UNITED STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY SWITZERLAND
Document: REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL
Date: 9 November 2018
Document codes: WT/DS556/15
Complainant: Switzerland
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, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, UAE, Venezuela
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. I:1, II:1(a), II:1(b), X:3(a), XI:1, XIX:1  GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 11.1(a)  SafeguardsArt. XIX  GATT 1994Art. 12.1, 12.2, 12.3  SafeguardsArt. XIX:2  GATT 1994Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS
REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY SWITZERLAND
The following communication, dated 8 November 2018, from the delegation of Switzerland to the
Chairperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.

On 9 July 2018, Switzerland requested consultations with the Government of 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 1994 (GATT 1994)
and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards with respect to certain measures imposed by the
United States to adjust imports of steel and aluminiu m into the United States, including imposing
additional ad valorem rates of duty on imports of certain steel and aluminium products and
exempting certain selected WTO members from the measures. These measures adversely affect
exports of such products from Switzerland to the United States. Th e request was circulated to
WTO Members on 12 July 2018 as document , and
Switzerland held consultations with the United States on 30 August 2018. Unfortunately, those
consultations failed to resolve the dispute.
1. CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO MEASURES RELATING TO STEEL AND ALUMINIUM
IMPORTS
Through Presidential Proclamations 9705 and 9711 dated 8 and 22 March 2018, the United States
imposed an additional import duty of 25% on certain steel products from all countries except
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Korea and Mexico, taking effect on
23 March 2018. The steel products concerned are defined at the US Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) 6-digit level as: 7206.10 through 721 6.50, 7216.99 through 7301.10, 7302.10, 7302.40
through 7302.90, and 7304.11 through 7306.90, including any su bsequent revisions to these
HTS classifications.
Through Presidential Proclamations 9704 and 9710 dated 8 and 22 March 2018, the United States
imposed an additional import duty of 10% on certain aluminium products from all countries except
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Korea, the European Union and Mexico, taking effect on
23 March 2018. The aluminium products concerned are defined in the US Harmonized Tariff Schedule
(HTS) as: (a) unwrought aluminum (HTS 7601); (b) aluminum bars, rods, and profiles (HTS 7604);
(c) aluminum wire (HTS 7605); (d) aluminum plate, sheet, strip, and f oil (flat rolled products)
(HTS 7606 and 7607); (e) aluminum tubes and pipes and tube and pipe fitting (HTS 7608 and 7609);
and (f) aluminum castings and forgings (HTS 7616.99.51.60 and 7616.99.51.70), including any
subsequent revisions to these HTS classifications.
Through Presidential Proclamations 9739 and 9740 date d 30 April 20 18, the President of the
United States exempted imports from Argentina, Australia, Brazil and Korea from the additional
duties on certain steel products and exempted imports from Argentina, Australia and Brazil from the
additional duties on ce rtain aluminium products. The United Sta tes also extended the
exemption from the additional duties for imports from Canada, the European Union and Mexico until
31 May 2018.

As of 1 June 2018, the additional duties on certain steel products apply to imports from all countries
except Argentina, Australia, Brazil and Korea, and the additional duties on certain aluminium
products apply to imports from all countries except Argentina and Australia. The United States has
introduced quotas limiting the quantities of steel imports from Argentina, Brazil and Korea, pursuant
to an agreement with those countries, and quotas limiting the quantities of aluminium imports from
Argentina, pursuant to an agreement with that country.
Presidential Proclamations 9704 and 9705 of 8 March 2018 have authorized the Secretary of
Commerce to provide relief from the additional duties upon request of affected parties located in the
United States if the steel or aluminium articles are determined not to be produced in the United
States in a sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality or based upon
specific national security considerations.
On 19 March 2018, the Department of Commerce issued an interim final rule introducing
supplements No. 1 and No. 2 to 15 CFR P art 705 which set forth the requirements and process for
how a directly affected party located in the United States may submit requests for product exclusions
and how parties in the United States may submit objections to submitted exclusion reques ts.
The Department of Commerce issued on 11 September 2018 an interim final rule revising
supplements No. 1 and No. 2 to 15 CFR Part 705.
Through Presidential Proclamations 9777 and 9776 of 29 August 20 18, the President of the
United States has authorized the Secretary of Commerce to provide relief from the quotas applicable
to steel products and aluminium products from those countries subject to quotas, in certain
circumstances, including where they are determined not to be produced in the United States in a
sufficient and reasonably available amount or of a satisfactory quality, or upon specific national
security considerations. The procedures for such requests for exclusion are included in the interim
final rule as published on 11 September 2018.
The measures at issue are the import adjustments on certain steel products and certain aluminium
products. They consist of the additional import duties and quotas as well as the exemptions and
exclusions from such duties and quotas. They have been imposed by and are eviden ced by the
following documents, considered alone and in any combination:
1. Presidential Proclamation 9705 of 8 March 2018 on Adjusting I mports of Steel Into
the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States1
2. Presidential Proclamation 9704 of 8 March 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States2
3. Presidential Proclamation 9711 of 22 March 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States3
4. Presidential Proclamation 9710 of 22 March 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States4
5. Presidential Proclamation 9740 of 30 April 2018 on Adjusting I mports of Steel into
the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States5

