MEXICO – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON BEEF AND RICE
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States
Date: 22 September 2003
Document codes: WT/DS295/2
Complainant: U.S.
Respondent: Mexico
Third parties: China, EU, Turkey
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 12.5, 12.7, 19.3, 11.9, 21.1, 21.2, 32.1, 12.1.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 1, 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.8, 6.1, 6.2, 6.4, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11.1, 12.1, 12.2, 11.9, 18.1, 19.3, 21.1, 21.2, 32.1  Anti-dumping

MEXICO – DEFINITIVE ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON BEEF AND RICE
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the United States
The following communication, dated 19 September 2003, from the Permanent Mission of the
United States to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement 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 commitments 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 inconsistent 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 injury and causation analyses on only six
months of data for each of the years examined; failed to collect or examine recent
data; failed to properly evaluate the relevant economic factors; failed to base its
determination on a demonstration that the dumped imports are, through the effects of
dumping, causing injury within the meaning of the AD Agreement; 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;
(b) Article 5.8 of the AD Agreement, beca use Mexico failed to terminate the
antidumping 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 measure after negative final determinations of
dumping;

Importación y de Exportación, originarias de los Estados Unidos de América, independientemente del país de
procedencia, Diario Oficial, Segunda Sección 1 (5 de Junio de 2002).

(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 investigation notice of the information that the
authorities required or ample 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 defense of their interests, and failed to
provide timely opportunities for the respondent 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 paragraphs 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 of Annex II of the
AD Agreement, by improperly rejecting information submitted by US exporters and
applying the facts available in the evaluation of injury;
(e) Article 6.9 of the AD Agreement, because the investigating authorities, before the
final determination was made, failed to inform 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 Agreement, 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 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 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 Trade Act also appear to be inconsistent with
Mexico's obligations under various provisions of the AD Agreement and the SCM Agreement.
Specifically:
(a) Article 53 of the Foreign Trade Act 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 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 specify that due consideration should be
granted to extension requests and that such requests should, upon cause shown, be
granted whenever practicable;
(b) Article 64 of the Foreign Trade Act codifies the "facts available" approach that
Mexico applied in the rice investigation, as described in subparagraphs (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 Articles 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 margin in an investigation, and appears 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 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 appears to provide for the application of fines
on importers that enter products subject to antidumping and countervailing duty
investigations while such investigations are 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 Code of Civil Procedure
and Articles 68 and 97 of the Foreign Trade Act prevent Mexico from conducting reviews of
antidumping or countervailing duty orders while a judicial review of the order is ongoing, including a
"binational panel" review pursuant 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 Agreement. The United States and Mexico held such
consultations on 31 July and 1 August 2003. These consultations provided some helpful clarifications
but unfortunately did not resolve the dispute.
Accordingly, the United States respectfully requests, 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 asks that this request for a panel be placed on the
agenda for the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body to be held on 2 October 2003.