./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/129
30 August 2002
(02-4584)
Dispute Settlement Body
8 July 2002
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 8 July 2002
Chairman:  Mr. Carlos Pérez del Castillo (Uruguay)
1. United States – Definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by New Zealand (WT/DS258/9)
1. The Chairman drew attention to the co mmunication from New Zealand contained in
document WT/DS258/9.
2. The representative of New Zealand recalled that on 5 March 2002 the United States had
imposed safeguard measures on certain steel imports, in the form of increases in duties and in the
form of a tariff rate quota on slabs.  Over re cent months, New Zealand had on a number of occasions
taken the opportunity to outline to the United States its concerns about the GATT/WTO inconsistency
of its measures.  Most recently, the consultations had been held on 13 June 2002 and New Zealandand the United States had since jointly considered that these consultations had failed to resolve the
dispute.  As stated in document WT/DS258/9, New Zealand considered that the US measures were
inconsistent with the obligations of the United States related to safeguards under both the GATT 1994
and the Agreement on Safeguards.  He did not wish, at this stage, to recite the full list of claims,
which coincided in many respects with claims that other Members had brought before the DSB in
recent weeks.  He wished to simply request that the DSB take the requisite action at the present
meeting to establish a panel on this matter.  Finally, he wished to express his appreciation for thecooperation that was being shown by all Members concerned in this matter to facilitate the
consideration of this complaint along with those of other Members through a single panel process
under Article 9.1 of the DSU.
3. The representative of the United States said that it was regrettable that New Zealand had
chosen to challenge the US safeguard measures.  As his delegation had stated previously, these
measures were fully consistent with the applicable portions of the Safeguards Agreement and the
GATT 1994, and the United States trusted that the dispute settlement process would ultimately reach
the same conclusion.  Based on its discussions with New Zealand, the United States did not oppose
the establishment of a panel at the present meeting.  Consistent with Article 9.1 of the DSU, the
United States believed that this request should be referred to the single Panel already established atthe request of the EC, Japan, Korea, China, Norw ay and Switzerland so that a single panel would
consider all seven panel requests.
4. The representative of the European Comm unities said that the EC welcomed the
establishment of a panel against the US steel safeguards following the first request presented by
New Zealand and the application of Article 9.1 of the DSU.  Thus, the single Panel established in thecases brought by the EC, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland and Norway would also consider theWT/DSB/M/129
Page 2
complaint by New Zealand, which became the seventh Member to launch a case against the US steel
safeguards.  The EC also recalled that Brazil had held consultations under the DSU on the same
matter and on the basis of similar claims on 13 June 2002.  The EC expressed its expectations that all
the DSU procedures in relation to the steel case, including the one launched by Brazil, would proceed
expeditiously.
5. The representative of Japan said that her country also welcomed the establishment of a panel
requested by New Zealand upon the first consideration by the DSB and agreed to the establishment of
a single panel in these proceedings.
6. The representative of Korea said that his country welcomed the establishment of a panel
requested by New Zealand and the fact that New Zealand would join the proceedings of the single
Panel to which Korea was a party.
7. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  that the request by New Zealand for the
establishment of a panel with standard terms of reference is accepted.  The DSB further agreed that, as
provided for in Article 9.1 of the DSU in respect of multiple complainants, the Panel established at the
3 June DSB meeting to examine the complaint by the European Communities contained in
WT/DS248/12, which pursuant to the DSB's decisi ons on 14 and 24 June 2002 was also requested to
examine the complaint by Japan contained in WT/DS249/6, the complaint by Korea contained inWT/DS251/7, the complaint by China contained in WT/DS252/5, the complaint by Switzerland
contained in WT/DS253/5 and the complaint by  Norway contained in WT/DS254/5, would also
examine the complaint by New Zealand contained in WT/DS258/9.
8. The Chairman said that since a single Panel had been established those delegations who had
reserved their third-party rights to participate in the proceedings of the Panel established at the 3 June
and then subsequently on 14 and 24 June 2002 DSB meetings shall be considered as third parties in
the Panel established at the present meeting.
9. The DSB took note of the statement.
__________