. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS259/1
G/L/552
G/SG/D27/1
23 May 2002
(02-2851)
Original:  English
UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES
ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Request for Consultations by Brazil
The following communication, dated 21 May 2002, from the Permanent Mission of Brazil to
the Permanent Mission of the United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, iscirculated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
_______________
Upon instruction from my authorities, I hereby  convey the request of the Government of
Brazil for consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding of the Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards,
with regard to the imposition of definitive safeguards measures by the US Government on imports ofcertain steel products.
The subject measures were imposed pursuant to Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002 - To
Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition from Imports of Certain Steel Products  and the
Memorandum of March 5, 2002 - Action Under Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 Concerning
Certain Steel Products published in volume 67, No. 45 of the Federal Register of 7 March 2002.
The subject measures are in the form of increased duties on imports of flat carbon steel
products, tin mill products, hot-rolled and cold-finished bar, rebar, certain tubular products, carbon
and alloy fittings and flanges, stainless steel bar, stainless steel rod and stainless steel wire and a tariff
rate quota on imports of carbon steel slab.
The Government of Brazil considers these measures by the United States to be inconsistent
with its obligations under the relevant provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on
Safeguards.  In particular, but not limited to, the US is considered to be in breach of the following
obligations:
1. Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , the determinations and
resulting measures were not based on proper determinations of "like or directly competitive
products" or of the domestic producers of products like or directly competitive with the
imported products.
2. Article 2:1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , the determinations were
deficient in terms of the requirements that impor ts be "in such increased quantities, absolutes
or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause
serious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products".WT/DS259/1
G/L/552
G/SG/D27/1
Page 2
3. Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , the determination failed to
ensure that injury from other factors was not attributed to imports.
4. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 3:1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because,
inter alia , of failure to establish that the increased imports and the conditions of their
importation were the result of "unforeseen developments" and the effects of obligations
assumed under the GATT 1994.
5. Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because,
inter alia , the measures discriminate based on source.
6. Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, read in conjunction with Article 2.2, because,
inter alia , the determination failed to respect th e requirement of parallelism between the
scope of the investigation of injury and the scope of the safeguards measures.
7. Article 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , of the failure to afford an
opportunity for sufficient participation by interested parties and to conduct an adequate
investigation, including undue reliance on confidentiality restriction to bar disclosure of
information and the failure to set forth in the published report the findings and reasoned
conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justification for the exclusion
of Canada and Mexico and for the actual measures imposed by the President.
8. Article 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia , the relief exceeded that
necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment.
9. Article XVI of the Marrakesh Agreement establishing the WTO because, inter alia , the
United States has failed to ensure conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative
procedures with the obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994.
The Government of Brazil reserves its rights to raise additional factual and legal issues during
the course of the consultations and in any request for the establishment of a panel.  It also reserves all
rights regarding the pursuit of remedies under the Agreement on Safeguards and the DSU.
In light of the DSU provisions governing this matter, my authorities look forward to receiving
in due course a reply from the United States to th is request.  Brazil is ready to consider with the
United States mutually convenient dates to hold consultations in Geneva.
__________