UNITED STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS REPORT OF THE PANEL
Document: REPORT OF THE PANEL
Date: 8 August 2023
Document codes: WT/DS547/R
Complainant: India
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, EU, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, UAE, Venezuela
Dispute stage: Mutually Agreed Solution
Agreements cited: Art. XIX:1, XIX:2  GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 7, 9.1, 11.1(a)  SafeguardsArt. XIX, XI:1  GATT 1994Art. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3  SafeguardsArt. I:1, II:1(a), II:1(b), X:3  GATT 1994

UNITED STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON STEEL
AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS
REPORT OF THE PANEL

1 COMPLAINT BY INDIA
1.1. On 18 May 2018 , India 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 (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.1
1.2. India alleged that the measures at issue were, in effect and in substance, safeguard measures
that the United States had adopted and implemented inconsistently with its substantive and
procedural obligations under the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeg uards. India also claimed
that, to the extent that the United States sought any voluntary export restraints, orderly marketing
arrangements, or any other similar measures on the export or the import side, the measures at
issue appeared to be inconsistent w ith the United States' obligations under Article 11.1(b) of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994. In addition, India claimed that the
measures were inconsistent with Articles I:1, II:1(a), II:1(b), and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
1.3. Consultations were held on 20 July 2018 but failed to resolve the dispute.
2 PANEL ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION
2.1. On 8 November 2018, India requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Article s 4.7
and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII:2 of the GATT 1994, and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards
with standard terms of reference.2
2.2. In its panel request, India stated that the measures at issue related to the imposition by the
United States of additional import duties of 25% ad valorem and 10% ad valorem, respectively, on
certain steel and aluminium products.
2.3. With respect to steel products, India noted that on 23 March 2018, the United States imposed
additional duties of 25% ad valorem on certain steel products imported from countries other than
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico. India
observed that, on 1 June 2018, such additional duties were also imposed on imports from Canada,
the European Union, and Mexico, with only Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and the Republic of Korea
remaining exempt. In addition, India referred to quotas imposed by the United States on Argentina,
Brazil, and the Republic of Korea, based on an agreement, limiting the quantities of imported steel
articles by weight per calendar year.
2.4. With respect to aluminium products, India noted that on 23 March 2018, the United States
imposed additional duties of 10% ad valorem on certain aluminium products imported from countries
other than Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, the Republic of Korea , and
Mexico. India observed that, on 1 May 2018 and 1 June 2018, such additional duties were also
imposed on imports from Brazil, Canada, the European Un ion, the Republic of Korea, and Mexico,
with Argentina and Australia remaining exempt. In addition, India referred to quotas imposed by the
United States on Argentina, based on an agreement, limiting the quantities of imported aluminium
articles by weight per calendar year.
2.5. India identified the measures at issue as including but not limited to the following:
a. Adjusting Imports of Aluminium into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify
Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (Presidential
Proclamation 9704, issued on 8 March 2018);
b. 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 8 March 2018);

1 Request for consultations by India, WT/DS547/1-G/L/1238-G/SG/D53/1, p. 1.
2 Request for the establishment of a panel by India, WT/DS547/8 (India's panel request), p. 1.

c. Adjusting Imports of Aluminium into the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9710,
issued on 22 March 2018);
d. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9711, issued
on 22 March 2018);
e. Adjusting Imports of Alum inium into the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9739,
issued on 30 April 2018);
f. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9740, issued
on 30 April 2018);
g. Adjusting Imports of Aluminium into the United States (Pres idential Proclamation 9758,
issued on 31 May 2018);
h. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9759, issued
on 31 May 2018);
i. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9772, issued
on 10 August 2018);
j. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9776, issued
on 29 August 2018);
k. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States (Presidential Proclamation 9777, issued
on 29 August 2018);
l. Requirements for Submis sions Requesting Exclusions from the Remedies Instituted in
Presidential Proclamations Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States and Adjusting
Imports of Aluminium into the United States; and the Filing of Objections to Submitted
Exclusion Requests for Steel and Aluminium (U.S. Department of Commerce);
m. Interim final rule regarding submissions of exclusion requests and objections to submitted
requests for Steel and Aluminium issued by Bureau of Industry and Security issued on
11 September 2018;
n. Section 232 Tariffs on Aluminium and Steel, Additional Duty on Imports of Steel and
Aluminium Articles under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (U.S. Customs
and Border Protection);
o. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. §1862), cited in
the Presidential Proclamations above for vesting authorities in the President of the United
States to take the actions therein;
p. The Effect of Imports of Steel on the National Security, An Investigation Conducted Under
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, As Amended (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 11 January 2018);
q. The Effect of Imports of Aluminium on the National Security, An Investigation Conducted
Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, As Amended (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 17 January 2018);
as well as "all the amendments, supplements, successor, replacement, extensions or implementing
measures and any exemptions applied".3
2.6. India claimed that the measures at issue, operating independently and/or together , appeared
to be inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7,
9.1, 11.1(a), 11.1(b), 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as well as Articles I:1,
II:1(a), II:1(b), X:3(a), XI:1, XIX:1(a), and XIX:2 of the GATT 1994. India also alleged that the

