RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DSB/M/160 
27 January 2004 
 
 (04-0286) 
Dispute Settlement Body 
10 December 2003  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard  
on 10 December 2003  
 
Chairman:  Mr. Shotaro Oshima (Japan) 
 
 Subjects discussed
: Page  
1. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products 
from Japan..................................................................................................................... ............1  
(a) Request for modification of the reasonable period of time.........................................................1  
2. Japan – Measures affecting th e importation of apples..........................................................2  
(a) Report of the Appellate Body and Report of the Panel...............................................................2  
3. United States – Definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel 
products ....................................................................................................................... ..............5  
(a) Report of the Appellate Body and Reports of the Panel .............................................................5  
 
 
1. United States – Anti-dumping measures on certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan 
(a) Request for modification of the reasonable period of time (WT/DS184/17) 
1. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the United States contained in 
document WT/DS184/17. 
2. The representative of the United States  recalled that at the 28 November 2002 DSB meeting, 
her country had reported that it had implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with 
respect to the calculation of anti-dumping margins in the subject anti-dumping investigation of hot-
rolled steel from Japan, but that it had not ye t addressed all of the DSB's recommendations and 
rulings.  The US administration had worked with Congress over the past year to complete the implementation of the DSB's recommendations and ru lings.  The United States intended to renew its 
efforts to complete implementation when Congr ess would resume its activities in January 2004.  
Therefore, after consultations with Japan, the Un ited States was requesting that the DSB modify the 
"reasonable period of time" for implementation of the DSB's recommendations and rulings so as to 
expire on 31 July 2004.  The United States believed th at such an extension of time would promote a 
principal aim of the dispute settlement system, which was to provide mutually satisfactory solutions to 
disputes.  The United States intended to continue  discussions with Japan on implementation of the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.  WT/DSB/M/160 
Page 2  
 
 3. The representative of Japan
 said that her country deeply regretted that the first session of the 
108th Congress had ended without even introduction of any specific legislative amendments necessary for compliance, despite th e US administration's pledge to "support" such amendments.  The 
United States had implemented only a part of the recommendations and rulings before the end of the 
original reasonable period of time.  Persistent failure  of the United States to ensure legislative actions 
necessary for the implementation of the DSB's recomm endations and rulings, of which this case was a 
salient example, was particularly worrisome.  This failure was causing serious damage to the 
credibility of not only the United States, but also  the WTO as a whole.  Japan, once again, strongly 
urged the United States to fully comply with the recommendations and rulings in this proceeding as 
soon as possible, including having statutory changes passed in the Congress.  Having said this, upon 
instructions from her authorities, she was reporting to the DSB at the present meeting that Japan did 
not object to the modification of the reasonable period of time proposed by the United States, based on the consultations with the United States.  Japan certainly hoped that the additional seven months 
given to the United States would lead to a defin itive solution of this long-standing dispute.  Japan 
looked forward to being further consulted by  the United States on its concrete plans for 
implementation. 
4. The DSB took note
 of the statements and agreed  to the request of the United States contained 
in document WT/DS184/17. 
2. Japan – Measures affecting the importation of apples 
(a) Report of the Appellate Body (WT/DS245/AB /R) and Report of the Panel (WT/DS245/R) 
5. The Chairman  drew attention to the communication from the Appellate Body contained in 
document WT/DS245/7 transmitting the Appellate Body Report on "Japan – Measures Affecting the 
Importation of Apples", which had been ci rculated on 26 November 2003 in document 
WT/DS245/AB/R, in accordance with Article 17.5 of  the DSU.  He reminded delegations that, in 
accordance with the Decision on Pr ocedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents 
contained in document WT/L/452, the Appellate Body  Report and the Panel Report pertaining to this 
case had been circulated as unrestricted documents.  He recalled that Article 17.14 of the DSU 
required that:  "An Appellate Body report sha ll be adopted by the DSB and unconditionally accepted 
by the parties to the dispute unless the DSB decid es by consensus not to adopt the Appellate Body 
report within 30 days following its circulation to  Members.  This adoption procedure is without 
prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on an Appellate Body report". 
6. The representative of the United States  said that her country was pleased to request that the 
DSB adopt the Reports of the Panel and the Appella te Body at the present meeting.  These Reports 
had confirmed that Japan's measures with respect to fire blight disease in apples were not supported by scientific evidence, nor were they based on a risk  assessment.  Accordingly, they were inconsistent 
with Japan's obligations under the SPS Agreement.   Both the Panel and the Appellate Body had 
undertaken a thorough, well-reasoned analysis of th e applicable WTO obligations at issue and the 
detailed scientific record before them.  The United St ates was gratified that each had agreed that this 
record indeed demonstrated what the United Stat es had been saying for well over a decade, namely 
that Japan's burdensome and trade-restri ctive requirements were not justified. 
7. The United States also appreciated the care and clarity with which the Reports had set forth 
the applicable WTO obligations in this dispute.  In particular, the Reports had addressed for the first 
time, several provisions of SPS Agreement Article 5. 7 involving provisional measures, and, with one 
exception which the United States would address shor tly, had correctly descr ibed and applied the 
analysis involved in determining whether a case was one in which "relevant scientific evidence is 
insufficient".  These were important findings which had properly respected the balance of rights and 
obligations reflected in Article 5.7.  The United States  also wished to acknowledge the Reports for  WT/DSB/M/160 
 Page 3 
 
