. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS162/18
10 January 2002
(02-0128)
Original: English
UNITED STATES - ANTI-DUMPING ACT OF 1916
Recourse by Japan to Article 22.2 of the DSU
The following communication, dated 7 January 2002, from the Permanent Mission of Japan to
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 22.2 of the DSU.
_______________
Request for Authorization of Suspension of Concessions or other Obligations
Pursuant to Article 22.2 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Japan requests aut horization from the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)
to suspend the application to the United States of obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffsand Trade 1994 (GATT 1994), the WTO Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (AD Agreement) and the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing
the World Trade Organization (the WTO Agreement).
Background
On 26 July 1999, the DSB established a Panel at the request of Japan to examine the
conformity of Title VIII of the U.S. Revenue Act of 1916, known as the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916,
with the U.S. obligations under GATT 1994, the AD Agreement and the WTO Agreement.  Both the
Panel and the Appellate Body in this dispute found that the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 violated the
U.S. obligations under GATT 1994, the AD Agreement and the WTO Agreement.  They
recommended that the DSB request the United States to bring the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 intoconformity with its obligations under the WTO agreements.  On 26 September 2000, the DSB adopted
the reports of the Panel (WT/DS162/R and A dd.1) and the Appellate Body (WT/DS162/AB/R).
On 28 February 2001, the arbitrator determined that ten months was a reasonable period of
time for implementation of the recommendations and rulings of the DSB - the period expired on26 July 2001 (WT/DS162/14).  On 12 July 2001, the United States proposed that the reasonable
period of time be modified so as to expire on 31 December 2001, or on the date on which the current
session of the U.S. Congress adjourns, whichever is earlier (WT/DS162/16).  Neither Japan nor the
European Communities (co-complainant) objected, and the proposal was approved by the DSB on
24 July 2001.
The United States concedes that legislative action by the U.S. Congress is necessary in order
to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB in this dispute.  On 20 December 2001, the
current   session   of  the   Congress  adjourned.    The  U.S.  Congress  has  not  passed  legislation  toWT/DS162/18
Page 2
implement the recommendations and rulings in this dispute. (Indeed, legislation was not even
introduced in the Congress until the last day of the session - 20 December.)
Accordingly, the United States has failed to comply with the recommendations and rulings of
the DSB in this matter by the end of the reasonable period of time.  Therefore, Japan is entitled to
redress under Article 22 of the DSU and to initiate this process by filing this request for authorizationto suspend the application to the United States of obligations under GATT 1994, the AD Agreement
and the WTO Agreement.
Suspension of Obligations
Since the recommendations and rulings of the DSB were that the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916
as such violated the U.S. obligations under GATT 1994, the AD Agreement and the WTO Agreement,it is not practical to indicate the level of nullificat ion or impairment in terms of monetary value.  For
this reason, Japan intends to implement the suspension of obligations for some or all of the obligations
which the Act violates, Japan believes that the level of suspension below is equivalent to the level of
nullification or impairment to Japan which results from the failure of the United States to bring the
Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 into conformity.
Japan requests for authorization to suspend the application of relevant obligations under
Article VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994, Articles 1, 4, 5 and 18 of the AD Agreement and Article XVI:4
of the WTO Agreement, so as to be allowed to introduce measures which are similar to the U.S. Anti-
Dumping Act of 1916, solely against the United States.
__________