WT/DS295/R 
 Page D-1 
 
 
  
ANNEX D 
  
Request for Consultations and Request  for the Establishment of a Panel 
  
Content Page 
Annex D-1 Request for Consultations by the United States D-2 
Annex D-2 Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States D-5 
  
 WT/DS295/R 
Page D-2  
 
ANNEX D-1 
  
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY THE UNITED STATES 
 
 
WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS295/1 
G/L/631 G/ADP/D50/1 G/SCM/D54/1 
23 June 2003 
 
(03-3349) 
 Original:   English 
   
MEXICO – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMP ING MEASURES ON BEEF AND RICE 
 
Request for Consultations by the United States
 
  
 The following communication, dated 16 June 2003, from the Permanent Mission of the United States to the Permanent Mission of Mexico and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement 
Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
 
 My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of Mexico 
pursuant 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  ("GATT 1994"), 
Article 17.3 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the  General Agreement on Tariffs 
and Trade 1994  ("AD Agreement"), and Article 30 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing 
Measures ("SCM Agreement"), with respect to Mexi co's definitive anti-dumping measures on beef 
and long grain white rice, published in the Diario Oficial  on 28 April 2000
1 and 5 June 20022 
respectively, as well as any amendments thereto or extensions thereof3 and any related measures4 and 
also with respect to certain provisions of Mexico 's Foreign Trade Act and its Federal Code of Civil 
                                                      
1 Resolución final de la investigación antidumping sobre las importaciones de carne y despojos 
comestibles de bovino, mercancía clasificada en las fracciones arancelarias 0201.10.01, 0202.10.01, 
0201.20.99, 0202.20.99, 0201.30.01, 0202.30.01, 0206.21.01, 0206.22.01 y 0206.29.99 de la Tarifa de la Ley 
del Impuesto General de Importación, originarias de lo s Estados Unidos de América, independientemente del 
país de procedencia, Diario Oficial, Segunda Sección  8 (28 de Abril de 2000). 
2  Resolución final de la investigación antidumping sobre las importaciones de arroz blanco grano 
largo, mercancía clasificada en la fracción arancelaria 1006.30.01 de la Tarifa de la Ley de los Impuestos 
Generales de Importación y de Exportación, originarias de los Estados Unidos de América, independientemente 
del país de procedencia, Di ario Oficial, Segu nda Sección 1 (5 de Junio de 2002). 
3 Including any further determinations made pursuant to court order or remand. 
4 These include, for example, the Resolución final de la investigación sobre elusión del pago de cuotas 
compensatorias impuestas a las importaciones de carne de bovino en cortes deshuesada y sin deshuesar, mercancía clasificada en las fracciones arancelarias 020 1.20.99, 0202.20.99, 0201.30.01, 0202.30.01 de la 
Tarifa de la Ley del Impuesto General de Importación, originarias de los Estados Unidos de América, 
independientemente del país de procedencia, Diario Oficial, Primera Sección 1 (22 de Mayo 2001).  WT/DS295/R 
 Page D-3 
 
 
Procedure.  These measures appear to be inconsiste nt with Mexico's obligations under the provisions 
of GATT 1994, the AD Agreement, and the SCM Agreement.   In particular, the United States believes that the anti-dumping measures on beef and rice are inconsistent with at least the following provisions: 
 
• Article 3 of the AD Agreement, because Mexico, inter alia , based its injury (or threat) and 
causation analyses on only six months of data for each of the years examined;  failed to collect or examine recent data;  failed in the beef investigation to evaluate all relevant 
economic factors and indices having a bearing on the state of the industry;  and failed to base 
its injury determinations on positive evidence or to conduct objective examinations of the 
volume of dumped imports, the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic market of 
like products, and the impact of the imports on domestic producers of those products; 
 
• Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement, because Mexi co failed to terminate the rice investigation 
after a negative preliminary determination of injury, and Articles 5.8 and 11.1 of the 
AD Agreement because Mexico failed to exclude  certain respondent US exporters from the 
beef and rice measures after negative final determinations of dumping; 
 