 
 the findings they had not made.  Both the Pane l and Appellate Body had correctly limited their 
findings to those necessary to resolve the dispute, based on the facts before them.  This careful 
approach to dispute resolution ensured that lega l findings were made with the benefit of a full 
understanding of their implications in light of concrete facts. 
8. While these Reports were on the whole excelle nt, the United States wished to address two 
concerns.  The first was the Panel's inclusion in its  Article 2.2 analysis of a statement that Japan's 
measure was disproportionate to the scientific risk .  The Appellate Body had noted that this was 
merely one way in which the Panel in this particul ar dispute had chosen to examine whether there was 
a rational relationship between the measure and the scientific evidence.   However, the United States 
considered that this approach risked changing the nature of the obligation under Article 2.2 from one 
in which Members were required to meet a threshold of evidence "sufficient" to  maintain a measure to 
one in which evidence was weighed, in a relative se nse, against the measure.  The Panel had included 
this concept for the first time in  its final report, after the partie s had had an opportunity to comment, 
and it was unnecessary given the Panel's other fact ual findings on the absence of evidence supporting 
the measure. 
9. The second point the United States wished to note was the Panel's conclusion that the 
Member maintaining the measure had the burden of establishing that it met the requirements of 
Article 5.7.  Neither Japan nor the United States had supported this conclusion, taking the position 
that here, as with other claims, the complaining pa rty had to bear the burden of proving that the 
measure did not meet the obligations set forth in a WTO provision.  This situation provided an 
example of how the US-Chilean proposals to provide greater flexibility and control in dispute 
settlement could have operated to g ood effect.  Under those proposals, the parties could have agreed 
to delete those findings, or the DSB could have cho sen not to adopt them.  Had the parties agreed to 
delete the findings, it would merely have left the is sue to a future panel proceeding in which the issue 
was actually joined.  Notwithstanding these criticisms, the United States wished to reiterate that it 
considered these to be very high quality Reports.  It wished to th ank the Panel, the Appellate Body 
and the Secretariat for their efforts.  The Unite d States hoped that, with the benefit of the clear 
guidance contained in these Reports, Japan would now remove its WTO-inconsistent measures. 
10. The representative of Japan  said that her country wished to express its gratitude to the Panel, 
the Appellate Body and the Secretariat for their efforts in reviewing highly technical and complex 
matters of scientific nature in this case in order to issue the Reports.  Japan very much regretted that 
the Appellate Body had upheld th e Panel's conclusions that Japan's  phytosanitary measure at issue 
was inconsistent with the SPS Agreement.  For in stance, Japan disagreed with the Panel and the 
Appellate Body on the allocation of the burden of proof. On the risk of entry into Japan of fire blight 
through apples other than "mature, symptomless" ones, although the United States should bear the burden to establish a prima facie case of inconsiste ncy with the SPS Agreement, the United States had 
not done so.  Despite this clear fact, the Panel ha d prematurely shifted the burden of proof to Japan, 
and the Appellate Body ha d upheld this ruling. 
11. With regard to "mature, symptomless" appl es, the Panel had not respected Japan's risk 
assessment that was based on scientif ic evidence, it had relied solely on the experts' views without 
objective assessment, and had ignored the discreti on given to the importing Member under the SPS 
Agreement in how to choose, wei gh and evaluate scientific evidence.  Japan was deeply concerned 
about such ruling by the Panel, unfortunately uphe ld by the Appellate Body.  Japan appreciated the 
clarification by the Appellate Body on the meaning of "In cases where relevant scientific evidence is 
insufficient" under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement"  stating that "[t]he question is whether the 
relevant evidence ... is sufficient to permit the eval uation of the likelihood of entry, establishment or 
spread of, in this case, fire blight in Japan." Ho wever, despite unresolved uncertainty surrounding the 
transmission of fire blight through apple fruit, th e Appellate Body had wrongly agreed with the Panel WT/DSB/M/160 
Page 4  
 
