Articles
WTO APPELLATE BODY RULES ON STEEL SAFEGUARDS
TweetNovember 10, 2003
WTO APPELLATE BODY RULES ON STEEL SAFEGUARDS
On
The
The
The Appellate Body also agreed with the panel that "competent authorities are required to examine trends" in imports. Because imports of certain carbon (and alloy) flat-rolled steel (CCFRS) decreased from 1999, and did not recover, the USITC should have focused on, or at least accounted for, this most recent trend and given an explanation of how the trend in imports supported the competent authority's finding that the requirement of "such increased quantities" within the meaning of Articles XIX:1(a) and 2.1 had been fulfilled. Relating to hot-rolled bar, the U.S. failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its finding that imports of hot-rolled bar "increased", as required by Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, which was all the more serious in the light of the fact that the intervening trend of decreasing imports that was not addressed by the USITC occurred at the very end of the period of investigation. The Appellate Body said that its own review of the facts suggested that the facts might actually support the ITC's conclusion relating to increased imports, specifically noting that they did not necessarily share the Panel's conclusion about those facts. However, this was not the issue before them—rather, it was whether the USITC provided an explanation in its report on whether imports increased relative to domestic production. On that point, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel that the USITC did not explain why, despite the decline that occurred at the end of the period of investigation, the facts nevertheless supported a determination of "increased imports" within the meaning of Article 2.1.
However, the Appellate Body reversed the Panel's conclusions that the application of the safeguard measures on imports of tin mill products and stainless steel wire was inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its determination with respect to 'increased imports' and ‘'causal link' between any increased imports and serious injury’—the Panel had made this finding because that the explanation given by the ITC consisted of alternative explanations. The Appellate Body did not believe that the determinations could not be reconciled; that an affirmative finding with respect to a broad product grouping, on the one hand, and an affirmative finding with respect to one of the products contained in that broad product grouping, on the other hand, are, necessarily, mutually exclusive. The Appellate Body stated that it may be that they are irreconcilable, but that will depend on the facts of the case. Here, the Panel did not inquire into the details of the findings as they related to increased imports and, hence, was not adequately informed as to whether the three findings were reconcilable or not. Secondly, the Appellate Body noted that Section 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards merely requires the competent authority, to publish a report setting forth their findings and reasoned conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law, and did not read Article 3.1 as necessarily precluding the possibility of providing multiple findings instead of a single finding in order to support a determination under Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
Finally, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's conclusions that the application of all safeguard measures at issue in this dispute was inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the United States failed to comply with the requirement of 'parallelism' between the products for which the conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were subjected to the safeguard measure. This is the principle whereby, for purposes of applying a safeguard measure, a Member has conducted an investigation considering imports from all sources (that is, including any members of a free-trade area), that Member may not, subsequently, without any further analysis, exclude imports from free-trade area partners from the application of the resulting safeguard measure. The word "parallelism" is not in the text of the Agreement on Safeguards; rather, the Appellate Body’s view was that the requirement that is described as "parallelism" is found in the "parallel" language used in the first and second paragraphs of Article 2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, which uses the phrase “products being imported”. Nevertheless, imports from
The Appellate Body declined to rule on whether USITC failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation demonstrating that a "causal link" existed between increased imports and serious injury, as required by Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, for CCFRS, hot-rolled bar, cold-finished bar, rebar, welded pipe, FFTJ, and stainless steel bar.
Under the Dispute Settlement Understanding Article 22, any retaliatory measures would have to be approved by a Article 22 arbitration panel (usually consisting of the original panel members), who set the level of compensatory measures. However, with the European Union threatening retaliation by mid-December, it remains to be seen whether the EU will comply with the terms of the Understanding on Dispute Settlement, or take impermissible unilateral action. Such unilateral action would not be the first in the history of the WTO, but may further undermine the authority of the WTO and respect for its dispute settlement mechanism. The European Union has announced its intention to proceed and impose equivalent retaliatory tariffs by mid December of up to 30% on $2.2 billion worth of