1 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 51 (March 15, 2018), pp. 11625-11630.
2 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 51 (March 15, 2018), pp. 11619-11624.
3 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 60 (March 28, 2018), pp. 13361-13365.
4 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 60 (March 28, 2018), pp. 13355-13359.
5 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 88 (May 7, 2018), pp. 20683-20705.

6. Presidential Proclamation 9739 of 30 April 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States6
7. Presidential Proclamation 9759 of 31 May 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United
States, including the Annex7
8. Presidential Proclamation 9758 of 31 May 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the
United States, including the Annex8
9. Presidential Proclamation 9772 of 10 August 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States9
10. Presidential Proclamation 9777 of 29 August 2018 on Adjusting Imp orts of Steel into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule
of the United States10
11. Presidential Proclamation 9776 of 29 August 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into
the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States11
12. 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, January 11, 2018)12
13. The Effect of Imports of Aluminum On the National Security, An Investigation Conducted
Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as Amended (U.S. Department of
Commerce, January 17, 2018)13
14. Interim Final Rule regarding the Requirements for Submissions Requesting Exclusions from
the Remedies Instituted in Presidential Proclamations Adjusting Imports of Steel into the
United States and Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States; and the Filing of
Objections to Su bmitted Exclusion Requests for Steel and Aluminum (U.S. Department of
Commerce)14
15. Interim Final Rule regarding Submissions of Exclusions Requests and Objections to
Submitted Requests for Steel and Aluminum (U.S. Department of Commerce)15
This request also covers any additional measures amending, superseding, supplementing, updating,
extending, replacing or implementing the measures referred to above as well as any exemptions or
exclusions applied.
Switzerland considers that these measures are inconsistent with the United States' obligations under
several provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards and, in particular:
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, because, by applying selectively the additional import duties
on certain steel and aluminium pro ducts originating in different Members, including by
providing exemptions or applying alternative means to certain countries, the United States

6 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 88 (May 7, 2018), pp. 20677-20682.
7 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 108 (June 5, 2018), pp. 25857-25877.
8 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 108 (June 5, 2018), pp. 25849-25855.
9 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 158 (August 15, 2018), pp. 40429-40432.
10 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 171 (September 4, 2018), pp. 45025-45030.
11 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 171 (September 4, 2018), pp. 45019-45023.
12 https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/the_effect_of_imports_of_steel_on_the_nation
al_security_-_with_redactions_-_20180111.pdf
13 https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/the_effect_of_imports_of_aluminum_on_the_n
ational_security_-_with_redactions_-_20180117.pdf
14 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 53 (March 19, 2018) pp. 12106-12112.
15 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 176 (September 11, 2018), pp. 46026-46065.

fails, with respect to customs duties and charges of any kind imposed on or in connection
with importation and with respect to all rules and formalities in connection with importation,
to accord immediately and unconditionally any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity
granted to products originating in other countries to like products originating in Switzerland;
• Article II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994, because, through the measures at issue, the United
States fails to accord to the commerce of most other WTO Members, including Switzerland,
treatment no less favourable than that provided for in the appropriate par t of the United
States' Schedule of Concessions. The United States also fails to exempt the products at issue
from most WTO Members, including Switzerland, from ordinary customs duties in excess of
those set forth and provided for in the United States 'Schedule of Concessions and from all
other duties or charges in excess of those imposed on the date of the GATT 1994 or those
directly and mandatorily required to be imposed thereafter by legislation in force in the
United States on that date;
• Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 because the United States has failed and fails to administer
its laws, regulations, decisions and rulings in relation to the measures at issue in a uniform,
impartial and reasonable manner;
• Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994, because, through th e measures at issue, the United States
has instituted restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges, made effective through
quotas, on the importation of products of the territory of other Members;
• Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, because the Un ited States has suspended tariff
concessions and other obligations without the products at issue being imported into the
territory of the United States in such increased quantities and under such conditions as to
cause or to threaten serious injury to dome stic producers in the United States of like or
directly competitive products, as a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of
the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994;
• Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States a pplies safeguard
measures to the products at issue without first having determined, pursuant to the
subsequent provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards, that such products are being
imported into its territory in such increased quantities, absolute or rel ative to domestic
production, and under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the
domestic industry that produces like or directly competitive products;
• Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States doe s not apply the
safeguard measures to imported products irrespective of their source;
• Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States applies safeguard
measures to the products in question without having properly conducted an investi gation
and published a report that sets forth findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent
issues of fact and law;
• Article 4.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States has not properly
determined that there is serious injury, or threat thereof, to a domestic industry as provided
for in that provision;
• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States has failed to properly
evaluate all relevant factors having a bearing on the situation of the domestic industry; has
failed to demonstrate the existence of a causal link between increased imports and serious
injury or the threat thereof; has failed to ensure that the injury caused by factors other than
increased imports was not attributed to increased imports; and ha s failed to publish a
detailed analysis and demonstration of its conclusions;
• Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States is applying safeguard
measures beyond the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate
adjustment;