 that there was sufficient evidence to conduct a risk assessment, and that Japan's measure could not be 
justified. 
12. Concerning Article 5.1 of the SPS Agreement, Ja pan welcomed the fact that the Appellate 
Body had agreed with Japan that the methodology of risk assessment was not directly addressed by 
the SPS Agreement.  It was, therefore, regrettabl e that the Appellate Body  had upheld the Panel's 
finding that Japan's risk assessment, which had followed the international guidelines set by the 
International Plant Protection Conve ntion, did not satisfy the requirements of the SPS Agreement.  
Finally, the Appellate Body had ruled that the Panel in this proceeding had objectively assessed the 
facts against Japan's legitimate claims that the Pane l had acted inconsistently with Article 11 of the 
DSU. 
13. Japan, therefore, was deeply disappointed at the Reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body.  
However, neither the Panel nor th e Appellate Body had ruled agains t Japan taking measures on apple 
fruit from the United States in order to prevent entry of fire blight into Jap an in accordance with the 
appropriate level of protection for Japan.  Therefor e, Japan accepted the fact that the Reports would 
be adopted at the present meeting.  Japan had always emphasized the importance of proper 
functioning of the DSU and faithful implementa tion of the DSB's recommendations and rulings.  
Once the Reports were adopted, Japan would of course have to implement the DSB's 
recommendations and rulings appropriately.  Her Go vernment was further examining the rulings by 
the Panel and the Appellate Body.  She said that Jap an shall in due course fulfill its obligation under 
Article 21.3 of the DSU. 
14. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC had participated in this 
dispute between the United States and Japan mainly because of its systemic interest in the correct 
interpretation of the SPS Agreement.  The EC consider ed that the conclusions of this Report were a 
result of the particular facts of the case and the wa y in which the arguments had been presented by the 
main parties.  It would, therefore, be of limited guidance in future cases.  The EC especially regretted 
the absence of clarity concerning the nature of th e right of Members to adopt provisional measures 
under Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement and the cond itions that governed it. In particular it was 
regrettable that the Appellate Body had stated th at Article 5.7 was not "triggered" by scientific 
uncertainty1 even though it had subsequently suggested that it would apply where there was 
insufficient "reliable evidence".2  Leaving aside semantic discussions, the EC considered that 
Article 5.7 had to be applicable in cases where, in sp ite of the existence of sci entific evidence – even a 
"wealth" of scientific evidence – the research had, in the words of the Appellate Body, not led to 
"reliable or conclusive results".3  Indeed, not all scientific studies yielded results that public 
authorities could rely upon because, for instance, they were limited in scope or methodology.  Similarly, it was often the case that scientific resear ch improved knowledge of a certain issue, without 
necessarily leading to definite and unequivocal c onclusions.  It was precisely for those cases that 
Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement existed. 
15. The representative of New Zealand
 said that his country welcomed the adoption of the 
Reports of the Panel and the Appellate Body in the case before the DSB at the present meeting.  Having considered all the facts and the scientific ev idence, the Panel had concluded that there was not 
sufficient scientific evidence that a pple fruit were likely to serve as a pathway for transmission of fire 
blight.  The Appellate Body had now confirmed that Japan's measure aimed at addressing concerns about fire blight was maintained without sufficien t scientific evidence and was not based on a proper 
risk assessment.  In addition to confirming that mature apples – the only apples in trade – posed 
negligible risk of fire blight transmission, th e rulings of the Panel and Appellate Body had also 
                                                     
