. /.WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DS217/5
13 July 2001
(01-3528)
Original:  English
UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING
AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Australia, Brazil, Chile,
the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand
The following communication, dated 12 July 2001, from the Permanent Missions of
Australia, Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand, and the Permanent Delegation
of the European Communities, to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant
to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU.
_______________
On 21 December 2000 Australia, Brazil, Chile, the European Communities (EC), India,
Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Thailand, acting jointly and severally, each in the exercise of the rights
accruing to it as a member of the WTO, requested consultations with the United States of Americapursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of
Disputes, Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT"), Articles
17.2 and 17.3 of the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs
and Trade 1994 (the "ADA") and Articles 7.1 and 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures (the "A SCM") regarding the amendment to the Tariff Act of 1930 signed
into law by the President on 28 October 2000 with  the title of "Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Act of 2000" (the "Act") (WT/DS217/1).
Australia, Brazil, Chile, the EC, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Thailand and the United
States of America held consultations in Geneva on 6 February 2001. Unfortunately those
consultations failed to resolve the dispute.
The express purpose of the Act is to remedy the "continued dumping or subsidisation of
imported products after the issuance of antidumping or ders or findings or countervailing duty orders".
With that objective, the Act mandates the US customs authorities to distribute on an annual basis the
duties assessed pursuant to a countervailing duty order, an anti-dumping order or a finding under the
Antidumping Act of 1921 to the "affected domestic producers" for their "qualifying expenses" (theseduties are referred to below as "offsets"). The "affected domestic producers" are the petitioners or
interested parties who supported the petition. "Qualifying expenses" include the expenditure incurred
with respect to "manufacturing facilities, equipment, acquisition of technology, acquisition of raw
material or other inputs".
The Act leaves no discretion to the competent authorities. They must pay the "offsets"
whenever the conditions stipulated in the Act ar e present. Therefore, the Act constitutes mandatory
legislation, which can itself be subject to WTO dispute settlement procedures.
The "offsets" constitute a specific action against dumping and subsidisation that is not
contemplated in the GATT, the ADA or the ASCM. Moreover, the "offsets" provide a strongWT/DS217/5
Page 2
incentive to the domestic producers to file or support petitions for anti-dumping or anti-subsidy
measures, thereby distorting the application of the standing requirements provided for in the ADA and
the ASCM. In addition, the Act makes it more difficult for exporters subject to an antidumping or
countervailing duty order to secure an undertaking w ith the competent authorities, since the affected
domestic producers will have a vested interest in opposing such undertakings in favour of thecollection of anti-dumping or countervailing duties. In the view of Australia, Brazil, Chile, the EC,
India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Thailand this is not a reasonable and impartial administration of
the US laws and regulations implementing the provisions of the ADA and the ASCM regarding
standing determinations and undertakings.
For the above reasons, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the EC, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and
Thailand consider that the Act is, in several resp ects, in violation of the following provisions:
– Article  18.1 of the ADA, in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the GATT and Article 1 of the ADA;
– Article 32.1 of the ASCM, in conjunction with Article VI.3 of the GATT and Articles 4.10, 7.9
and 10 of the ASCM;
– Article X (3)(a) of the GATT;
– Article 5.4 of the ADA and Article 11.4 of the ASCM;
– Article 8 of the ADA and Article 18 of the ASCM;  and
– Article XVI.4 of the Marrakech Agreement establishing the WTO, Article 18.4 of the ADA and
Article 32.5 of the ASCM.
By being inconsistent with the above provisions, the Act nullifies or impairs the benefits
accruing to Australia, Brazil, Chile, the EC, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Thailand under the
cited agreements.
In view of the above, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia,
Japan, Korea, and Thailand hereby respectfully request that a panel be established by the DisputeSettlement Body pursuant to Articles 4.7 and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of GATT, Article 17.4 of
the ADA and Article 30 of the ASCM and to this end further ask that this request for a panel be
placed on the agenda for the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 24 July 2001.
__________