UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Document: Final Reports of the Panel The reports of the Panel on United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products  are being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU.  The reports are being circulated as an unrestricted document from 11 July 2003 pursuant to the Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents (WT/L/452).  Members are reminded that in accordance with the DSU only parties to the dispute may appeal a panel report.  An appeal shall be limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel. There shall be no ex parte communications with the Panel or Appellate Body concerning matters under consideration by the Panel or Appellate Body. Note by the Secretariat: These Panel Reports shall be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) within 60 days after the date of its circulation unless a party to the dispute decides to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the report.  If the Panel Reports are appealed to the Appellate Body, they shall not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after the completion of the appeal.  Information on the current status of these Panel Reports is available from the WTO Secretariat.
Date: 11 July 2003
Document codes: WT/DS248/R; WT/DS249/R; WT/DS251/R; WT/DS252/R; WT/DS253/R; WT/DS254/R; WT/DS258/R; WT/DS259/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

UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES
ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Final Reports of the Panel
The reports of the Panel on are being circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU. The reports are being
circulated as an unrestricted document from 11 July 2003 pursuant to the Procedures for the
Circulation and Derestriction of WTO Documents (WT/L/452). Members are reminded that in
accordance with the DSU only parties to the dispute may appeal a panel report. An appeal shall be
limited to issues of law covered in the Panel report and legal interpretations developed by the Panel.
There shall be no ex parte communications with the Panel or Appellate Body concerning matters
under consideration by the Panel or Appellate Body.
Note by the Secretariat:
These Panel Reports shall be adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) within 60 days after the date of its
circulation unless a party to the dispute decides to appeal or the DSB decides by consensus not to adopt the
report. If the Panel Reports are appealed to the Appellate Body, they shall not be considered for adoption by the
DSB until after the completion of the appeal. Information on the current status of these Panel Reports is
available from the WTO Secretariat.
In the disputes WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 and
WT/DS259, as explained in paragraph 10.725 of the Panel's Findings, the Panel decided to issue its Reports in
the form of a single document constituting eight Panel Reports, each of the Reports relating to each one of the
eight complainants in this dispute. The document comprises a common cover page, a common Descriptive Part
and a common set of Findings in relation to the complainants' claims that the Panel decided to address. This
document also contains Conclusions and Recommendations that, unlike the Descriptive Part and the Findings,
are particularised for each of the complainants. Specifically, in the Conclusions and Recommendations,
separate document numbers/symbols have been used for each of the complainants (WT/DS248 for the European
Communities, WT/DS249 for Japan, WT/DS251 for Korea, WT/DS252 for China, WT/DS253 for Switzerland,
WT/DS254 for Norway, WT/DS258 for New Zealand an d WT/DS259 for Brazil). In addition, separate
pagination has been used in the Conclusions and Recommendations for each individual complainant. For
instance, the pagination of the Recommendations and Conclusions for the European Communities' complaint is
A-1 to A-4, that for Japan is B-1 to B-4, that for Korea is C-1 to C-4, that for China is D-1 to D-4, that for
Switzerland is E-1 to E-4, that for Norway is F-1 to F-4, that for New Zealand is G-1 to G 4 and that for Brazil
is H-1 to H-4.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

I. INTRODUCTION
A. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
1. Initiation of safeguards investigation by the USITC
1.1 On 22 June 2001, the USTR requested the initiation of a safeguard investigation under
Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 to determine whether certain steel products were being imported
into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the
threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing products like or directly competitive with the
imported products.1
1.2 Four broad groups of products were covered by this request:
(a) certain carbon and alloy flat products;
(b) certain carbon and alloy long products;
(c) certain carbon and alloy pipe and tubes;
(d) stainless steel and alloy tool steel products.2
1.3 A number of products were excluded from the request. These included wire rod and line pipe
(covered by existing Section 201 relief or specifically excluded in the Section 201 relief), certain
OCTGs, certain stainless steel products, certain se mi-finished steel products, certain carbon and alloy
flat-rolled products and certain tin mill flat-rolled products.3
1.4 The USITC initiated its investigation on 28 June 2001. Public notice of this investigation was
published on 3 July 2001.4 It provided for hearings on injury commencing on 17 September 2001 and
hearings on remedy commencing on 5 November 2001 and allowed for submissions of pre- and post-
hearing briefs by interested parties.
1.5 The United States notified the initiation of the safeguard investigation to the Committee on
Safeguards on 4 July 2001 and this notification was circulated to WTO Members on 9 July 2001.5
2. USITC injury determination
1.6 Pre-hearing briefs on injury were filed by 10 September 2001 and hearings took place from
17 September 2001 to 5 October 2001. Post-hearing briefs were allowed from 27 September 2001 to
9 October 2001 for the various steel products under investigation.
1.7 To collect data, the USITC split the four broad product categories into 33 product classes:6