 
1 Appellate Body Report, para. 184. 
2 Idem  para. 185. 
3 Idem   WT/DSB/M/160 
 Page 5 
 
 
 provided useful clarification of important elements of the SPS Agreement.  The Reports to be adopted 
at the present meeting served to reinforce the careful  balance struck in that Agreement between the 
right of Members to take measures necessary to protect  human, animal or plant life or health, and their 
other rights and obligations under the WTO Agreemen ts.  In view of the long history of dialogue 
about this issue and its close interest in this dis pute as a third party, New Zealand hoped that Japan 
would move swiftly to implement these rulings a nd comply with its obligations under the SPS 
Agreement. 
16. The representative of Brazil  said his country had participated as a third party in this dispute 
and, like New Zealand, welcomed the adoption of the Reports.  He recalled that Brazil had been facing for over 18 years trade barriers in the fo rm of phytosanitary measures that impeded its 
producers to export mangoes to Japan.  Despite the e fforts made by Brazil to demonstrate to Japanese 
authorities that such restrictions were not necessary for the protection of human, animal or plant life 
or health and were inconsistent with various provisions of the SPS Agreement, access of Brazil's 
mangoes to Japan's market continued to be restrict ed based on concerns which were neither supported 
by scientific evidence nor justified by an appropriate risk assessment.  Brazil hoped, therefore, that the 
findings of the Panel and the Appellate Body in this case would have a positive influence in the 
handling of similar situations con cerning products from other countries. 
17. The DSB took note
 of the statements, and adopted  the Appellate Body Report contained in 
WT/DS245/AB/R and the Panel Report contained in  WT/DS245/R, as upheld by the Appellate Body 
Report. 
3. United States – Definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products 
(a) Report of the Appellate Body (WT/DS248/ AB/R;  WT/DS249/AB/R; WT/DS251/AB/R; 
WT/DS252/AB/R;WT/DS253/AB/R;WT/DS254/AB/R;WT/DS258/AB/R;WT/DS259/AB/R) and Reports of the Panel (WT/DS248/R and Corr.1; WT/DS249/R and Corr.1;WT/DS251/R 
and Corr.1; WT/DS252/R and Corr.1; WT/DS 253/R and Corr.1; WT/DS254/R and Corr.1; 
WT/DS258/R and Corr.1; WT/DS259/R and Corr.1) 
18. The Chairman
 drew attention to the communication from the Appellate Body contained in 
document WT/DS248/19, WT/DS249/13, WT /DS251/14, WT/DS252/12, WT/DS253/12, 
WT/DS254/12, WT/DS258/16 and WT/DS259/15 tran smitting the Appellate Body Report on "United 
States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products", which had been circulated on 10 November 2003, in accordance w ith Article 17.5 of the DSU.  He reminded 
delegations that in accordance with the Decision on Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction 
of WTO Documents contained in document WT/L /452, the Appellate B ody Report and the Panel 
Reports pertaining to this case had been circul ated as unrestricted documents.  He recalled that 
Article 17.14 of the DSU required that:  "An Appella te Body report shall be adopted by the DSB and 
unconditionally accepted by the parties to the disput e unless the DSB decides by consensus not to 
adopt the Appellate Body report within 30 days follow ing its circulation to Members.  This adoption 
procedure is without prejudice to the right of Members to express their views on an Appellate Body 
report". 
19. The representative of the European Communities
 said that the EC wished to commend the 
Panel and the Appellate Body for having complete d a difficult task in a complex case involving eight 
co-complainants and a wide range of US safeguard measures, vitiated by numerous breaches of WTO rules.  The EC wished to take this opportunity to thank Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway, 
New Zealand and Brazil for the remarkable co-ord ination achieved in the proceedings before the 
Panel and the Appellate Body.  This cooperation had proved successful and the EC was pleased to see 
that the Panel, in its Reports of 11 July 2003, had agreed with the main arguments put forward by the 
co-complainants and had found that all the US safegua rd measures were in breach of WTO rules.  The WT/DSB/M/160 
Page 6  
 
