WT/DS546/4  
 
16 August 2018  
(18-5246) Page: 1/5 
  Original: English  
 
UNITED STATES – SAFEGUARD MEASURE ON  IMPORTS OF  
LARGE RESIDENTIAL WA SHERS  
REQUEST FOR THE ESTA BLISHMENT OF A PANEL  BY THE REPUBLIC OF K OREA  
The following communication, dated 14 August 2018, from the delegation of the Republic of Korea 
to the Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.  
 
_______________  
 
 
1. On 14 May 2018, the Government of the Republic of Korea ( "Korea ") requested  
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 safeguar d 
measure imposed by the  United  States on imports of large residential washers ( "LRWs "). 
2. Consultations were held on 26 June 2018 with a view to re aching a mutually satisfactory 
solution.  However, these consultations failed to resolve the dispute.  
3. Therefore, Korea respectfully requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU , Article XXIII of the 
GATT 1994, and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards, that the Dispute Settlement Body 
establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in 
Article  7.1 of the DSU.  
4. Pursuant to Article 6.2 o f the DSU, Korea proceeds below to identify the specific measure at 
issue and to provide a brief summary of the legal basis of the complaint.  
I. IDENTIFICATION OF TH E MEASURE  
5. This request concerns the definitive safeguard measure imposed by the United States on 
imports of LRWs. In accordance with Sections 201 -204 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended 
(19 U.S.C. §§ 2251 -2254), the United States International Trade Commission ( "USITC ") initiated 
the LRWs investigation on 5 June 2017, covering the period January 2 012 to March 2017, to 
determine whether increased imports of LRWs were a substantial cause of serious injury to 
domestic producers.  On 5 October 2017, the USITC determined that imports of LRWs were 
imported in such increased quantities as to be a substant ial cause of serious injury to a domestic 
industry in the United States, and on 21 November 2017 the USITC voted with respect to remedy 
issues. The final report of the USITC was submitted to the U.S. President on 4 December 2017, 
setting forth its injury f indings and remedy recommendations.1 
6. On 23 January 2018, the United States imposed a definitive safeguard measure on imports 
of LRWs pursuant to "Proclamation 9694 of January 23, 2018 – To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to 
Competition from Imports of Large  Residential Washers " (83 FR 3553).  
                                                
1 See, U.S. International Trade Commission, Public Report, Large Residential Washers, Inv. No. TA -201-
076, USITC  Pub. 4745 (Dec. 2017); a summary of which was published on 8 December 2017 in the U.S. 
Federal Register under citation "82 FR 58026 ". WT/DS546/4  
 
- 2 - 
 
  7. The measure took the form of tariff -rate quotas for imports of washers and parts, for a 
duration of three years, and with within -quota quantities and annual reductions in the rates of 
duty applicable to imports entered i n excess of those quantities in the second and third years.2 The 
measure applies to all sources of imports other than Canada and imports from certain developing 
countries.3 
8. The safeguard measure on LRWs, which is the subject of this request, was notified t o the 
WTO on 26 January 2018.4 
9. This request also concerns any modification, review, replacement, or amendment to the 
definitive safeguard measure, including any closely connected, subsequent measures affecting the 
form, amount, or implementation of the saf eguard remedy, as well as the underlying reports, 
memoranda, and other documents su pporting the safeguard measure.  
II. LEGAL BASIS  
10. According to Article 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, a Member shall not take or 
seek any emergency action on imports of p articular products as set forth in Article XIX of the GATT 
1994 unless such action conforms to the provisions of that Article applied in accordance with the 
Agreement on Safeguards. In this respect, the safeguard measure imposed by the United States 
on LRW s is inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the GATT 1994 and the 
Agreement on Safeguards.  
11. In particular, Korea considers that the safeguard measure fails to comply with 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 provide any reasoned and adequate explanation of the 
"unforeseen developments " and the "obligations incurred " by the United States which 
would have resulted in the alleged increased imports of LRWs causing serious injury. In 
particular, among others:  
 The United States appears to have entirely failed to demonstrate as a matter of 
fact that these circumstances exis ted; 
 There is no indication in the published reports let alone a reasoned and adequate 
explanation of the link between any such developments and obligations incurred 
and each of the specific LRW products covered by the safeguard measure.  
b. Articles 2.1, 3.1,  4.1(c) and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the United 
States failed to define properly the domestic industry. In particular, among others:  
 The United States failed to examine the "like or directly competitive " relationship 
between the LRWs and their parts;  
 The United States included in the examination of serious injury to the domestic 
industry products that were expressly excluded from the scope of the 
investigation.  It thus defined the "domestic industry " in a way that created a 
mismatch with the scope of the subject imports covered by the investigation and 
the scope of the domestic industry used for purposes of making a serious injury 
determination.  
c. Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the United States failed to 
properl y determine that LRWs were imported in "such increased quantities, absolute or 
relative to domestic production, and under such conditions " to cause serious injury to the 
domestic industry. In particular, among others:  
                                                
