UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Document: Request for Consultations by Canada
Date: 22 January 2001
Document codes: WT/DS221/1; G/L/434; G/SCM/D41/1; G/ADP/D33/1
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Chile, EU, India, Japan
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 3.2, 3.7  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:2  GATT 1994Art. 10, 19.4, 21.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1  Anti-dumpingArt. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade OrganizationArt. 19.1  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. 32.1  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 21.1, 21.3  Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)Art. VI:3, VI:6  GATT 1994Art. 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. 18.4  Anti-dumping

UNITED STATES – SECTION 129(C)(1) OF THE
URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
Request for Consultations by Canada
The following communication, dated 17 January 2001, from the Permanent Mission of
Canada to the Permanent Mission of the United States and to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement
Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
My authorities have asked me to request consultations with the Government of the
United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes, Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, Article 30
of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM Agreement) and Article 17 of
the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(the AD Agreement). These consultations c oncern Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (the URAA) and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA
(at page 1026).
In particular, in a situation in which the Dispute Settlement Body (the DSB) has ruled that the
United States has, in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding, acted inconsistently with
US obligations under the AD or the SCM Agreements, the US measures prohibit the United States
from complying fully with the DSB ruling. U nder US law, determinations whether to levy
anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the imports occur. With regard to imports that
occurred prior to a date on which the USTR dir ects compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures
require US authorities to disregard the DSB ruling in making such determinations, even where the
determination whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by
the DSB for compliance. In such circumstances, determinations by the United States to levy
anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or
SCM Agreements.
Canada considers that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under:
– DSU Article 21.3, in the context of DSU Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1;
– Article VI of GATT 1994;
– SCM Agreement Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1-.3 and .5;
– AD Agreement Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-.4, and note 12; and
WT/DS221/1, G/L/434,
G/SCM/D41/1, G/ADP/D33/1

– WTO Agreement Article XVI:4.
We look forward to receiving your reply to this request and to selecting a mutually acceptable
date for holding consultations within 30 days from the date of receipt of this request. Canada
welcomes any suggestions that the United States may wish to make concerning dates on which the
consultations could take place.