 EC similarly welcomed the Appellate Body Repor t of 10 November 2003, which had confirmed most 
of the Panel's findings and had upheld its overall co nclusion that all the US safeguard measures were 
deprived of legal basis.  The EC noted that the United States had fully terminated its steel safeguards 
and welcomed this decision, which was indeed the only correct way to implement the rulings of the 
Panel and the Appellate Body. 
20. The representative of Japan
 said that her country wished to express its gratitude to the 
Appellate Body, the Panel and the Secretariat for their hard work in this  proceeding.  The co-
complainants had made unprecedented efforts at ever y stage of the proceeding to coordinate to the 
best of their abilities in order not to place excessive  burden on the Panel, the Appellate Body and the 
Secretariat.  However, given the nature of this case, full presentation of the co-complainants' claims 
and arguments naturally required a certain number of  pages of written submissions and certain length 
of statements and answers to questions.  Japan was tr uly grateful to the Panel, the Appellate Body and 
the Secretariat for their patience and kind cooperation.  At the suggestion of the United States, all the parties, namely, the co-complaina nts and the United States, had agreed to have the adoption of the 
Reports at the present  meeting, instead of doing it at the 1 December meeting as originally scheduled.  
Japan welcomed the fact that  the Report of the Appellate Body and the Reports of the Panel would be 
adopted by the DSB at the present meeting.  The Pa nel and the Appellate Body  had correctly found that 
the safeguard measures taken by the United States in March 2002 we re inconsistent with the WTO 
Agreement, and were deprived  of any legal basis. 
21. Therefore, Japan welcomed the Proclamation of  the US President of 4 December 2003 that 
had terminated all the safeguard measures f ound to be WTO-inconsistent, as of midnight, 
5 December 2003.  At the same ti me, Japan noted that the licensing  and monitoring of imports of 
certain steel products remained in effect.  Jap an would be very closely examining the actual 
implementation of this licensing and monitoring in order to ensure that it will not cause any trade 
distortion effects.  The US safeguard measures had not only affected the steel exports to the United States, but had also triggered a wave of provision al and definitive safeguard  investigations/measures 
by other WTO Members.  Japan was very pleased that one such Member, namely, the EC, had 
decided to repeal its own safeguard measures.  Japan  expected that other Members would also be in 
the position to immediately terminat e their own safeguard measures.  Given the termination of all the 
measures in question by the United States, Japan refrained from exercising its right to suspend 
concessions or other obligations under Ar ticle 8 of the Agreement on Safeguards. 
22. The representative of Norway
 said that his country welcomed the Report of the Appellate 
Body and of the Panel Reports in the case before the DSB at the present meeting  and was requesting 
their adoption.  He wished to express his country's gratitude to the Appellate Body, the Panel and the 
Secretariat for their hard work in this proceeding.  He also wished to extend thanks to the other co-
complainants in this case.  The co-operation that  had taken place undoubtedly simplified the task of 
the Panel and the Appellate Body.  He recalled that the United States had imposed safeguards on 
certain steel products in March 2002.  Norway, t ogether with the seven other complainants, had 
challenged these safeguards.  In July 2002 the Pane l had reached the conclusion that all the US 
safeguards measures were devoid of legal basis.   The Appellate Body had reached the same 
conclusion.  The Reports were in conformity with  already established practice of WTO panels and the 
Appellate Body.  Termination of the measures was the only correct way to implement the rulings of 
the Panel and the Appellate Body.  The United Stat es had announced that, as of 5 December 2003, all 
the safeguards measures had been terminated.  No rway welcomed this decision, and commended the 
United States for having done so without further de lay.  However, even as his country commended the 
United States for having terminated the safeguards measures now, it was a fact that the unjustified measures had been in place for one and three-quart ers of a year, with serious consequences for 
Norway's steel exporters.  Norway reserved its rights under Article 8 of the Safeguards Agreement 
and had notified the Council for Trade in Goods on 16 May 2002, in document G/C/16, of the extent 
of re-balancing measures which it had intende d to apply as of 15 December 2003, should the  WT/DSB/M/160 
 Page 7 
 
