WT/DS545/1  
G/L/1234  
G/SG/D51/1  
 
16 May 2018  
(18-2924) Page: 1/2 
  Original: English  
 
UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON  IMPORTS OF CRYSTALLI NE  
SILICON PHOTOVOLTAIC  PRODUCTS  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTA TIONS BY THE REPUBLIC OF KORE A 
The following communication, dated 14 May 2018 , from the delegation of the Rep ublic of Korea  to 
the delegation of the United States  and to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is 
circulated in accordance with Article  4.4 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
1.  Upon instructions from my authorities, and on behalf of the Government of the Republic  of 
Korea ( "Korea "), I hereby request consultations with the Government of the United States of 
America ( "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 , regarding the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the  United States on imports 
of certain crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not partially or fully assembled into other 
products (including, but not limited to, modules, laminates, panels, and building -integrated 
materials) ( "crystalline silico n photovoltaic products "). 
2.  The United States imposed the definitive safeguard measure on imports of crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic products pursuant to "Proclamation 9693 of January 23, 2018 – To Facilitate Positive 
Adjustment to Competition from Imports  of Certain Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether 
or Not Partially or Fully Assembled Into Other Products) and for Other Purposes "(83 FR 3541).1 
3.  This request also concerns any modification, review, replacement or amendment to the 
definitive safeg uard measure, including any closely connected, subsequent measures affecting the 
form and amount of the safeguard remedy, as well as the underlying reports, memoranda and 
other documents supporting the safeguard measure.  
4.  Korea notes that according to Artic le 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, a Member  shall 
not take or seek a ny emergency action on imports of particular products as set forth in Article XIX 
of the GATT 1994 unless such action conforms with the provisions of that Article applied in 
accord ance with the Agreement on Safeguards.  In this respect, Korea is concerned that the 
safeguard measure imposed by the United States on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products  are 
inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on 
Safeguards.  In particular, Korea considers that the safeguard measure fails to comply with, but 
not limited to,  the following provisions:  
a. Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards 
because the United States failed to make a proper determination and  provide  a reasoned 
and adequate explanation of any unforeseen developments  and the effect of the 
obligations incurred under the GATT 1994 , which allegedly resulted in the increased 
imports causing  serious injury to the domestic industry ; 
                                                
1 The safeguard measure on crystalline silicon photovoltaic products  is based on the USITC  
determination of injury on 22 September 2017 and the report to the President on 13 November 2017 regarding 
the Investigation No. TA -201-75;  See, Public Report, Crystalline Silicon Photovoltaic Cells (Whether or not 
Partially or Fully Assembled into Other  Products), Inv. No. TA -201-75, USITC Pub. 4739 (Nov. 2017), a 
summary of which was published in the U.S. Federal Register on 21 November 2017 under citation "82 FR 
55393" . WT/DS545/1 • G/L/1234 • G/SG/D51/1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  b. Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards since  the United States failed to 
properly make a determination , including a reasoned and adequate explanation that the 
subject imports increased "in such quantit ies and under such conditions " to cause  serious 
injury to the domestic industry;  
c. Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards  as the United States failed 
to make a proper determination and to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of a 
significant overall impairment in the position of the domestic industry to support its 
conclusion that the domestic industry was suffering "serious injury or threat of serious 
injury "; 
d. Articles 2.1, 3.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the safeguard measure 
is not supported by a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the subject imports  
"cause d or threaten ed to cause " serious injury to the domestic industry and because the 
United States failed to properly conduct a non -attribution analysis  to separate and 
distinguish the effects of "other factors " causing or threatening to cause injury;  
e. Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1(c) and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards since the United States 
did not  properly define the domestic industry as it failed to limit the scope to  only those 
producers producing the "like or directly competitive products " to the subject imports;  
f. Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the United States did not 
provide the interested parties with sufficient opportunities to participate in the 
investigation, including as a result of the failure to respect the requirements on granting 
confidential treatment and the availability of sufficiently informative non -confidential 
summaries, and because the United State s failed to set forth in the published report the 
findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the 
conditions on which the measure  was imposed , the nature and level of the actual measure , 
and a ground for excluding  certain sources;  
g. Articles 5.1 and 7.4 of the Agreement on Safeguards as  the United states failed  to grant 
relief only to the "extent necessary " and limit such relief to serious injury caused by 
increased imports at the time of the imposition of the measure  as well as at the stages of 
progressive liberalization;   
h. Article 7.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards  since the United states failed to  grant relief 
only "for such period of time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and 
to facilitate adju stment ";  
i. Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards  to the extent that the United States fail ed to 
endeavor to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations 
under the GATT 1994 between the United States  and Korea in accord ance with Article 12.3 
of the Agreement on Safeguards;  
j. Articles 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards because the United States 
failed to provide immediate notifications with all pertinent information and failed to provide 
Korea with an adequa te opportunity to commence  prior consultations;  
k. Article X:3 of the GATT 1994  since the measure is not based on uniform, impartial and 
reasonable administration of the relevant US laws and regulations;   and 
l. Article XIII of the GATT 1994  and Article 5.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards  because  the 
measure is inconsistent with respect to the allocation  of tariff rate quotas;  
5.  In sum, Korea is concerned that the safeguard measure on imports of crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic products is inconsistent with the relevant obligations of the United States under the 
GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.  The United States ' measur e appears to nullify or 
impair the benefits accruing to Korea directly or indirectly under the above Agreements .  
6.  Korea reserves the right to raise additional factual and legal issues, and to address additional 
measures and claims regarding the above matte r, in the course of the consultations and in any 
request for the establishment of a panel.  
7.  Korea looks forward to receiving the United States ' reply to this request and to setting  a 
mutually acceptable date and venue for consultations.  
__________