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line pipe). Korea noted that on 18 February 2000 the United States proclaimed a definitive safeguard measure on imports of line pipe (subheadings 7306.10.10 and 7306.10.50 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States). In that proclamation, the United States announced that the proposed date of introduction of the measure was 1 March 2000 and that the measure was expected to remain in effect for 3 years and 1 day. Korea considered that the US procedures and determinations that led to the imposition of the safeguard measure as well as the measure itself contravened various provisions contained in the Safeguards Agreement and the GATT 1994. In particular, Korea considers that the measure is inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of the Safeguards Agreement; and Articles I, XIII and XIX of the GATT 1994.

On 6 October 1998, the EC requested consultations with India concerning certain measures affecting the automotive sector being applied by India. The EC stated that the measures include the documents entitled “Export and Import Policy, 1997-2002”, “ITC (HS Classification) Export and Import Policy 1997-2002” (“Classification”), and “Public Notice No. 60 (PN/97-02) of 12 December 1997, Export and Import Policy April 1997-March 2002”, and any other legislative or administrative provision implemented or consolidated by these policies, as well as MoUs signed by the Indian Government with certain manufacturers of automobiles. The EC contended that: under these measures, imports of complete automobiles and of certain parts and components were subject to a system of non-automatic import licenses. in accordance with Public Notice No. 60, import licenses might be granted only to local joint venture manufacturers that had signed an MoU with the Indian Government, whereby they undertook, inter alia, to comply with certain local content and export balancing requirements. The EC alleged violations of Articles III and XI of GATT 1994, and Article 2 of the TRIMs Agreement.

On 3 April 2000, Pakistan requested consultations with the US in respect of a transitional safeguard measure applied by the United States, as of 17 March 1999, on combed cotton yarn (United States category 301) from Pakistan (see US Federal Register of 12 March 1999, document 99-6098). In accordance with Article 6.10 of the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing (ATC), the United States had notified the TMB on 5 March 1999 that it had decided to unilaterally impose a restraint, after consultations as to whether the situation called for a restraint had failed to produce a mutually satisfactory solution. In April 1999, the TMB examined the US restraint pursuant to Article 6.10 of the ATC and recommended that the US restraint should be rescinded. On 28 May 1999, in accordance with Article 8.10 of the ATC, the United States notified the TMB that it considered itself unable to conform to the recommendations issued by the TMB. Despite a further recommendation of the TMB pursuant to Article 8.10 of the ATC that the United States reconsider its position, the United States continued to maintain its unilateral restraint and thus the matter remained unresolved. Pakistan claimed as follows: the transitional safeguards applied by the United States are inconsistent with the United States’ obligations under Articles 2.4 of the ATC and not justified by Article 6 of the ATC; the US restraint does not meet the requirements for transitional safeguards set out in paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 7 of Article 6 of the ATC.

On 16 July 1999, New Zealand requested consultations with the US in respect of a safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb meat from New Zealand (WT/DS177). New Zealand alleged that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974, the US imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat effective from 22 July 1999. New Zealand contended that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 4, 5, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994. On 23 July 1999, Australia requested consultations with the US in respect of a definitive safeguard measure imposed by the US on imports of lamb (WT/DS178). Australia alleged that by Presidential Proclamation under Section 203 of the US Trade Act 1974, the US imposed a definitive safeguard measure in the form of a tariff-rate quota on imports of fresh, chilled, or frozen lamb meat from Australia effective from 22 July 1999. Australia contended that this measure is inconsistent with Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 11 and 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and Articles I, II and XIX of GATT 1994.