 
 measures not have been terminated.  These re-balancing measures would now not take effect.  It was 
his country's understanding that the United States would continue to impl ement its licensing and 
monitoring system for steel imports in order to respond to import surges.  Norway would follow any developments attentively.  Finally, a number of other WTO Members had responded to the US 
safeguards by imposing their own safeguards.  No rway hoped that the termination of the US 
safeguards would lead to the speedy termination of these safeguards too. 
23. The representative of Switzerland
 said that this had been a complex case involving eight co-
complainants and concerning numerous violation of WTO-rules.  Switzerland was grateful to the 
Panel, the Appellate Body and the Secretariat for their hard work in this difficult proceeding.  
Switzerland welcomed the ruling of the Appellate Bo dy concerning US definitive safeguard measures 
on imports of certain steel products.  Switzerland al so welcomed the adoption of the Appellate Body 
Report and the Reports of the Panel at the present meeting.  In this case, the Appellate Body had 
clearly confirmed the US safeguard measures on steel to be inconsistent with WTO-rules.  In confirmation of the Panel’s decision of 11 Ju ly 2003, the Appellate Body had found the US 
Presidential Proclamation dated 5 March 2002 im posing safeguard measures on 10 steel product 
groupings to be in breach of numerous obligatio ns under the Agreement on Safeguards.  As the 
findings of the Appellate Body Report released on 10 November clearly demonstrated, none of the US 
safeguard measures complied with the criteria stipul ated in the Agreement on Safeguards.  The ruling 
of the Appellate Body had left the United States w ith no other option, but to terminate its WTO 
incompatible safeguard measures without delay upon th e adoption of the Appellate Body by the DSB.  
Switzerland, therefore, welcomed the decision of  the United States, as announced on 4 December, to 
fully lift its safeguard measures.  The prompt and en tire termination of its steel safeguards was in fact 
the only acceptable way to implement the rulings of  the Panel and the Appellate Body.  Switzerland 
also welcomed the decision by the EC to withdr aw its safeguard measure.  It hoped that those 
Members who had taken safeguard measures in resp onse to the US measure and had not lifted them 
until now would promptly follow the EC's example. 
24. The representative of New Zealand
 said that his country was among the eight complainants 
that had cooperated in pursuing dispute settlement against US steel safeguards.  Accordingly, New 
Zealand very much welcomed the adoption by the DSB at the present meeting of the Reports of the 
Panel and the Appellate Body in the case:  "Unite d States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports 
of Certain Steel Products".  New Zealand echoed the tribute that other speakers had already paid to 
the Panel and the Appellate Body for their work in  this large and complex case.  The Panel and the 
Appellate Body had ruled comprehensively that the safeguard measures imposed by the United States 
in March 2002 were inconsistent with Article XIX of GATT 1994 a nd the Agreement on Safeguards, 
and had no legal basis.  Against this background, New Zealand welcomed the recent decision by the 
United States, following the 10 November decision of  the Appellate Body, to remove the safeguard 
measures.  Finally, New Zealand wi shed to  express the hope that the guidance that the Appellate 
Body had provided in this and other safeguards cases would be carefully heeded by all WTO 
Members that might be considering imposing safeguard s, and it would thereby assist in avoiding the 
imposition of any further WTO inconsis tent measures.  In light of the extremely adverse effects that 
safeguards could have on the interests of Members, it remained vitally important that Members live up to their obligations in this area. 
25. The representative of China
 said that his country wished to commend the Panel and the 
Appellate Body as well as the Secretariat for their effort s made in issuing the Reports in this dispute.  
This complicated case, involving eight co-complai nants, thousands of pag es of submissions and a 
wide range of legal claims, had posed unprecedented challenge to the Panel and the Appellate Body.  
The Panel Report, issued on 11 July 2003, had f ound that all the US safeguard measures were 
inconsistent with WTO rules.  The Appellate Body Report of 10 N ovember 2003, had confirmed most 
of the Panel's findings and had upheld its overall co nclusion that all the US safeguard measures were 
incompatible with WTO rules. China, together  with other co-complainants, welcomed the WT/DSB/M/160 
Page 8  
 
