WT/DS550/R  
 
11 July 2019 
(19-4567) Page: 1/6 
  Original: English  
 
  
UNITED STATES – CERT AIN MEASURES ON STEE L AND ALUMINIUM 
PRODUCTS  
REPORT OF THE PANEL  
 
 
  WT/DS550/R  
 
- 2 - 
 
   TABLE OF CONTENTS  
1   COMPLAINT BY CAN ADA................................ ................................ .................  3 
2   PANEL ESTABLISHM ENT AND COMPOSITION  ................................ .................  3 
3   NOTIFICATION OF MUTUALLY AGREED SOLU TION  ................................ .........  5 
  WT/DS550/R  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  COMPLAINT BY CANADA  
1.1.  On 1 June 2018, Canada requested consultations with the United States pursuant to  Articles 1 
and 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 14 of 
the Agreement on Safeguards  with respect to certain measures by the United States to adjust 
imports of steel and aluminium into the United States, including imposing additional ad valorem 
duties on imports of the steel and alumin ium products and exempting certain selected WTO Members  
from the measures.1 
1.2.  Canada alleged that the United States imposed a 25 % additional import duty on certain steel 
products and a 10 % additional import duty on certain alumin ium products from Canada  and other 
countries , while exempting imports from Argentina , Australia , Brazil , and South Korea  from the 
additional import duties. According to Canada, the measures identified in its request for 
consultations , operating separately or together, appear ed to be inconsistent with the United States' 
obligations under A rticles I:1, II:1(a) and (b), X:3(a), XI:1, XIX:1, and XIX:2 of the GATT 1994 and 
Articles 2.1,  2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1, 11.1(a)  and (b), 12.1,  12.2, 12.3 , and 12.5 of the 
Agreement on Safeguards.  
1.3.  In addition, Canada alleged that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and its 
associated regulations appear ed to be inconsistent "as such" with Articles I:1 and II:1 of the 
GATT  1994 and they did not appear to be justifiable under Article XXI (b) of the GATT 1994 because 
they require the United  States to account for economic welfare and other factors that are not 
necessary for the protection of its essential security interests, in a man ner that is inconsistent with 
Article  XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organizatio n 
(WTO Agreement ).  
1.4.  In the alternative , Canada alleged that the United States has applied Section  232 of the Trade 
Expansion Act of 1962 and its associated regulations for reasons related to economic welfare and 
other factors that are not necessary for the  protection of its essential security interests . According 
to Canada, this constitutes a measure attributable to the United States that is likely to be continued 
in the future in a manner inconsistent with Articles I:1 and II:1 of the GATT 1994 and not justifiable 
under Article  XXI(b) of the GATT 1994. Alternatively, Canada asserted  that it  constitutes ongoing 
conduct or a rule or norm of general and prospective application that is inconsistent with the United 
States' WTO obligations.  
1.5.  Consultations were held on 20 July 2018.  
2  PANEL ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION  
2.1.  On 18 October 2018, Canada requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to  Articles 4.7 
and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 , and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards.2  
2.2.  In its request for  the establishment of a panel, Canada identified the measures at issue as 
including : 
a. Section 232 of the Trade Expa nsion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. §1862);  
b. Section 705 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Effect of Imported Articles on the National 
Security (15 CFR 705);  
c. Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 
99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9705, 
issued on March 8, 2018);  
                                                
1 Request for consultations by Canada, WT/DS550/1.  
2 Request for the establishment of a panel by  Canada, WT/DS550/11.  WT/DS550/R  
 