• Article 7 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States is applying safeguard
measures without making provision for their application only for the period necessary to
prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment, without limitation to four
years, and without making provision for progressive liberalisation at regular intervals;
• Article 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States has taken
emergency action on imports of particular products as set f orth in Article XIX of the
GATT 1994, without such action conforming w ith the provisions of Article XIX applied in
accordance with the Agreement on Safeguards;
• Article 11.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States has sought,
taken or maintained voluntary export restraints, orderly marketing arrangements or any
other similar measures on the export or the import side; and
• Articles 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguard s and Article XIX:2 of the
GATT 1994, because the United States has failed to comply with any of the notification and
consultation obligations set out in these provisions.
2. CLAIMS WITH RESPECT TO SECTION 232 OF THE TRADE EXPANSION ACT OF 1962
AS REPEATEDLY INTERP RETED BY THE UNITED STATES'AUTHORITIES AND THE
ONGOING USE OF SECTION 232
In addition, Switzerland considers that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended
(19 U.S.C. §1862), as repeatedly interpreted by the United States 'authorities, including in the
context of the above and other measures16, is inconsistent with the United States'obligations under
the covered agreements, particularly those listed below.
Indeed, Section 232, so interpreted by the United States 'authorities, provides for the imposition
of measures (such as additional import duties or quotas) that restrict imports from other
WTO Members to shield the domestic production in the United States from competition with foreign
products on the grounds of an alleged threat to the national security in a manner inconsistent with
the disciplines set out in the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.
Switzerland considers that this measure has no basis in the covered agreements and is therefore
inconsistent with the balance of rights and obligations set out in the WTO Agreement and, in
particular, that the measure violates:
• Articles I:1, II:1(a) and (b) and XI:1 of the GATT 1994 since the measure at issue provides
for the imposition of import restrictions in a manner inconsistent with the disciplines set out
in those provisions;
• Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards
since the measure at issue provides for the imposition of restrictions on imports of products
in order to protect the domestic industry, without examining whether the products at issue
are being imported into the territory of the United States in such increased quantities and
under such conditions as to cause or threaten to cause serious injury to the US domestic
producers of like or directly competitive products, as a result of unforeseen developments
and of the effect of the obligations incurred under the GATT 1994;
• Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards since the measure at issue provides for the
imposition of safeguard measures without conducting an investigation and publishing a
report that sets forth findings and reasoned conclusions on a ll pertinent issues of fact and
law;
• Articles 5.1 and 7 of the Agreement on Safeguards since the measure at issue does not
provide for the imposition of safeguard measures only to the extent and for such time as
may be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment and since

16 Including Section 705 Code of Federal Regulations, Effect of Imported Articles on the National
Security (15 CFR 705) 47 FR 14693.

it fails to provide that those measures cannot exceed four years and that they shall be
progressively liberalised at regular intervals;
• Articles 12.1, 12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards and A rticle XIX:2 of the
GATT 1994 since the measure at issue does not provide for the notifications required under
Articles 12.1 and 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and does not provide for an
opportunity for prior consultations as required under Article 12.3 of the Agreement on
Safeguards and Article XIX:2 of the GATT 1994;
• Article 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards since the measure at issue constitutes a
mechanism of "emergency action" as set forth in Article XIX of the GATT 1994 that does not
conform with the provisions of that Article and is not applied in accordance wi th the
Agreement on Safeguards;
• Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement since, through the measure at issue, the United States
fails to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with its
obligations under the WTO Agreement.
In the alternative, Switzerland submits that the ongoing u se of Section 232 by the
United States'authorities so as to afford protection to the domestic production by restricting imports
from other WTO Members on the grounds o f an alleged threat to the US national security is
inconsistent with the United States 'obligations under the covered agreements, pa rticularly those
listed above.
As a result, Switzerland considers that the above-mentioned measures nullify or impair the benefits
accruing to Switzerland directly or indirectly under the covered agreements.
Therefore, Switzerland respectfully requests that, pursuant to Article s 4.7 and 6 of the DSU,
Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards, t he 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.
Switzerland requests that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of the Dispute
Settlement Body to be held on 21 November 2018.