 forthcoming adoption of the Reports at the present meeting.  The safeguard measures adopted by the 
United States in March 2002 had seriously distorted the world steel market and had resulted in the 
nullification and impairment of the benefits of other Members concerned.  China noted that the United 
States had fully terminated its steel safeguard me asures on 5 December 2003.  China welcomed this 
decision, which was the only correct way for the Un ited States to bring its safeguard measures into 
conformity with its obligations under WTO Agreem ents.  China would not insist on taking re-
balancing measures against certain products originat ed from the United States provided that the latter 
would live up to its commitment to terminate these steel safeguard m easures.  His country wished to 
express its thanks to the EC, Japan, Korea, Switz erland, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil for their 
cooperation extended to China in the proceedings befo re the Panel and the Appe llate Body.  Finally, 
China would like remind all WTO Members to be alerte d to the trend of protectionism erupted in the 
course of international trade.  China, together with other WTO Members, would be determined to 
stick to and improve the rule-based intern ational trading system represented by WTO. 
26. The representative of Brazil
 said that this had been an important and laborious case and his 
country was pleased to arrive at the adoption date of the Panel's and Appellate Body's Reports with 
the inconsistent US safeguard measures already being withdrawn.  Brazil welcomed the Appellate 
Body's confirmation that the Panel's findings th at all 10 safeguard measures imposed by the United 
States "were deprived of a legal basis".  Brazil was tr uly grateful to the Panel, the Appellate Body and 
the Secretariat for their hard work.  The WTO-inc onsistent safeguard measures imposed by the United 
States had caused considerable disarray in the worl d steel market and had had a significant impact on 
Brazil's exports of steel.  In order to challenge  these safeguard measures, eight WTO Members had 
closely cooperated throughout the dispute proceedings  for almost two years.  Together, they had 
successfully demonstrated that none of the US measures had been taken as a result of unforeseen 
developments, that imports had not increased for most products and that the United States had not observed the principle of parallelism.  Thus, the only appropriate form of implementation by the 
United States was the complete withdrawal of th e measures and Brazil welcomed the decision taken 
by the US Government in this regard.  This d ecision confirmed the relevance of the multilateral 
trading system as an efficient tool to settle disputes and constituted a positive signal to the ongoing negotiations at the WTO.  The preservation of free market conditions and the observance of the disciplines of the multilateral trading system were of fundamental importance. Brazil hoped that the 
prompt withdrawal by the United States of the measures found to be inconsistent with the WTO disciplines would inspire WTO Members, including th e United States, to act in a similar way in 
relation to other disputes where the DSB's recomme ndations had not yet been fully implemented. 
27. The representative of Korea
 said that first his delegation wished to express its gratitude to the 
Panel and the Appellate Body for their high qua lity work in this complex case involving eight 
complainants as well as 10 safeguard  measures on a wide range of steel products.  The findings of the 
Panel and the Appellate Body were  important contributions to WTO jurisprudence in the safeguards 
area and, therefore, these Reports should be adop ted at the present meeting.  As one of the co-
complainants in the dispute, Korea was of the vi ew that the US safeguards measures on steel imports 
in this case did not meet the requirements of th e Agreement on Safeguards and that they should not 
have been put in place at all.  Korea's view ha d been confirmed by the Panel and upheld by the 
Appellate Body that the US measures were devoid of legal basis.  At the same time, Korea welcomed 
the termination of the safeguards measures by th e United States as of 5 December 2003.  It was 
encouraging to note that the United States had im plemented the recommendations and rulings of the 
DSB before the Reports had been adopted.  Kor ea looked forward to the same positive spirit on the 
part of the United States with regard to the implem entation of other DSB's rulings, including the Byrd 
Amendment case.  Finally, Korea would be watching closely the monitoring and licensing scheme on steel imports which the United States pl anned to maintain until March 2005. 
28. The representative of Thailand
 said that, as a third participant, his country welcomed the 
findings and recommendations of the Appellate Bo dy in this dispute, where the US safeguard  WT/DSB/M/160 
 Page 9 
 
 
 measures had been found inconsistent with th e Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994.  
Thailand thanked the members of the Appellate Body  Division hearing the appeal for their time and 
consideration given to this appeal .  Thailand highly valued that recognized authority of the Appellate 
Body was key to direction of WTO jurisprudence.   Thailand noted with appreciation that the US 
Administration had decided to terminate action taken with regard to imports of certain steel products 
with a view to abiding by the DSB's rulings a nd recommendations.  Thailand welcomed steps being 
taken to be in compliance with the WTO Agreemen t, and hoped that the same would apply promptly 
to other disputes as well. 
29. The representative of Venezuela  said that his country had participated as a third party in this 
important case concerning steel since it had a real trad e interest in the matter at issue as its trade in 
rebar to the US market was impeded by the saf eguard measures imposed by the United States 
pursuant to Proclamation 7529 of 5 March 2002.  Venezuela wished to thank the Panel and the Appellate Body for enabling Venezuela to particip ate in this process.  Furthermore, Venezuela 
welcomed the important decision taken by the US President to end safeguard measures as from 
5 December 2003.  Venezuela was aware, however, that the United States had announced that it 
would maintain a licensing and monitoring system w ith respect to certain steel imports.  In this 
regard, Venezuela wished to state that its rebar pr oducers had been reliable suppliers to the US market 
over the years, and had always b een diligent in refraining from causing injury to the US domestic 
steel industry.  Given the importance of the US market, Venezuela would maintain this policy. 
30. The representative of the United States
 said that her country recognized the complexity and 
scale of the task confronting the Panel and the Appella te Body in this dispute.  The United States 
appreciated their willingness, and that of the Secretaria t, to undertake this task.  It particularly wished 
to thank the Panel and the Secretariat for the work involved in issuing eight separate panel reports in a 
manner that was both flexible and creative.  The Un ited States wished to focus on several aspects of 
the Panel and Appellate Body findings in its statemen t at the present meeting.  It was pleased that the 
Appellate Body had reversed the Panel's unsuppor ted finding that the Agreement on Safeguards 
prohibited a Member's competent authorities from supporting a single determin ation with different 
explanations.  In adopting this incorrect view, the Panel had injected into the Safeguards Agreement a 
requirement that was not there, namely, that the reasoning of multiple members in a decision-making 
body must be "reconcilable".  The Appellate Body  had correctly rejected this view, and had 
recognized that "a panel must ascertain whethe r a reasoned and adequate explanation for the 
[competent authorities'] determination is containe d in the report, even if only in one of the 
Commissioner's individual findings." 
31. The United States was also pleased that the A ppellate Body had rejected the views that 
Article XIX of GATT 1994 and Article 2.1 of the Sa feguards Agreement imposed a simple arithmetic 
standard for determining increased imports, or that those articles required a certain pattern of imports.  
Rather, whether imports were recent, sudden, shar p, and significant enough to cause serious injury 
was a question answered by a consideration of serio us injury and causation.  This finding disproved 
the view of some Members that they might judge for themselves whether another Member's safeguard 
measure had been taken as a result of an absolute increase in imports and take action under Article 8.2 
of the Safeguards Agreement on the basis of that judgment. 
32. That being said, the United States had a number of concerns with the Reports.  To take only 
one example, the United States was disappointed in the Appellate Body's finding that the Safeguards 
Agreement required the competent authorities to pr ovide "explicit" findings that were "clear and 
unambiguous" and "[do] not merely imply or suggest an explanation".  None of these terms appeared 
in the Safeguards Agreement, which required only publication of the "findings and reasoned 
conclusions reached on all pertinent issues of fact and law".  The ordinary meaning of these terms did 
not establish any level of clarity for the competent au thorities or require that they state their findings 
with a particular explicitness.  The Appellate Body had compounded its error by interpreting its WT/DSB/M/160 
Page 10  
 
