. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS280/2
8 August 2003
(03-4175)
Original:  Spanish
UNITED STATES – COUNTERVAILING DUTIES
ON STEEL PLATE FROM MEXICO
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Mexico
The following communication, dated 4 August 2003, from the Permanent Mission of Mexico
to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.
_______________
On 27 January 2003, the Government of Mexico requested consultations with the
Government of the United States of America (United States),1 pursuant to Article 4 of the
Understanding on 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 30 of the Agreement
on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM Agreement), regarding the Final Results of the
Administrative Review of the Countervailing Duty  Order for 1998 (C-201-810) of the United States
Department of Commerce (DOC), as well as the actions that preceded the order and led to theimposition of countervailing duties on imports of carbon steel plate in sheets from Mexico.
Consultations were held on 2 April 2003 in Wash ington, D.C., U.S.A., but failed to settle the
dispute.
Mexico therefore requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994
and Article 30 of the SCM Agreement, the establishment of a panel acting in accordance with thestandard terms of reference provided in Article 7 of the DSU.
The measure at issue includes the Final Results of the Administrative Review of the
Countervailing Duty Order for 1998 of the US DOC (C- 201-810) (hereinafter referred to as the Final
Results of the Review for 1998), as well as the actions that preceded it and led to the imposition of acountervailing duty of 11.68 per cent ad valorem  on imports of carbon steel plate in sheets by
Mexican producer Altos Hornos de México, S.A. de C.V. (AHMSA).
In the Final Results of the Review for 1998, the DOC imposed countervailing duties on
AHMSA following the application of what is known as the " change-in-ownership " methodology
(more specifically, proof that it was the " same person "), which is inconsistent with Articles 10, 14, 19
and 21 of the SCM Agreement.
On the basis of this methodology, the DOC determined that AHMSA was the same person
before and after its privatization. The DOC therefore concluded that the subsidies granted to AHMSAcontinued to confer a benefit upon the company, for which reason countervailing duties continued to
be imposed. In the Final Results of the Review for 1998, the DOC did not fulfil its obligation to
determine the existence of a subsidy and the benefit to the recipient, thereby violating Articles 10, 14,
                                                     
1 See United States - Countervailing Duties on Steel Plate from  Mexico (WT/DS280/1).WT/DS280/2
Page 2
19 and 21 of the SCM Agreement, in spite of the fact that, during the review, AHMSA submitted
information proving otherwise.
Mexico respectfully requests that the panel find that the Final Results of the Review for 1998
are inconsistent with the above-mentioned provisions of the SCM Agreement and that it suggest,pursuant to Article 19 of the DSU, that the United States bring the measure into conformity with its
WTO obligations by the revocation thereof.
__________