Document: WT/DS248/R Page A-1 XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CLAIMS BY THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/DS248) 11.1 In light of the findings made in Section X above, the Panel concludes that the safeguard measures imposed by the United States on the imports of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002 are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994. 11.2 Specifically, the Panel upholds the following claims of the European Communities, that the application of a safeguard measure by the United States on imports of: CCFRS5836: – is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing serious injury to the relevant domestic producers; – is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
Date: 20 March 2002
Document codes: WT/DS248/R
Complainant: EU
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Cuba, Japan, South Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9  SafeguardsArt. XIX:1  GATT 1994

XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CLAIMS BY THE
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WT/DS248)
11.1 In light of the findings made in Section X above, the Panel concludes that the safeguard
measures imposed by the United States on the imports of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002
are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.2 Specifically, the Panel upholds the following claims of the European Communities, that the
application of a safeguard measure by the United States on imports of:
CCFRS5836:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Tin mill:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;

5836 The USITC's determination on CCFRS served as a basis for safeguard measure(s) imposed on
CCFRS including slabs. Therefore, our conclusions cover any safeguard measure imposed on CCFRS which
includes the tariff quota on slabs.

– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Hot-rolled bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Cold-finished bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Rebar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that
unforeseen developments resulted in increased imports causing serious injury to the relevant
domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the

conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Welded pipe:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that
unforeseen developments resulted in increased imports causing serious injury to the relevant
domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
FFTJ:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.

Stainless steel rod:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel wire:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
11.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed
under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or
impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that to the extent that
the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and
GATT 1994, as described above, it has nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to the European
Communities under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.4 The Panel therefore recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States
to bring all the above safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.

XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CLAIMS BY JAPAN
(WT/DS249)
11.1 In light of the findings made in Section X above, the Panel concludes that the safeguard
measures imposed by the United States on the imports of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002
are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.2 Specifically, the Panel upholds the following claims of Japan, that the application of a
safeguard measure by the United States on imports of:
CCFRS5837:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Tin mill:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "parallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Hot-rolled bar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";

5837 The USITC's determination on CCFRS served as a basis for safeguard measure(s) imposed on
CCFRS including slabs. Therefore, our conclusions cover any safeguard measure imposed on CCFRS which
includes the tariff quota on slabs.

– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Cold-finished bar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Rebar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Welded pipe:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
FFTJ:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.

Stainless steel bar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel rod:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel wire:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
11.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed
under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or
impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that to the extent that
the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and
GATT 1994, as described above, it has nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to Japan under the
Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.4 The Panel therefore recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States
to bring all the above safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.

XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CLAIMS BY KOREA 5838
(WT/DS251)
11.1 In light of the findings made in Section X above, the Panel concludes that the safeguard
measures imposed by the United States on the imports of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002
are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.2 Specifically, the Panel upholds the following clai ms of Korea, that the application of a
safeguard measure by the United States on imports of:
CCFRS5839:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Tin mill:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.

5838 In its request for the establishment of a Panel, Korea did raise a claim for Unforeseen
Developments. However, in its first and second written submissions, Korea did not develop this claim or request
any findings on the issue.
5839 The USITC's determination on CCFRS served as a basis for safeguard measure(s) imposed on
CCFRS including slabs. Therefore, our conclusions cover any safeguard measure imposed on CCFRS which
includes the tariff quota on slabs.

Hot-rolled bar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Cold-finished bar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Rebar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Welded pipe:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
FFTJ:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;

– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel bar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel rod:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel wire:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
11.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed
under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or
impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that to the extent that
the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and
GATT 1994, as described above, it has nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to Korea under the
Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.

11.4 The Panel therefore recommend that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States to
bring all the above safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.

XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CLAIMS BY CHINA
(WT/DS252)
11.1 In light of the findings made in Section X above, the Panel concludes that the safeguard
measures imposed by the United States on the imports of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002
are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.2 Specifically, the Panel upholds the following claims of China, that the application of a
safeguard measure by the United States on imports of:
CCFRS5840:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Tin mill:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;

5840 The USITC's determination on CCFRS served as a basis for safeguard measure(s) imposed on
CCFRS including slabs. Therefore, our conclusions cover any safeguard measure imposed on CCFRS which
includes the tariff quota on slabs.

– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Hot-rolled bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Cold-finished bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Rebar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the

conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Welded pipe:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
FFTJ:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.

Stainless steel rod:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel wire:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
11.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed
under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or
impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that to the extent that
the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and
GATT 1994, as described above, it has nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to China under the
Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.4 The Panel therefore recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States
to bring all the above safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.

XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CLAIMS BY
SWITZERLAND (WT/DS253)
11.1 In light of the findings made in Section X above, the Panel concludes that the safeguard
measures imposed by the United States on the imports of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002
are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.2 Specifically, the Panel upholds the following claims of Switzerland, that the application of a
safeguard measure by the United States on imports of:
CCFRS5841:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Tin mill:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;

5841 The USITC's determination on CCFRS served as a basis for safeguard measure(s) imposed on
CCFRS including slabs. Therefore, our conclusions cover any safeguard measure imposed on CCFRS which
includes the tariff quota on slabs.

– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Hot-rolled bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Cold-finished bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Rebar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that
unforeseen developments resulted in increased imports causing serious injury to the relevant
domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the

conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Welded pipe:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
FFTJ:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that
unforeseen developments resulted in increased imports causing serious injury to the relevant
domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.

Stainless steel rod:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel wire:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
11.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed
under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or
impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that to the extent that
the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and
GATT 1994, as described above, it has nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to Switzerland
under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.4 The Panel therefore recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States
to bring all the above safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.

XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CLAIMS BY NORWAY
(WT/DS254)
11.1 In light of the findings made in Section X above, the Panel concludes that the safeguard
measures imposed by the United States on the imports of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002
are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.2 Specifically, the Panel upholds the following clai ms of Norway, that the application of a
safeguard measure by the United States on imports of:
CCFRS5842:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Tin mill:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;

5842 The USITC's determination on CCFRS served as a basis for safeguard measure(s) imposed on
CCFRS including slabs. Therefore, our conclusions cover any safeguard measure imposed on CCFRS which
includes the tariff quota on slabs.

– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Hot-rolled bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Cold-finished bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Rebar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the

conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Welded pipe:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "parallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
FFTJ:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.

Stainless steel rod:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel wire:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
11.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed
under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or
impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that to the extent that
the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and
GATT 1994, as described above, it has nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to Norway under
the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.4 The Panel therefore recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States
to bring all the above safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.

XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CLAIMS BY NEW
ZEALAND (WT/DS258)
11.1 In light of the findings made in Section X above, the Panel concludes that the safeguard
measures imposed by the United States on the impor ts of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002
are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.2 Specifically, the Panel upholds the following claims of New Zealand, that the application of a
safeguard measure by the United States on imports of:
CCFRS5843:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Tin mill:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;

5843 The USITC's determination on CCFRS served as a basis for safeguard measure(s) imposed on
CCFRS including slabs. Therefore, our conclusions cover any safeguard measure imposed on CCFRS which
includes the tariff quota on slabs.

– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Hot-rolled bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Cold-finished bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Rebar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the

conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Welded pipe:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of parallelism between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
FFTJ:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel bar:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "parallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.

Stainless steel rod:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel wire:
– is inconsistent with Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 and Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, as the United States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation
demonstrating that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing
serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
11.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed
under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or
impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that to the extent that
the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and
GATT 1994, as described above, it has nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to New Zealand
under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.4 The Panel therefore recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States
to bring all the above safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.

XI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CLAIMS BY BRAZIL 5844
(WT/DS259)
11.1 In light of the findings made in Section X above, the Panel concludes that the safeguard
measures imposed by the United States on the imports of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002
are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
11.2 Specifically, the Panel upholds the following claims of Brazil, that the application of a
safeguard measure by the United States on imports of:
CCFRS5845:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Tin mill:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.

5844 In its request for the establishment of a Panel, Brazil did raise a claim for unforeseen developments.
However, in its first and second written submissions, Brazil did not develop this claim or request any findings
on the issue.
5845 The USITC's determination on CCFRS served as a basis for safeguard measure(s) imposed on
CCFRS including slabs. Therefore, our conclusions cover any safeguard measure imposed on CCFRS which
includes the tariff quota on slabs.

Hot-rolled bar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Cold-finished bar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Rebar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Welded pipe:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
FFTJ:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;

– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel bar:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation that a "causal link" existed
between any increased imports and serious injury to the relevant domestic producers;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "parallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel rod:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports";
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
Stainless steel wire:
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination with respect to "increased imports", since the explanation given consisted of
alternative explanations partly departing from each other, which given the different product
bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 4.2(b) and 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United
States failed to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of how the facts supported its
determination of a "causal link" between any increased imports and serious injury since the
explanation given consisted of alternative explanations partly departing from each other,
which given the different product bases, cannot be reconciled as a matter of substance;
– is inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, as the United States
failed to comply with the requirement of "p arallelism" between the products for which the
conditions for safeguard measures had been established, and the products which were
subjected to the safeguard measure.
11.3 Under Article 3.8 of the DSU, in cases where there is infringement of the obligations assumed
under a covered agreement, the action is considered prima facie to constitute a case of nullification or
impairment of benefits under that agreement. Accordingly, the Panel concludes that to the extent that
the United States has acted inconsistently with the provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and
GATT 1994, as described above, it has nullified or impaired the benefits accruing to Brazil under the
Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.

11.4 The Panel therefore recommends that the Dispute Settlement Body request the United States
to bring all the above safeguard measures into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.