• Article 6 of the AD Agreement, because Mexico, inter alia , failed to provide respondent US 
exporters with ample opportunity to present in  writing all evidence which they considered 
relevant in respect of the anti-dumping investigati ons and failed to give all interested parties a 
full opportunity for the defense of their inte rests, and Article 6 and Annex II of the 
AD Agreement by improperly applying the facts available to a US respondent rice exporter 
that was investigated and found to have no shipments during the period of investigation; 
 
• Article 9 of the AD Agreement, in conjunction w ith Article 6, because of the manner in which 
Mexico determined anti-dumping margins for US  exporters that were not individually 
investigated; 
 
• Article 6 and 9 of the AD Agreement and Article VI of GATT 1994, because Mexico,  
inter alia , limited the application of the respondent-s pecific margins that it calculated in the 
beef investigation to selected grades of meat imported within 30 days of slaughter (applying 
"facts available" margins to the respondents' othe r shipments) and limited the application of a 
particular US respondent exporter's margin af ter conducting an "anti- circumvention review" 
that found the respondent was not  engaged in circumvention; 
 
• Articles 9 and 11 of the AD Agreement, because Mexico rejected requests by certain US 
respondent exporters to conduct reviews of the beef anti-dumping order;  and 
 
• Article 12 of the AD Agreement, because Mexico failed in its final de terminations in both 
investigations to set forth in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered material or to  provide all relevant information on the matters 
of fact and law and reasons which le d to the imposition of final measures. 
  In addition, the following provisions of Mexico's  Foreign Trade Act appear to be inconsistent 
with Mexico's obligations under the provisions  of the AD Agreement and the SCM Agreement: 
 
• Article 53, which requires interested parties to  present arguments, information, and evidence 
to the investigating authorities within 28 days  of the day after publication of the initiation 
notice.  This provision appears to be inconsiste nt with Articles 6.1.1 and 12.1.1 of the AD and 
SCM Agreements, respectively, which specify th at exporters/foreign producers shall be given WT/DS295/R 
Page D-4  
 
at least 30 days to respond to questionnaires, a nd that, as a general rule, the 30 days are to be 
counted from the date of receipt of the questionnaire; 
 
• Article 64, which codifies the "facts available" approach that Mexico applied in the rice and 
beef investigations, as described in the fourth  bullet above.  This provision appears to be 
inconsistent with Article 9 of the AD Agreem ent, in conjunction with Article 6; and with 
Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement and Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement to the extent that it 
requires the application of facts available ra tes to exporters with no shipments during the 
period of investigation; 
 
• Article 68, which appears to require reviews of  respondent exporters that were not assigned a 
positive margin in an investigation, and appear s to require that respondent exporters seeking 
reviews demonstrate that their volume of exports during the period of review was 
"representative."  This provision appears to be inconsistent with Artic les 5.8 and 11.1 of the 
AD Agreement (as described in the second bullet above), with Article 9 of the 
AD Agreement, and with Articles 11. 9 and 21.1 of the SCM Agreement; 
 
• Article 89D, which appears to require that "new shippers" requesting expedited reviews 
demonstrate that their volume of exports duri ng the period of review was "representative."  
This provision appears to be inconsistent with Article 9.5 of the AD Agreement and 
Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement, which re quire authorities to conduct reviews without 
regard to such a condition; and 
 
• Article 93V, which appears to provide for th e application of definitive anti-dumping or 
countervailing duties on products entered prior to  the date of application of provisional 
measures (1) for longer than allowed under the AD and SCM Agreements, and (2) even if not 
all AD or SCM Agreement requirements for a pplying such duties are met.  This provision 
appears to be inconsistent with Articles 7 a nd 10.6 of the AD Agreement and Articles 17 and 
20.6 of the SCM Agreement. 
 
 Finally, Article 366 of Mexico's Federal C ode of Civil Procedure, in conjunction with 
Article 68 of the Foreign Trade Act, appears to be inconsistent with Articles 9 and 11 of the 
AD Agreement and Articles 19 and 21 of the SCM Ag reement to the extent that the provisions 
prevent Mexico from conducting reviews of anti- dumping or countervailing duty orders while a 
judicial review of the order is ongoing, includ ing a "binational panel" review pursuant to 
Chapter Nineteen of the North American Free Trade Agreement . 
  Mexico's measures also appear to nullify or impair benefits accruing to the United States 
directly or indirectly under the cited agreements.   We look forward to receiving your reply to the present request and to fixing a mutually 
convenient date for consultations.  
 
