UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Korea
Date: 24 May 2002
Document codes: WT/DS251/7
Complainant: South Korea
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, EU, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. XIII, XIX  GATT 1994Art. 12, 2.1, 3, 4, 5, 7.1, 8.1, 9.1  SafeguardsArt. I, X:3  GATT 1994Art. 2, 2.2, 4.2  Safeguards

UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES
ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Korea
The following communication, dated 21 May 2002, from the Permanent Mission of Korea to
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.
On 20 March 2000, Korea requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 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 (SA) regarding the definitive safeguard measures imposed by the
United States on the imports of certain steel products, the investigations leading to such measures, and
the related laws of the United States, including Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 and
Section 311 of the NAFTA Implementation Act.
Korea held consultations with the United States on 11-12 April 2002 in Geneva with five
other Member countries – the EU, Japan, China, Norway and Switzerland, who also submitted
requests for consultations on the matter concerned, for the purpose of reaching agreement on a
mutually satisfactory solution. The consultation, however, has not led to a satisfactory solution of the
matter.
Korea therefore requests that a panel be established pursuant to Article XXIII of GATT 1994,
Article 6 of DSU and Article 14 of the SA, with the standard terms of reference as set out in Article 7
of the DSU. In this regard, Korea asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the earliest
meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to be convoked.
The Measures at Issue
Under the "Proclamation 7529 of 5 March 2002 – To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to
Competition From Imports of Certain Steel Products" and the "Memorandum of 5 March 2002 –
Action under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1 974 Concerning Certain Steel Products" by the
President of the United States, published in the Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 45 on 7 March 2002, the
United States imposed definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products.
1 T h e

1 Included in certain steel products subject to the measures at issue are certain flat products
(subheadings 9903.72.30 through 9903.72.48 for slabs, subheadings 9903.72.50 thro ugh 9903.72.60 for plate,
subheadings 9903.72.62 thro ugh 9903.72.77 for hot-rolled steel, subheadings 9903.72.80 through 9903.72.98
for cold-rolled steel, and subheadings 9903.72.99 for coated steel), tin mill products (subheadings 9903.73.15
through 9903.73.27), hot-rolled bar (subheadings 9903.73.28 thro ugh 9903.73.38), cold-finished bar
(subheadings 9903.73.50 through 9903.73.44), rebar (subheadings 9903.73.45 through 9903.73.50), certain
tubular products (subheadings 9903.73.51 thro ugh 9903.73.62), carbon and alloy fittings and flanges
(subheadings 9903.73.66 through 9903.73.72), stainless steel bar (subheadings 9903.73.74 thro ugh 9903.73.81),

safeguard measures at issue, however, do not apply to imports from the Free Trade Agreement
partners of the United States, namely Canada, Mexico, Israel and Jordan.
The safeguard measures are in the form of an increase in duties on imports of subject steel
products, with the exception of slab, on which a tariff rate quota is imposed.2 The date of introduction
of the measures is 20 March 2002, and the measures are expected to be in effect for a period of
3 years and 1 day.
The Legal Basis for the Complaint
Korea considers that the Untied States is in violation of its obligations under GATT 1994 and
the SA in the following respects:
1. The United States failed to comply with the provisions of Articles 2.1 and 4 of the SA and
Article XIX of GATT 1994 with respect to the determination of the relevant domestic
industries that produce like or directly competitive products.
2. The United States also failed to satisfy the obligations contained in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the
SA as well as Article XIX of GATT 1994 with respect to the investigation, findings, and
decision regarding increased imports, serious injury, threat of serious injury and causation.
The United States was in violation of Article X:3(a) as well with respect to tin mill products.
3. The United States is in breach of Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 as regards the requirement to
demonstrate that "unforeseen developments" led to the increase in imports. In this respect,
not only did the United States fail to conduct separate analyses for each product concerned,
but also the explanations were insufficient to satisfy the requirement.
4. The United States violated Article 2.2 of the SA and Articles I, XIII and XIX of GATT 1994
for failing to apply the safeguard measures to all imports irrespective of their sources on an
MFN basis.
5. The United States' violation of Article 2.2 of the SA and Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994
was compounded with the violation of Article X:3 of GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the SA. In
order to exempt imports from Canada and Mexico, the U.S. President reversed the ITC's
findings made in accordance with Section 311(a) of the NAFTA Implementation Act without
providing sufficient, if any, explanation.
6. The United States violated Article 2.1 of the SA in conjunction with Articles 2.2 and 4.2 of
the SA by failing to meet the requirement of parallelism between the investigation and the
measures.
7. The United States committed violations under Article 3 of the SA, in conjunction with
Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the SA, because it failed to afford an opportunity for sufficient

stainless steel rod (subheadings 9903.73.83 thro ugh 9903.73.89), and stainless steel wire (subheadings
990373.91 through 9903.73.96).
2 Increases in duties on each subject steel products are as follows: certain flat steel other than slab,
hot-rolled bar, cold-finished bar, and tin mill products (30, 24 and 8 per cent ad valorem in the first, second, and
third years respectively); rebar, certain welded tubular pr oducts, stainless steel bar, and stainless steel rod (15,
12 and 9 per cent ad valorem in the first, second and third years respectively); carbon and alloy fittings (13, 10
and 7 per cent ad valorem in the first, second and third years respectively); and stainless steel wire (8, 7 and
6 per cent ad valorem in the first, second and third years respectively) As regards slab, a tariff rate quota of
4.90 million metric tons will be allotted in the first year of the relief, increasing to 5.25 and 5.81 million metric
tons in the second and third years, with additional duty rates of 30 per cent ad valorem for imports above the
within-quota level in the first year, and 24 and 18 per cent in the second and third years respectively.

participation by interested parties, to conduct an adequate investigation, to provide critical
information on which it relied, and to set forth in the published report the findings and
reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justification for the
actual measure imposed and the justification for the exclusion of Canada, Mexico, Israel and
Jordan.
8. The safeguard measures exceeded the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury
and to facilitate adjustment, and thus are in violation of Article 5 of the SA. The measures
were not limited to the serious injury caused by increased imports.
9. The safeguard measures are also in violation of Article 7.1 of the SA because the duration of
the measures extends beyond the period of time necessary to remedy or prevent serious
injury.
10. The United States also violated various procedural provisions of Article 12 of the SA by
failing to provide ‘adequate opportunity' for consultations regarding the application of
safeguard measures, to provide pertinent information, and to make appropriate notifications.
11. The United States is in breach of Article 8.1 of the Agreement of the SA because a
substantially equivalent level of concessions between exporting Members and the United
States has not been maintained.
12. The United States violated Article 9.1 of the SA by failing, inter alia, to exclude developing
countries in a non-discriminatory manner.
Accordingly, Korea requests that the panel consider and find that the US measures concerning
imports of certain steel products are inconsistent with the above listed provisions of the WTO
Agreement.