2 See, "Proclamation 9694 of January 23, 2018 – To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition from 
Import s of Large Re sidential Washers ", 83 Federal Register  3553 (25 January 2018).  
3 See, Notification by the United States to the WTO Committee on Safeguards in document with 
reference: G/SG/N/8/USA/10/Suppl.3 ; G/SG/N/10/USA/8 ; and G/SG/N/11/USA/7 U.S. 
4 Notifi cation by the United States to the WTO Committee on Safeguards in document with reference: 
G/SG/N/8/USA/10/Suppl.3 ; G/SG/N/10/USA/8 ; and G/SG/N/11/USA/7 . WT/DS546/4  
 
- 3 - 
 
   The United States failed to make a pro per determination of an increase in imports 
with respect to each of the LRWs products;  
 The United States failed to separate the determination on an alleged increase in 
imports of parts from the alleged increase in imports of LRWs;  
 The United States failed to provide the requisite reasoned and adequate 
explanation of the sufficiently recent, sudden, sharp and significant nature both 
qualitatively and quantitatively of such an alleged increase in LRWs imports to 
support a finding that LRWs were imported in "such increased quantities " 
warranting an emergency safeguard measure;  
 The United States did not undertake the required investigation into whether LRWs 
increased "under such conditions " as it failed to provide a reasoned and adequate 
explanation of the condi tions of competition and the explanatory force of the 
alleged increase in imports given the import trend developments over time.  
d. Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.1, and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the United 
States failed to provide a reasoned and ad equate explanation of the existence 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 thereof ". In 
particular, among others:  
 The United States failed to examine all relevant injury factors;  
 The United States failed to conduct the requisite substantive evaluation of the 
"significant overall impairment " of the domestic industry, focusing instead on a 
very few injury factors such as profits a nd losses without conducting a holistic 
assessment of the many injury factors that did not trend negatively;  
 The United States failed to explain adequately why under these limited 
circumstances the injury is so "serious " as to justify an emergency safeguar d 
measure;  
 The United States ' analysis of serious injury includes data from the domestic 
industry for products that were excluded from the scope of the investigation thus 
distorting the analysis of serious injury caused by increased imports;  
 The United States failed to evaluate the relevant injury data pertaining to the 
entire period of investigation, instead focusing on isolated developments.   
e. Articles 2.1, 3.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the United States did 
not provi de a reasoned and adequate explanation of the "causal link " between the alleged 
increased imports of LRWs and serious injury or threat thereof and failed to ensure that 
injury caused by other factors was not attributed to the increased imports. In particul ar, 
among others:  
 The United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the 
alleged causal link in light of the lack of coincidence in time of several trends and 
the specific conditions of competition, including, but not limited to, pr ices and the 
domestic industry 's reliance on under -performing agitator LRWs that make up half 
of all domestic sales;  
 The United States failed to ensure comparability when undertaking price 
comparisons, thus failing to provide a reasoned and adequate explan ation of the 
explanatory force of the increased imports in terms of the injury developments 
that were highly price and profit -related;  
 The United States failed to properly evaluate and assess the plausible alternative 
explanations offered by other factors causing injury, contradicting the existence of 
a causal link and failed to separate and distinguish the effects of such other factors 
causing injury;  
 The United States did not provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the 
methodology it allegedly used  to separate and distinguish other causal factors, WT/DS546/4  
 