3 India's panel request, pp. 2-3.

measures in question appeared to be nullifying or impairing the benefits accruing to India directly
or indirectly under the covered agreements.4
2.7. At its meeting on 4 December 2018, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel
pursuant to the request of India in document WT/DS547/8, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.5
2.8. 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 India in document
WT/DS547/8 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.6
2.9. On 7 January 2019, India 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
composed the Panel as follows:
Chairperson: Mr Elbio Rosselli
Members: Mr Esteban B. Conejos, Jr
 Mr Rodrigo Valenzuela
2.10. The Kingdom of Bahrain; Brazil; Canada; China; Colombia; Egypt; the European Union;
Guatemala7; Hong Kong, China; Iceland; Indonesia; Japa n; Kazakhstan; Malaysia; Mexico;
New Zealand; Norway; Qatar; the Russian Federation; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Singapore;
South Africa8; Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Türkiye9; Ukraine; the United Arab Emirates;
and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela notified their interest in participating in the Panel
proceedings as third parties.
3 PANEL PROCEEDINGS
3.1. The Panel held an organizational meeting with the parties on 13 March 2019.
3.2. Following consultations with the parties, the Panel adopted its Wor king Procedures 10 and
Timetable11 on 5 April 2019.
3.3. The Panel held a first substantive meeting with the parties on 31 October 2019. A session with
the third parties took place on 18 November 2019.
3.4. According to the revised Timetable adopted on 20 February 2020, the Panel's second meeting
with the parties was scheduled for 9 -10 July 2020. However, due to the impact of the COVID -19
pandemic on in -person meetings, and in consultation with the parties, the Panel postponed the
second meeting to a later date on multiple occasions. Subsequently, the Panel continued to consult
with the parties on the feasibility of in-person meetings and possible alternative arrangements. Both
parties identified numerous potential obstacles to holding in -person meetings, in cluding evolving
travel and quarantine restrictions due to the pandemic, and maintained their opposition to the
adoption of any alternative arrangement as a substitute for in-person meetings.
3.5. On 12 January 2023, the Panel invited the parties' views on the way forward in these
proceedings, in response to which both parties indicated that they were engaging in discussions to

4 India's panel request, pp. 3-5.
5 DSB, Minutes of the meeting held on 4 December 2018, WT/DSB/M/422, para. 1.5.
6 Constitution note of the Panel, WT/DS547/9.
7 On 14 March 2019, Guatemala notified the Panel of its interest to participate as a third party. See

8 On 16 July 2019, South Africa notified the DSB and the Panel of its interest to participate as a third
party. See WT/DS547/9/Rev.2.
9 Formerly "Turkey". See WT/INF/43/Rev.23.
10 The Panel's Working Procedures were revised on 19 July 2019 and 20 February 2020.
11 In consultation with the parties, the Panel also revised its timetable on 19 July 2019,
13 December 2019, and 20 February 2020.

reach a positive resolution in this dispute and requested additional time to provide comments to the
Panel on this matter.
4 NOTIFICATION OF A MUTUALLY AGREED SOLUTION
4.1. By a joint communication dated 13 July 2023, pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU, the parties
notified the DSB that they had reached a mutually agreed solution to the matter raised in this
dispute.12 On the same date, the parties also informed the Panel of their mutually agreed solution.
4.2. The Panel takes note of the mutually agreed solution between the parties to the dispute and
recalls 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 agreements is clearly to be preferred."
4.3. 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 description of the case and to reporting that a solution has been reached."
4.4. Accordingly, the Panel concludes its work by reporting that a mutually agreed solution to this
dispute has been reached between the parties.