. /.  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS212/15 
17 September 2004  
 
(04-3918) 
 Original:   English 
   
UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING MEASURES CONCERNING 
CERTAIN PRODUCTS FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 
 
Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the European Communities
 
 
Request for the Establishment of a Panel 
 
  The following communication, dated 16 Sept ember 2004, from the delegation of the 
European Communities to the Chairperson of the Di spute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to 
Article 21.5 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
  On 8 January 2003, the Dispute Settlement Body (the " DSB") adopted the Appellate Body 
Report and the Panel Report, as modified by the Appellate Body, in the case WT/DS212 " United 
States – Countervailing Measures concerning Ce rtain Products from the European Communities ".  
The resulting DSB rulings included the recommendation that the United States brings its administrative practice (the " same person " methodology) and the twelve  individual determinations 
found to be inconsistent with the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the 
"SCM Agreement ") into conformity with its WTO obligations. 
 
 On 27 January 2003, the United States informed  the DSB that it intended to implement the 
recommendations and rulings of the DSB in a manne r consistent with its WTO obligations.  The 
parties agreed under Article 21.3(b) of the DSU th at the United States had until 8 November 2003 to 
implement the Appellate Body decision.  
 In June 2003 the United States finalized a new " change-in-ownership " methodology, 
published in the US Federal Register (" Notice of final modification of Agency practice under 
Section 123 of the Uruguay Round Agreement " published on the US Federa l Register on 23 June 2003 
at 68 FR 120 p. 37125).    
 The new methodology was then applied to the tw elve individual determinations brought by 
the European Communities before th e WTO.  The United States issued its final determinations on 
these determinations on 7 November 2003 (published on the US Federal Register on 
17 November 2003 at 68 FR 221 p. 64858).  In th e DSB meeting of 7 November 2003, the United 
States stated that it had fully complied with the DS B recommendations and rulings on this issue.  The 
EC did not agree. 
  On 17 March 2004, the EC initiated the proce dures under Article 21.5 of the Understanding 
on Rules and procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU) by requesting the United States 
to enter into consultations.  The request was circ ulated in document WT/DS212/14 of 19 March 2004.  
Consultations were held in videoconference on 24 May 2004. Consultations have allowed a better 
understanding of respective positions but have failed to settle the dispute. 
 WT/DS212/15 
Page 2  
 
 Accordingly, " there is a disagreement as to the existence or consistency with a covered 
agreement of measures taken to comp ly with the recommendations and rulings " of the DSB.  Pursuant 
to Article 6 and Article 21.5 of the DSU, Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ( SCM Agreement ), and Article XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), the EC hereby requests the establishment of a panel. 
 
 In particular, the EC claims and requests the Panel to find the following:  1. That in the sunset review  Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from 
France  (C-427-810) (Case No. 9), the United States failed to properly examine the existence, 
continuation or likelihood of recurrence of subsid ization.  In particular, with regard to the 
privatization concerned, it improperly analysed  whether the price for employees and retirees' 
shares constituted a subsidy or that it led to any continuation of a countervailable subsidy
1.  
This is inconsistent with Articles 10, 14, 19.4, 21.1and 21.3 of the SCM Agreement and 
Article VI: 3 of GATT 1994. 
 
2. That in the following sunset reviews: 
 
• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from United Kingdom  (C–412–815) (Case No. 8)2; 
 
• Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Spain  (C–469–804) (Case No. 11)3, 
 The United States failed to properly determine wh ether, in these cases, there was continuation 
or recurrence of subsidization and injury, because it did not examine the nature of the 
privatizations in question and their impact on th e continuation of the alleged subsidization.  
This is inconsistent with Articles 10, 14, 19.4, 21.1, and 21.3 of the SCM Agreement and 
Article VI:3 of GATT 1994. 
 
* * * * * * * 
 
 The European Communities continues to reserve its  rights in respect of all other aspects of the 
United States' purported compliance with its obligati ons in this case.  In particular, the European 
Communities reserves its right to challenge the re vised methodology in the light of the eventual 
outcome of a number of court challenges seeking to overturn it. 
 
 The EC requests that the Panel be established w ith the standard terms of reference set out in 
Article 7 of the DSU.  
__________ 
  
                                                     
 
1 See unpublished memorandum of 23 October 2003.   
Note: this memorandum and the other listed below are available at the US Department of Commerce 
site at http://ia.ita.doc.gov/downloa d/section129/section129-index.html. 
2 See unpublished memorandum of 24 October 2003. 
3 See unpublished memorandum of 24 October 2003.