_______________ 
 
   WT/DS295/R 
 Page D-5 
 
 
ANNEX D-2 
 
 
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY THE UNITED STATES 
 
 WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  WT/DS295/2 
22 September 2003 
 (03-5043) 
 Original:   English 
 
  
MEXICO – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMP ING MEASURES ON BEEF AND RICE 
 
Request for the Establishment of  a Panel by the United States
 
   The following communication, dated 19 Sept ember 2003, from the Permanent Mission of the 
United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settleme nt Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of 
the DSU. 
 
_______________ 
 
  The United States considers that certain measures of the Government of Mexico are 
inconsistent with Mexico's commi tments and obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and 
Trade 1994  ("GATT 1994"), the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the  General 
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994  ("AD Agreement"), and the Agreement on Subsidies and 
Countervailing Measures ("SCM Agreement").  In particular: 
 (1) On 5 June 2002, Mexico published in the Diario Oficial  its definitive antidumping measure 
on long-grain white rice.
1  This measure appears to be inconsis tent with the following provisions of 
the AD Agreement and the GATT 1994: 
 
 (a) Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, and 4.1 of the 
AD Agreement because Mexico based its in jury and causation analyses on only six 
months of data for each of the years exam ined; failed to collect or examine recent 
data; failed to properly evaluate the rele vant economic factors; failed to base its 
determination on a demonstration that the dumped imports are, through the effects of 
dumping, causing injury within the meani ng of the AD Agreement; and failed to base 
its injury determinations on positive eviden ce or to conduct objective examinations of 
the volume of dumped imports, the effect of those imports on prices in the domestic market of like products, and the impact of  the imports on domestic producers of those 
products; 
                                                     
 
1 Resolución final de la investigación antidumping so bre las importaciones de ar roz blanco grano largo, 
mercancía clasificada en la fracción aran celaria 1006.30.01 de la Tarifa de la Ley de los Impuestos Generales de 
Importación y de Exportación, originarias de los Estados Unidos de América, independientemente del país de 
procedencia, Diario Oficial, Segund a Sección 1 (5 de Junio de 2002). WT/DS295/R 
Page D-6  
 
 (b) Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement, because Mexico failed to terminate the 
antidumping investigation after a negative pr eliminary determination of injury, and 
Articles 5.8 and 11.1 of the AD Agreement because Mexico failed to exclude certain respondent US exporters from the measure after negative final determinations of 
dumping; 
 
 (c) Articles 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4 of the AD Agreement, because Mexico, inter alia , failed to 
give all of the interested parties in the i nvestigation notice of the information that the 
authorities required or ampl e opportunity to present in writing all evidence which 
they considered relevant in respect of the antidumping investigation, failed to give all 
interested parties a full opportunity for the de fense of their interests, and failed to 
provide timely opportunities for the responde nt US exporters to see all information 
that was relevant to presentation of their cases, that was not confidential as defined in 
Article 6.5, and that the authorities used in their investigation; 
 
 (d) Article 6.8 of the AD Agreement, and paragr aphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of the 
AD Agreement, by improperly rejecting in formation submitted by US exporters and 
applying the facts available in the evaluation of injury; 
  (e) Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement, beca use the investigating authorities, before the 
final determination was made, failed to in form the respondent US exporters of the 
essential facts under consideration which formed  the basis for the decision to apply a 
definitive measure; 
  (f) Articles 6.6, 6.8, 6.10, 9.3,  9.4, and 9.5 of the AD Agreemen t, and paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 
6, and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement, by applying the facts available to a US 
respondent rice exporter that was investigated  and found to have no shipments during 
the period of investigation; 
  (g) Articles 1, 6.1, 6.6, 6.8, 6.10, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 12.1, and 12.2 of the AD Agreement, and 
paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement, by applying the facts 
available in establishing the antidumping margins that it assigned to US exporters that 
were not individually investigated, and by doing so in an improper manner; 
  (h) Article 12.2 of the AD Agreement, because Mexico failed in its final determination in 
the rice investigation to set forth in su fficient detail the findings and conclusions 
reached on all issues of fact and law considered material or to provide all relevant 
information on the matters of fact and law and reasons which led to the imposition of 
final measures; and 
  (i) Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994, because Mexico levied an antidumping duty greater 
in amount than the margin of dumping.  
 
