II 

108TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1952

To direct the United States Trade Representative to enforce United States 

rights under certain trade agreements with respect to Mexico, pursuant 

to title III of the Trade Act of 1974. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

NOVEMBER 25, 2003

Mr. GRASSLEY introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To direct the United States Trade Representative to enforce 

United States rights under certain trade agreements with 

respect to Mexico, pursuant to title III of the Trade 

Act of 1974.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Mexican Agricultural 

5 Trade Compliance Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress makes the following findings: 
2

•S 1952 IS 

1 (1) Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 pro2 vides that, if the United States Trade Representa3 tive determines that the rights of the United States 

4 under any trade agreement are being denied, the 

5 Trade Representative shall take action to enforce 

6 such rights. 

7 (2) The Statement of Administrative Action ac8 companying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act 

9 provided that the United States Trade Representa10 tive would base any section 301 determination as to 

11 whether there has been a violation or denial of 

12 United States rights under the Uruguay Round 

13 Agreements on panel or Appellate Body findings 

14 adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body of the 

15 World Trade Organization. 

16 (3) In a panel report adopted by the Dispute 

17 Settlement Body on January 27, 2000, the Dispute 

18 Settlement Body determined that section 301 of the 

19 Trade Act of 1974 is not inconsistent with United 

20 States obligations under the Uruguay Round Agree21 ments, particularly in light of the decision of the 

22 United States to use section 301 only after exhaust23 ing its rights under the Dispute Settlement Under24 standing. 
3

•S 1952 IS 

1 (4) On January 28, 2000, a panel of the World 

2 Trade Organization determined that Mexico’s anti3 dumping order on high fructose corn syrup imported 

4 from the United States violated Mexico’s commit5 ments under the Uruguay Round Agreements. 

6 (5) On February 24, 2000, the Dispute Settle7 ment Body adopted the report of the panel. 

8 (6) On April 10, 2000, the United States and 

9 Mexico agreed to a September 22, 2000, deadline for 

10 Mexico to come into compliance with the panel re11 port as adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body. 

12 (7) On September 20, 2000, just 2 days prior 

13 to the date Mexico had agreed to come into compli14 ance with the panel report, Mexico issued a revised 

15 antidumping threat determination in an obvious at16 tempt to evade its commitment to come into compli17 ance with the panel report adopted by the Dispute 

18 Settlement Body. 

19 (8) On June 22, 2001, a panel, convened pur20 suant to Article 21.5 of the Dispute Settlement Un21 derstanding, found that Mexico’s revised anti22 dumping threat determination failed to bring Mexico 

23 into compliance with its commitments under the 

24 World Trade Organization. 
4

•S 1952 IS 

1 (9) On October 22, 2001, the Appellate Body 

2 affirmed the ruling of the Article 21.5 panel and 

3 recommended that Mexico come into compliance with 

4 its obligations under the World Trade Organization. 

5 (10) On November 21, 2001, the Dispute Set6 tlement Body adopted the Appellate Body ruling 

7 that affirmed the findings of the Article 21.5 panel. 

8 (11) On January 1, 2002, in a transparent at9 tempt to evade the determinations of the Dispute 

10 Settlement Body regarding Mexico’s antidumping 

11 order on high fructose corn syrup, and in an affront 

12 to the rules-based system of the World Trade Orga13 nization, Mexico imposed a de facto discriminatory 

14 20 percent tax on soft drinks containing high fruc15 tose corn syrup, the intent and effect of which is to 

16 continue Mexico’s antidumping order on United 

17 States high fructose corn syrup by other means by 

18 restricting access to the Mexican market. 

19 (12) On April 20, 2002, with its discriminatory 

20 tax on soft drinks containing high fructose corn 

21 syrup now in place, and in a continuous event with 

22 the imposition of this tax, Mexico lifted its anti23 dumping order on high fructose corn syrup. Impor24 tantly, Mexico lifted its antidumping order only after 

25 ensuring that imports of United States high fructose 
5

•S 1952 IS 

1 corn syrup would not enter the Mexican market due 

2 to the imposition of the tax on soft drinks. Mexico’s 

3 lifting of its antidumping order enabled it to make 

4 the disingenuous claim that it had come into compli5 ance with the findings adopted by the Dispute Set6 tlement Body regarding Mexico’s antidumping order. 

7 (13) The imposition of the tax on soft drinks 

8 and the lifting of the antidumping order by Mexico 

9 are related aspects of a unified effort by Mexico to 

10 deny the rights of the United States with respect to 

11 the trade of high fructose corn syrup. 

12 (14) The effects of the import restrictions of 

13 Mexico’s antidumping order continue with even more 

14 egregious results through the imposition of a 20 per15 cent tax on high fructose corn syrup. Imports of 

16 high fructose corn syrup from the United States 

17 dropped from 110,893 metric tons in 2001 (the year 

18 prior to the lifting of the antidumping order) to 

19 4,868 metric tons in 2002 (the first year of the tax). 

