./.RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONWT/DSB/M/132
15 October 2002
(02-5576)
Dispute Settlement Body
16 September 2002
MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard
on 16 September 2002
Acting Chairman:  Mr. Sergio Marchi (Canada)
1. European Communities – Provisional safeguard measures on imports of certain steel
products
(a) Request for the establishment of a panel by the United States (WT/DS260/4)
1. The Chairman recalled that the DSB had considered this matter at its meeting on
30 August 2002 and had agreed to revert to it.  He then drew attention to the communication from the
United States contained in document WT/DS260/4.
2. The representative of the United States said that his country was making its second request for
the establishment of a panel to examine the provisional safeguard measures imposed by the EC on
certain steel products from the United States and elsewhere.  As had been explained at the 30 AugustDSB meeting, the United States considered that the EC's safeguard measures were inconsistent with
the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of the GATT 1994.  Notably, the EC had imposed
these measures without following the required due process investigatory procedures and without clear
evidence that increased imports were causing or were threatening to cause serious injury.
Furthermore, the United States recalled that there was an important principle at stake in this dispute:
Members should not be able to impose safeguard measures – even for a relatively short time – in the
absence of clear evidence and due process.  Accordingly, the United States was requesting the DSB toestablish a panel at the present meeting.
3. The representative of the European Communities said that the EC strongly deplored the US
decision to pursue its request for the establishment of a panel on this matter.  The EC was confident
that the measures at issue fully complied with WTO requirements concerning provisional safeguards.
The EC insisted again on the fact that these provisional safeguards, as many other similar measuresimplemented in response to the US protectionist action of 5 March 2002, had only been adopted as a
safety net against the highly probable diversion of the steel trade barred from the US market.
Therefore, the EC provisional safeguard measures were fundamentally different from the US
protectionist measures, which had been challenged by eight complainants, while the United States was
alone in questioning the legality of the EC measures.
4. The representative of Argentina said that his country's exports were affected by the
provisional measure at issue in this dispute.  Argentina noted the EC's decision to adopt a definitive
safeguard measure, as notified and circulated in the past week.  In this regard, Argentina was
concerned about two out of the seven categories of products that would be subject to a definitive
measure.  His country was still in the process of analysing whether the measures in question wereconsistent with the provisions of the Safeguards Agreement and Article XIX of the GATT 1994, bothWT/DSB/M/132
Page 2
with regard to some aspects of the EC investigation and the appropriateness of the proposed measures.
Moreover, Argentina was convinced that there was no causal link between its exports and the serious
injury found.  Argentina was concerned about these measures and would take action, without
precluding any options, in accordance with its industry's export interests.
5. The DSB took note of the statements and agreed  to establish a panel in accordance with the
provisions of Article 6 of the DSU with standard terms of reference.
6. The representatives of Egypt, Korea  and Japan  reserved their third-party rights to participate
in the Panel's proceedings.
__________