 "explicit" standard in a manner that had led it to reject findings merely because they were not 
expressed in the words the Appellate Body was lo oking for.  The Appellate Body's discussion of 
parallelism was a good example of this.  Such an exaltation of form over substance should be of 
concern to all Members. 
33. The United States also wished to take this occasion to inform Members that, on 
4 December 2003, the President had issued a procla mation that terminated all ten of the safeguard 
measures subject to this dispute, pursuant to section 204 of the US Trade Act of 1974.  In making this 
decision, the President had taken into account th e midterm report of the US International Trade 
Commission and had sought the advice of the US Secretaries of Commerce and Labour.  The President based the decision to terminate the saf eguard measures on his determination that the 
effectiveness of the safeguard me asures had been impaired by changed economic circumstances.  The 
United States stood by the decision to apply the safeguard measures in March 2002.  It noted that the Reports under consideration at the present meeting had endorsed the US competent authorities' finding that there was a causal link between increa sed imports and serious injury for seven of ten 
products.  For two other products, the Appellate Body had reversed the Panel's finding of no causal 
link.  The United States also noted that the saf eguard measures achieved the objectives of the 
Safeguards Agreement – to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment for industries 
that experienced serious injury by reason of incr eased imports.  Over the past 20 months, US steel 
producers had used the breathing space provided by  the safeguard measures to restructure, 
consolidate, and negotiate labour contracts that helped  them adjust to import competition.  In light of 
the many troubling aspects of the reports under consid eration at the present meeting, the United States 
could not support adoption of those Reports, alt hough it understood that the DSB would do so at the 
present meeting.  Nevertheless, because of the Pr esident's action of 4 December 2003, no action was 
necessary to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings in this dispute. 
34. The representative of Japan
 said that her delegation wished to respond to one point raised by 
the United States.  In Japan's view, the Appellate Body had neither reversed nor upheld the findings 
with regard to the causal link.  Therefore, Japan be lieved that the relevant por tions of the Panel Report 
had not been modified and shall be adopted as such. 
35. The DSB took note  of the statements and adopted  the Appellate Body Report contained in 
WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251 /AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS253/AB/R, 
WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R and WT/DS259/AB /R and the Panel Reports contained in 
WT/DS248/R and Corr.1, WT/DS249/R and Corr.1, WT/DS251/R and Corr.1, WT/DS252/R and 
Corr.1, WT/DS253/R and Corr.1, WT/DS254/R and Corr.1, WT/DS258/R and Corr.1 and 
WT/DS259/R and Corr.1, as modified by the Appellate Body Report. 
 
__________