20 (15) The United States has exhausted pro21 ceedings under the Dispute Settlement Under22 standing, and the Dispute Settlement Body has on 

23 more than 1 occasion adopted findings adverse to 

24 Mexico. 
6

•S 1952 IS 

1 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS. 

2 In this Act: 

3 (1) APPELLATE BODY.—The term ‘‘Appellate 

4 Body’’ means the Appellate Body established under

5 Article 17.1 of the Dispute Settlement Under6 standing. 

7 (2) DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BODY.—The term 

8 ‘‘Dispute Settlement Body’’ has the meaning given 

9 that term in section 121(5) of the Uruguay Round 

10 Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3531(5)). 

11 (3) DISPUTE SETTLEMENT PANEL; PANEL.—

12 The terms ‘‘dispute settlement panel’’ and ‘‘panel’’ 

13 mean a panel established pursuant to Article 6 of 

14 the Dispute Settlement Understanding. 

15 (4) DISPUTE SETTLEMENT UNDERSTANDING.—

16 The term ‘‘Dispute Settlement Understanding’’ 

17 means the Understanding on Rules and Procedures 

18 Governing the Settlement of Disputes referred to in 

19 section 101(d)(16) of the Uruguay Round Agree20 ments Act (19 U.S.C. 3511(d)(16)). 

21 (5) GATT 1994.—The term ‘‘GATT 1994’’ has 

22 the meaning given such term in section 2(1)(B) of 

23 the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 

24 3501(1)(B). 

25 (6) URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS.—The term 

26 ‘‘Uruguay Round Agreements’’ has the meaning 
7

•S 1952 IS 

1 given such term in section 2(7) of the Uruguay 

2 Round Agreements Act (19 U.S.C. 3501(7). 

3 (7) WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION.—The term 

4 ‘‘World Trade Organization’’ means the organization 

5 established pursuant to the WTO Agreement. 

6 (8) WTO AGREEMENT.—The term ‘‘WTO 

7 Agreement’’ means the Agreement Establishing The 

8 World Trade Organization entered into on April 15, 

9 1994. 

10 SEC. 4. ENFORCEMENT OF UNITED STATES RIGHTS UNDER 

11 THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS AND 

12 OTHER TRADE AGREEMENTS WITH RESPECT 

13 TO HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP EXPORTED 

14 TO MEXICO. 

15 (a) DETERMINATION.—Congress determines that—

16 (1) the rights of the United States under the 

17 Uruguay Round Agreements are being denied by 

18 Mexico in connection with the imposition by Mexico 

19 of a 20 percent tax on soft drinks containing high 

20 fructose corn syrup, an extension by other means of 

21 Mexico’s unjustified antidumping order on high fruc22 tose corn syrup from the United States; 

23 (2) the United States has exhausted pro24 ceedings under the Dispute Settlement Under25 standing; 
8

•S 1952 IS 

1 (3) Mexico’s imposition of a tax on high fruc2 tose corn syrup, an extension by other means of its 

3 unjustified antidumping order on high fructose corn 

4 syrup from the United States—

5 (A) constitutes an act, policy, or practice 

6 by Mexico that is unjustifiable and burdens or 

7 restricts United States commerce for purposes 

8 of section 304(a)(1) of the Trade Act of 1974 

9 (19 U.S.C. 2414(a)(1)); and 

10 (B) denies rights to which the United 

11 States is entitled under existing trade agree12 ments with Mexico for purposes of such section 

13 304; and 

14 (4) unless, a certification described in sub15 section (b) is submitted, the United States Trade 

16 Representative shall take appropriate action under 

17 subsection (c). 

18 (b) CERTIFICATION.—The certification described in 

19 this subsection means a certification from the United 

20 States Trade Representative submitted to Congress not 

21 later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this Act 

22 that states that Mexico has eliminated its tax on soft 

23 drinks containing high fructose corn syrup and is taking 

24 satisfactory measures to preserve the rights of the United 
9

•S 1952 IS 

1 States under all applicable trade agreements with respect 

2 to high fructose corn syrup. 

3 (c) ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY USTR.—If a certifi4 cation is not made under subsection (b), the United States 

5 Trade Representative, not later than 60 days after the 

6 date of enactment of this Act and after consultation with 

7 the Committee on Finance of the Senate and the Com8 mittee on Ways and Means of the House of Representa9 tives, shall, pursuant to section 301(c)(1) (A) and (B) of 

10 the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411(c)(1) (A) and 

11 (B))—

12 (1) suspend, withdraw, or prevent the applica13 tion of, benefits of trade agreement concessions to 

14 carry out a trade agreement with Mexico; or 

15 (2) impose duties or other import restrictions 

16 on the goods of Mexico, including agricultural prod17 ucts imported from Mexico, and notwithstanding any 

18 other provision of law, fees or restrictions on the 

19 services of, Mexico for such time as the Trade Rep20 resentative determines appropriate.

Æ