- 4 - 
 
  such as for example the impact of the "joint-selling " of LRWs and dryers by the 
domestic industry;  
 Finally, the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of 
how it reached the conclusion of a causal link in the light of contradictory 
conclusions that imports from certain sources, such as imports from Korea were 
found not to be a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof.  
f. Articles 3.1, 3.2 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the United States did 
not provide the interested parties with sufficient opportunities and appropriate means to 
participate in the investigation and present their evidence and views including the 
opportunity to respond to the presenta tions of other parties. Furthermore, the United 
States granted confidential treatment without "cause being shown " and did not require or 
provide sufficiently informative non -confidential summaries of such confidential 
information.  In addition, the United S tates failed to set forth in the published report a 
"detailed analysis " of the case and of 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 the grounds for excluding certain 
sources. In particular, the published reports of the competent authorities fail to present 
the required "reasoned and adequate explanation " and "detailed analysis " of the case 
under investigation as we ll as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined.  
g. Articles 5.1 and 7.4 of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the United States failed to 
apply the safeguard measure "only to the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious 
injury and to fac ilitate adjustment ". In particular, among others:  
 The United States failed to limit the application of the measure to the serious 
injury allegedly caused by increased imports and not by other factors;  
 The United States failed to provide a reasoned and adeq uate explanation of the 
methodology used to support the particular type of measure and the level at which 
the measure was imposed, given less restrictive measures that were available and 
that provided an equivalent contribution to preventing or remedying i njury and 
facilitating adjustment;  
 The United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of the 
extent to which the measure would facilitate adjustment;  
 The United States failed to ensure that the measure was not applied beyond what 
is necessary not only at the time of the imposition of the measure but also at the 
various stages of progressive liberalization;  
 The United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation why it 
was necessary to apply the safeguard measure to impor ts from Korea given the 
determination made that such imports were not a substantial cause of serious 
injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry, and were in any case already 
subject to anti -dumping and countervailing duty measures.  
h. Article 7.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the United States failed to apply the 
safeguard measure only for such period of time as was necessary to prevent or remedy 
serious injury and to facilitate adjustment. In particular, the United States failed to provide 
a reasoned and adequate explanation of the basis for its determination of the length of 
time the measure was necessary to stay in place and for the time needed for the 
adjustment efforts that would be undertaken by the domestic industry;  
i. Article 8.1 of the  Agreement on Safeguards  because the United States failed to endeavor 
to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obl igations under the 
GATT  1994 between the United States and Korea in accordance with Article 12.3 of the 
Agreement  on Safeguards. In particular, the United States failed to provide an adequate 
opportunity for prior consultations on adequate means of trade compensation with Korea 
given the very short period of time provided for such prior consultations;  WT/DS546/4  
 
- 5 - 
 
  j. Articles 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards  because the United States 
failed to provide immediate notifications of the different decisions given the time between 
the decision and the related notification to the WTO. In addition, in its notifications, the 
United States failed to provide all pertinent information including evidence of serious injury 
or threat thereof caused by increased imports, among others, as a result of the undue 
redaction of allegedly confidential information and the failure to provide adequate non -
confidential summaries. Furthermore, the United States failed to provide Korea with an 
adequate opportunity to engage in meaningful prior consultations given the short period of 
time between the decision to apply the measure, its notification,  and the application of the 
measure ; and 
k. Article II:1 of the GATT 1994  because the safeguard measure amounts to a withdrawal or 
modification of the United States' concessions without a justification under Article XIX of 
the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Safe guards or any other provisions of the WTO 
Agreement.  
III. CONCLUSION  
12. The United States ' safeguard measure on imports of LRWs is inconsistent with the relevant 
obligations of the United States under the GATT 1994, the Agreement on Safeguards,  and nullifies 
or impairs benefits accruing to Korea, directly or indirectly, under the cited agreements.  
13. Therefore , Korea respectfully requests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the 
GATT 1994, Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards, t hat the Dispute Settlement Body 
establish a panel to examine this matter, with the standard terms of reference as set out in Article 
7.1 of the DSU.  
14. Korea further asks that this request for the establishment of a panel be placed on the 
agenda of the next m eeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 27 August 2018 . 
__________