- 4 - 
 
  d. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify 
Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U nited States (Presidential 
Proclamation 9704, issued on March 8, 2018);  
e. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 
99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9711, 
issued on March 22, 2018);  
f. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify 
Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (Presidential 
Proclamation 9710, issued on March 22, 2018);  
g. Requirements for S ubmissions Requesting Exclusions From the Remedies Instituted in 
Presidential Proclamations Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States and Adjusting 
Imports of Aluminum Into the United States; and the Filing of Objections to Submitted 
Exclusion Requ ests for Steel and Aluminum (US Department of Commerce);  
h. Submissions of Exclusion Requests and Objections to Submitted Requests for Steel and 
Aluminum (US Department of Commerce);  
i. The Effect of Imports of Steel on the National Security, an Investigation C onducted Under 
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, As Amended (US Department of 
Commerce, January 11, 2018);  
j. The Effect of Imports of Aluminum on the National Security, an Investigation Conducted 
Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of  1962, As Amended (US Department of 
Commerce, January 17, 2018);  
k. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Certain 
Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(Presidential Procla mation 9740, issued on April 30, 2018);  
l. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify 
Certain Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(Presidential Proclamation 9739, issued on  April 30, 2018);  
m. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, including the Annex (Presidential 
Proclamation 9759, issued on May 31, 2018);  
n. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify 
Certain Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(Presidential Proclamation 9758, issued on May 31, 2018);  
o. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Certain 
Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonize d Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(Presidential Proclamation 9772, issued on August 10, 2018);  
p. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify 
Certain Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of t he United States 
(Presidential Proclamation 9776, issued on August 29, 2018);  
q. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Certain 
Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States 
(Preside ntial Proclamation 9777, issued on August 29, 2018);  
r. The US policy, practice, composite measure, rule or norm, or ongoing conduct as described 
in paragraph 2.4 below; and 
s. any amendments, successor, replacement or implementing measures and any exemptions 
applied or other related measures.  WT/DS550/R  
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.3.  Canada considered the measures at issue, operating separately or together, to be inconsistent 
with the United States' obligations under Articles I:1, II:1(a) and (b), X:3(a), XI:1, XIX:1(a), and 
XIX:2 of the GA TT 1994 and Articles 2.1,  2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1, 11.1(a)  and (b), 12.1, 12.2, 
12.3, and 12.5 of the Agreement on Safeguards.  In addition, Canada alleged that Section 232 of the 
Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and its associated regulations are incons istent "as such" with the 
obligations of the United States under the se provisions of the covered agreements and with 
Article  XXI:(b) of the GATT 1994 because they require the United States to account for an industry's 
economic interests, welfare or protect ion, or other factors not necessary for the protection of its 
essential security interests. Canada thus alleged that the United States has failed to ensure the 
conformity of its laws, regulations , and administrative procedures with its obligations under the WTO 
Agreement as required under Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
2.4.  In addition , Canada challenged the policy or practice of the United States of interpreting and 
applying Section 232 based on  reasons related to economic welfare and other factors that are not 
necessary for the protection of the United States' essential security interests. In Canada's view, this 
measure consists of the items liste d in paragraph 2.2  above as well other Section 232 investigations, 
declarations, statements , and decisions made by the United States government and its officers in 
their official capacity  related to Section 232 . In the alternative, Canada alleged that the measure is 
a composite measure consisting of Sectio n 232 and its associated regulations along with the policy 
or practice of the United States of applying them for economic reasons. In the further alternative, 
Canada alleged that the measure constitute s the ongoing conduct or a rule or norm of general and 
prospective application. Canada submitted that the measure is inconsistent with the provisions of 
the covered agreements set out in paragraph 2.3 above and with Article XXI(b) of the GATT 1994.  
2.5.  At its meeting on 21 November 2018, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel 
pursuant to Canada's request in document WT/DS550/1 1, in accordance with Article  6 of the DSU.3 
2.6.  The Panel's terms of reference are the following:  
To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited by 
the parties to the dispute, the matter referred to the DSB by Canada in document 
WT/DS550/11 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the 
recommendatio ns or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.4 
2.7.  On 7 January 2019 , Canada  requested the Director -General to determine the composition of 
the panel, pursuant to Article 8.7 of the DSU . On 25 January 2019, the Director -General accordingly 
comp osed the Panel as follows:  
Chairperson:  Mr Elbio Rosselli  
 
Members:   Mr Esteban B. Conejos, Jr  
Mr Rodrigo Valenzuela   
  
2.8.  The Kingdom of Bahrain; Brazil; China; Colombia; Egypt, the European Union; Guatemala; 
Hong Kong, China; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Jap an; Kazakhstan; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand; 
Norway; Qatar; the Russian Federation; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Africa; 
Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Turkey; Ukraine; and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela 
reserved their righ ts to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.  
3  NOTIFICATION OF MUTUALLY AGREED SOLU TION  
3.1.  By a letter dated 23 May 2019, pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU, the parties notified the DSB 
that they had reached a mutually agreed solution . This  was circulated as document WT/DS550/13 
on 27 May 2019. Also on 27 May 2019, the parties jointly wrote to the Panel advising it of their 
mutually agreed solution and "recall[ing] that Article 12.7 of the [DSU] provides that '[w]here a 
settlement of the matter  among the parties to the dispute has been found, the report of the panel 
shall be confined to a brief description of the case and to reporting that a solution has been reached '". 
                                                
3 DSB, Minutes of the meeting held on  21 November 2018 , WT/DS B/M/421 . 
4 Constitution note of the Panel, WT/DS550/12.  WT/DS550/R  
 
- 6 - 
 
  3.2.    The Panel takes note of the mutually agreed solution between the parties t o the dispute and 
of Article 3.7 of the DSU, which provides that "[t]he aim of the dispute settlement mechanism is to 
secure a positive solution to a dispute. A solution mutually acceptable to the parties to a dispute and 
consistent with the covered agreem ents is clearly to be preferred. " 
3.3.  The Panel also takes note of Article 12.7 of the DSU, which provides that "[w]here a settlement 
of the matter among the parties to the dispute has been found, the report of the panel shall be 
confined to a brief descriptio n of the case and to reporting that a solution has been reached. " 
Accordingly, the Panel concludes its work by reporting that a mutually agreed solution to this dispute 
has been reached between the parties.  
 
__________