./. WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  RESTRICTED 
WT/DSB/M/168 
2 June 2004  
 
(04-2335) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
26 April 2004  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard 
on 26 April 2004 
 
Chairperson:  Ms Amina Mohamed (Kenya) 
 
 
1. United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in softwood lumber 
from Canada 
(a) Report of the Panel (WT/DS277/R) 
1. The Chairperson recalled that at its meeting on 7 May 2003, the DSB had established a panel 
to examine the complaint by Canada.  She said that the Report of the Panel, contained in 
WT/DS277/R, had been circulated on 22 March 2004 as an unrestricted document pursuant to the 
Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents contained in WT/L/452.  The 
Panel Report was before the DSB for adoption at the present meeting at the request of Canada.  This 
adoption procedure was without prejudice to the right  of Members to express their views on the Panel 
Report. 
2. The representative of Canada said that his c ountry wished to thank the Panel and the 
Secretariat for their work in this matter.  Canada  welcomed the Report and the Panel's conclusion that 
the fundamental basis for the US International Tr ade Commission's determination was not consistent 
with the provisions of the Anti-Dumping and SCM Ag reements.  This decision confirmed Canada's 
long-standing position that countervailing and anti- dumping duties imposed by the United States on 
Canadian softwood lumber exports violated internatio nal trade rules.  Canada urged the United States 
to bring its measures into conformity as soon as possible. 
3. The representative of the United States said that  her country was of course disappointed that 
the Panel had concluded that the US ITC determination in this dispute was not consistent with certain 
Anti-Dumping and SCM Agreement obligations in its analysis and explanation.  However, the Panel 
had reached a number of conclusions that the United States supported and that it wished to highlight.  
The United States noted first the Panel's careful discussion of standard of review in a dispute involving claims under both the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent and the SCM Agreement.  In particular, 
the Panel had taken into account the Declaration of  Ministers relating to dispute settlement under 
these Agreements, and had concluded that it "should seek to avoid inc onsistent conclusions" under the 
two Agreements.  Second, the United States welcomed the Panel's rejection of Canada's approach of 
arguing claims of a general nature simply by refe rring to its arguments on claims of a more specific 
nature.  For instance, the United States welcomed th e Panel's rejection of Canada's suggestion that 
facts demonstrating a violation of other articles of the Agreements necessarily demonstrated a 
violation of the "special care" provisions of Article 3.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and 
Article 15.8 of the SCM Agreement.  Third, the United States wished to underscore the Panel's 
rejection of Canada's argument that Article 3.7 of  the Antidumping Agreement and Article 15.7 of the 
SCM Agreement required an investigating authority to  identify a single or specific event as a change WT/DSB/M/168 
Page 2  
 
in circumstances that would cause a threat of inju ry to ripen into actual injury.  Fourth, the 
United States noted with approval the Panel's conf irmation that the word "consider" did not mean 
"make a finding", and thus, when an investigating authority was required to "consider" certain factors, 
it did not need to make explicit findings with respect to the factors considered.  Fifth, the 
United States welcomed the Panel's finding that  the ITC was not required to undertake a separate 
consideration of certain factors identified in the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the SCM Agreement 
in the context of its threat analys is, because it already had considered t hose factors in the context of its 
present injury analysis.  Sixth, the United States we lcomed the Panel's recognition that its review of 
an investigating authority's determination was based on the entirety of that de termination and that not 
all analysis must be contained in the specific part s of the report dealing with particular issues.  
Seventh, the United States welcomed the Panel's rejection of Canada's argument that the ITC 
improperly combined in a single determination its an alysis with respect to dumping and its analysis 
with respect to subsidized imports. 
4. On the other hand, as mentioned at the outset, the United States was, of course, disappointed 
with the Panel's ultimate conclusion.  The Panel' s discussion of the evidence before the ITC and the 
ITC's analysis of that evidence s eemed to focus on the threat analys is in the ITC's report as a stand-
alone section, rather than the determination as a whole, as the Panel ha d earlier indicated was 
appropriate.  While the United States disagreed with  the Panel's ultimate conclusion, it believed that 
the practical significance of that factual conclusion was limited.  For that reason, the United States 
had decided not to appeal. 
5. The DSB took note of the statements and adopted the Panel Report contained in 
WT/DS277/R. 
 
__________