(2) Certain provisions of Mexico's Foreign Trad e Act also appear to be inconsistent with 
Mexico's obligations under vari ous provisions of the AD Agreement and the SCM Agreement.  
Specifically:   (a) Article 53 of the Foreign Trade Act requi res interested parties to present arguments, 
information, and evidence to the investiga ting authorities within 28 days of the day 
after publication of the initiation notice.  This provision does not appear to permit the investigating authorities to grant extensions of the 28-day deadline.  Accordingly, the 
provision appears to be inconsistent with  Articles 6.1.1 and 12.1.1 of the AD and 
SCM Agreements, respectively, which speci fy that due consideration should be  WT/DS295/R 
 Page D-7 
 
 
granted to extension requests and that such  requests should, upon cause shown, be 
granted whenever practicable; 
  (b) Article 64 of the Foreign Trade Act c odifies the "facts available" approach that 
Mexico applied in the rice investigation, as described in subpara graphs (f) and (g) of 
section (1) above.  This provision appears to be inconsistent with Articles 6.1, 6.6, 
6.8, 6.10, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5 of the AD Agreement, and paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement; and with Article s 6.6, 6.8, 6.10, 9.3, 9.4, and 9.5 of 
the AD Agreement, paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6,  and 7 of Annex II of the AD Agreement, 
and Articles 12.5, 12.7, and 19.3 of the SCM Agreement, to the extent that it requires 
the application of facts available rates to exporters with no shipments during the 
period of investigation; 
  (c) Article 68 of the Foreign Trade Act appears to require reviews of respondent 
exporters that were not assigned a positive ma rgin in an investigation, and appears to 
require that respondent exporters seeking re views demonstrate that their volume of 
exports during the period of review was "r epresentative."  This provision appears to 
be inconsistent with Articles 5.8 and 11. 1 of the AD Agreement (as described in 
subparagraph (b) of section (1) above), with Articles 9.3 and 11.2 of the AD 
Agreement, and with Articles 11.9, 21.1, and 21.2 of the SCM Agreement; 
 
 (d) Article 89D of the Foreign Trade Act appears to require that "new shippers" 
requesting expedited reviews demonstrate that  their exports were subsequent to the 
period of investigation and that the volume  of exports during the period of review 
was "representative."  This provision appears to  be inconsistent with Article 9.5 of the 
AD Agreement and Article 19.3 of the SCM Agreement; 
 
 (e) Article 93V of the Foreign Trade Act app ears to provide for the application of fines 
on importers that enter products subject  to antidumping and countervailing duty 
investigations while such investigations ar e underway.  This provision appears to be 
inconsistent with Article 18.1 of the AD Agreement and Article 32.1 of the SCM 
Agreement. 
 
(3) Mexican officials have asserted that Article 366 of Mexico's Federal C ode of Civil Procedure 
and Articles 68 and 97 of the Foreign Trade Ac t prevent Mexico from conducting reviews of 
antidumping or countervailing duty orders while a judi cial review of the order is ongoing, including a 
"binational panel" review pursuan t to Chapter Nineteen of the North American Free Trade 
Agreement .  These provisions appear to be inconsistent with Articles 9.3, 9.5, and 11.2 of the 
AD Agreement, and Articles 19.3 and 21.2 of the SCM Agreement.   On 16 June 2003, the United States Government requested consultations with the Government 
of Mexico pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the 
Settlement of Disputes  ("DSU"), Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994, Article 17.3 of the 
AD Agreement, and Article 30 of the SCM Agreemen t.  The United States and Mexico held such 
consultations on 31 July and 1 August 2003.  These cons ultations provided some helpful clarifications 
but unfortunately did not resolve the dispute.   Accordingly, the United States respectfully re quests, pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, 
Article 17.4 of the AD Agreement, and Article 30 of  the SCM Agreement, 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.  The United States further as ks that this request for a panel be placed on the 
agenda for the next meeting of the Dispute Se ttlement Body to be held on 2 October 2003. 
_________