UNITED STATES - DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Document: Request for Consultations by New Zealand
Date: 21 May 2002
Document codes: WT/DS258/1; G/L/551; G/SG/D26/1
Complainant: New Zealand
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Brazil, Canada, China, Taiwan, Cuba, EU, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, Norway, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2, 4.2, 5.1, 3, 8  SafeguardsArt. XIX:1, X:3  GATT 1994

UNITED STATES - DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES
ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Request for Consultations by New Zealand
The following communication, dated 14 May 2002, from the Permanent Mission of
New Zealand 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 instructed me to reques t consultations with the Government of the
United States pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(GATT 1994), and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards, with regard to the safeguard measures
on steel imposed by the US on imports of certain steel products.
Pursuant to "Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002 - To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to
Competition from Imports of Certain Steel Products" and the "Memorandum of March 5, 2002 -
Action Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 Concerning Certain Steel Products by the
President of the U.S.", published in the Federal Register Vol.67, No 45 of 7 March 2002, the United
States has imposed safeguard measures, with effect from 20 March 2002, in the form of an increase in
duties on imports of certain steel products and in the form of a tariff rate quota on imports of steel
slabs.
New Zealand considers that the United States measures are in breach of the obligations of the
United States under the provisions of the GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards, in
particular but not necessarily exclusively, of:
- Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia, they are based on
deficient determinations on the like or directly competitive products, absence of "imports in such
increased quantities" and/or "under such conditions", lack of serious injury or threat thereof, lack of
causality, and non-respect of the requirement of parallelism between the scope of the imported
products subject to the investigation and the scope of the imported products subject to the application
of measures;
- Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , the US failed to
apply the measure to all imports irrespective of their source;
- Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia, the US did
not provide appropriate means through which the interested parties could present their evidence and
views; and the report published by the competent authorities did not set forth adequately the findings

and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justification for the
actual measure imposed;
- Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because, inter alia , the US
measures are not justified by "imports in such increased quantities and/ or “under such conditions",
lack of serious injury or threat thereof, lack of causality, and non-respect of the requirement of
parallelism between the scope of the imported products subject to the investigation and the scope of
the imported products subject to the application of the measures;
- Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, inter alia, the US measures grant
relief beyond "the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment";
- Article 7 of the Agreement on Safeguard s, since, inter alia, they grant relief beyond
"the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment";
- Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since the US did not seek to maintain a
substantially equivalent level of concessions or other obligations;
- Article 12 of the Agreement on Safeguards, regarding, inter alia , the obligation to
provide pertinent information and adequate oppo rtunity for prior consultations regarding the
application of a safeguard measure;
- Article 1.1 of the GATT 1994, since, inter alia, the safeguard measure discriminates
between products originating in New Zealand and products originating in other WTO countries;
- Article X of GATT 1994 since, inter alia, they are not based on uniform, impartial
and reasonable administration of the relevant US laws and regulations;
- Article XIX.1 of the GATT 1994, because, inter alia, they failed to show, prior to the
application of the measures, that the increases in imports and the conditions of importation of the
products covered by the above-mentioned measures were the result of "unforeseen developments"
and of the effect of the US obligations under the GATT 1994.
New Zealand looks forward to receiving the United States response to the present request and
to seeking a mutually convenient time and place to hold consultations.
New Zealand reserves its rights regarding the pursuit of the remedies provided for under the
Agreement on Safeguards and the Dispute Settlement Understanding , and also reserves its rights to
raise additional factual matters and legal claims during the course of the consultations and in any
future request for panel proceedings.