UNITED STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS REPORT OF THE PANEL
Document: REPORT OF THE PANEL
Date: 11 July 2019
Document codes: WT/DS550/R
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Bahrain, Brazil, 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, Venezuela
Dispute stage: Mutually Agreed Solution
Agreements cited: Art. I:1, II:1(a), II:1(b), X:3(a), XIX:1, XIX:2  GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1, 11.1(a), 11.1(b), 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.5  Safeguards

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

1 COMPLAINT BY CANADA
1.1. On 1 June 2018, Canada 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 1994 (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, including imposing additional ad valorem
duties on imports of the steel and aluminium products and exempting certain selected WTO Members
from the measures.1
1.2. Canada alleged that the United States imposed a 25% additional import duty on certain steel
products and a 10% additional import duty on certain alumin ium products from Canada and other
countries, while exempting imports from Argentina, Australia, Brazil, and South Korea from the
additional import duties. According to Canada, the measures identified in its request for
consultations, operating separately or together, appeared to be inconsistent with the United States'
obligations under Articles I:1, II:1(a) and (b), X:3(a), XI:1, XIX:1, and XIX:2 of the GATT 1994 and
Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1, 11.1(a) and (b), 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 , and 12.5 of the
Agreement on Safeguards.
1.3. In addition, Canada alleged that Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and its
associated regulations appear ed to be inconsistent "as such" with Articles I:1 and II:1 of the
GATT 1994 and they did not appear to be justifiable under Article XXI(b) of the GATT 1994 because
they require the United States to account for economic welfare and other factors that are not
necessary for the protection of its essential security interests, in a man ner that is inconsistent with
Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organizatio n
(WTO Agreement).
1.4. In the alternative, Canada alleged that the United States has applied Section 232 of the Trade
Expansion Act of 1962 and its associated regulations for reasons related to economic welfare and
other factors that are not necessary for the protection of its essential security interests . According
to Canada, this constitutes a measure attributable to the United States that is likely to be continued
in the future in a manner inconsistent with Articles I:1 and II:1 of the GATT 1994 and not justifiable
under Article XXI(b) of the GATT 1994. Alternatively, Canada asserted that it constitutes ongoing
conduct or a rule or norm of general and prospective application that is inconsistent with the United
States' WTO obligations.
1.5. Consultations were held on 20 July 2018.
2 PANEL ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION
2.1. On 18 October 2018, Canada requested the establishment of a panel pursuant to Articles 4.7
and 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994, and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards.2
2.2. In its request for the establishment of a panel, Canada identified the measures at issue as
including:
a. Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. §1862);
b. Section 705 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Effect of Imported Articles on the National
Security (15 CFR 705);
c. 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 March 8, 2018);

1 Request for consultations by Canada, WT/DS550/1.
2 Request for the establishment of a panel by Canada, WT/DS550/11.

d. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum Into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify
Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the U nited States (Presidential
Proclamation 9704, issued on March 8, 2018);
e. 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 9711,
issued on March 22, 2018);
f. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify
Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (Presidential
Proclamation 9710, issued on March 22, 2018);
g. Requirements for S ubmissions 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 Submitted
Exclusion Requests for Steel and Aluminum (US Department of Commerce);
h. Submissions of Exclusion Requests and Objections to Submitted Requests for Steel and
Aluminum (US Department of Commerce);
i. 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 (US Department of
Commerce, January 11, 2018);
j. 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 (US Department of
Commerce, January 17, 2018);
k. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Certain
Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(Presidential Proclamation 9740, issued on April 30, 2018);
l. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify
Certain Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(Presidential Proclamation 9739, issued on April 30, 2018);
m. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, including the Annex (Presidential
Proclamation 9759, issued on May 31, 2018);
n. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify
Certain Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(Presidential Proclamation 9758, issued on May 31, 2018);
o. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Certain
Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonize d Tariff Schedule of the United States
(Presidential Proclamation 9772, issued on August 10, 2018);
p. Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify
Certain Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of t he United States
(Presidential Proclamation 9776, issued on August 29, 2018);
q. Adjusting Imports of Steel into the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Certain
Provisions of Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States
(Presidential Proclamation 9777, issued on August 29, 2018);
r. The US policy, practice, composite measure, rule or norm, or ongoing conduct as described
in paragraph 2.4 below; and
s. any amendments, successor, replacement or implementing measures and any exemptions
applied or other related measures.

2.3. Canada considered the measures at issue, operating separately or together, to be inconsistent
with the United States' obligations under Articles I:1, II:1(a) and (b), X:3(a), XI:1, XIX:1(a), and
XIX:2 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1, 11.1(a) and (b), 12.1, 12.2,
12.3, and 12.5 of the Agreement on Safeguards. In addition, Canada alleged that Section 232 of the
Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and its associated regulations are inconsistent "as such" with the
obligations of the United States under the se provisions of the covered agreements and with
Article XXI:(b) of the GATT 1994 because they require the United States to account for an industry's
economic interests, welfare or protect ion, or other factors not necessary for the protection of its
essential security interests. Canada thus alleged that the United States has failed to ensure the
conformity of its laws, regulations, and administrative procedures with its obligations under the WTO
Agreement as required under Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
2.4. In addition, Canada challenged the policy or practice of the United States of interpreting and
applying Section 232 based on reasons related to economic welfare and other factors that are not
necessary for the protection of the United States' essential security interests. In Canada's view, this
measure consists of the items listed in paragraph 2.2 above as well other Section 232 investigations,
declarations, statements, and decisions made by the United States government and its officers in
their official capacity related to Section 232. In the alternative, Canada alleged that the measure is
a composite measure consisting of Section 232 and its associated regulations along with the policy
or practice of the United States of applying them for economic reasons. In the further alternative,
Canada alleged that the measure constitutes the ongoing conduct or a rule or norm of general and
prospective application. Canada submitted that the measure is inconsistent with the provisions of
the covered agreements set out in paragraph 2.3 above and with Article XXI(b) of the GATT 1994.
2.5. At its meeting on 21 November 2018, the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) established a panel
pursuant to Canada's request in document WT/DS550/11, in accordance with Article 6 of the DSU.3
2.6. 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 Canada in document
WT/DS550/11 and to make such findings as will assist the DSB in making the
recommendations or in giving the rulings provided for in those agreements.4
2.7. On 7 January 2019, Canada 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

2.8. The Kingdom of Bahrain; Brazil; China; Colombia; Egypt, the European Union; Guatemala;
Hong Kong, China; Iceland; India; Indonesia; Japan; Kazakhstan; Malaysia; Mexico; New Zealand;
Norway; Qatar; the Russian Federation; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; Singapore; South Africa;
Switzerland; Chinese Taipei; Thailand; Turkey; Ukraine; and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
reserved their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties.
3 NOTIFICATION OF MUTUALLY AGREED SOLUTION
3.1. By a letter dated 23 May 2019, pursuant to Article 3.6 of the DSU, the parties notified the DSB
that they had reached a mutually agreed solution . This was circulated as document WT/DS550/13
on 27 May 2019. Also on 27 May 2019, the parties jointly wrote to the Panel advising it of their
mutually agreed solution and "recall[ing] that Article 12.7 of the [DSU] 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'".

3 DSB, Minutes of the meeting held on 21 November 2018, WT/DSB/M/421.
4 Constitution note of the Panel, WT/DS550/12.

3.2. The Panel takes note of the mutually agreed solution between the parties to the dispute and
of 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."
3.3. 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 descriptio n of the case and to reporting that a solution has been reached. "
Accordingly, the Panel concludes its work by reporting that a mutually agreed solution to this dispute
has been reached between the parties.