1 USTR request to the USITC to initiate a safeguard investigation under Section 201 of the Trade Act
of 1974, Exhibit CC-1.
2 Ibid., Annex I.
3 Ibid., Annex II.
4 USITC, Institution and Scheduling of Investigation, Investigation No. TA-201-73, Federal Register
Vol. 66 of 3 July 2001, p. 35267, Exhibit CC-2.
5 Notification under Article 12.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards on initiation of an investigation
and the reasons for it (G/SG/N/6/USA/10 of 9 July 2001), Exhibit CC-3.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(a) seven carbon and alloy flat products 7 covering: (i) slabs; (ii) plate; (iii) hot-rolled
steel; (iv) cold-rolled steel; (v) coated steel; (vi) GOES; (vii) tin- mill products;
(b) ten carbon and alloy long products 8 comprising: (i) billets; (ii) hot-rolled bar; (iii)
cold-finished bar; (iv) rebar; (v) rails; (vi) heavy structural shapes; (vii) fabricated
units; (viii) wire; (ix) nails, staples and woven cloth; (x) strand, rope, cable and
cordage;
(c) five carbon and alloy pipe and tube9 divided into: (i) welded pipe; (ii) seamless pipe;
(iii) welded OCTG; (iv) seamless OCTG; (v) fittings, flanges and tool joints;
(d) 11 stainless steel and alloy tool steel products10 classified in: (i) slabs; (ii) plate; (iii)
bar; (iv) rod; (v) wire; (vi) cloth; (vii) seamless tubular products; (viii) welded
tubular products; (ix) fittings and flanges; (x) tool steel; (xi) rope.
1.8 From the 33 products sub-categories for which data had been collected, the USITC defined
27 separate domestic industries. These were:
(a) three domestic industries producing carbon and alloy flat products: (i) certain carbon
flat-rolled steel (comprising slabs, plate, hot-rolled, cold-rolled and coated products);
(ii) GOES; (iii) tin mill products11;
(b) ten domestic industries producing carbon and alloy long products comprising: (i)
billets; (ii) hot-rolled bar; (iii) cold-finished bar; (iv) rebar; (v) rails; (vi) heavy
structural shapes; (vii) fabricated units; (viii) wire; (ix) nails, staples and woven
cloth; (x) strand, rope, cable and cordage (including stainless steel rope)
12;
(c) four domestic industries producing carbon and alloy pipe and tube split into: (i)
welded pipe; (ii) seamless pipe; (iii) OCTG both welded and seamless; (iv) fittings,
flanges and tool joints13;
(d) ten domestic industries producing stainless steel products divided into: (i) semi
finished products (slabs, blooms, billets and ingots); (ii) plate; (iii) bar; (iv) rod; (v)
wire; (vi) cloth; (vii) seamless tubular products; (viii) welded tubular products; (ix)
fittings and flanges; (x) tool steel.14

6 USITC, Certain Steel Products, Inv. No. TA-201-73, USITC Pub. 3479 (Dec. 2001): Volume I –
Determinations and Views of the Commissioners; (herei nafter USITC Report, Vol. I"), Exhibit CC-6, p. 32,
footnote 40 and p. 36, footnote 62.
7 USITC Report, Vol. I, Appendix A, pp. 9 and 10, Descriptions and Harmonized Tariff Schedules
(HTS) subheadings.
8 USITC Report, Vol. I, Appendix A, pp. 11 to 13, Descriptions and Harmonized Tariff Schedules
(HTS) subheadings.
9 USITC Report, Vol. I, Appendix A, pp. 13 and 14, Descriptions and Harmonized Tariff Schedules
(HTS) subheadings.
10 USITC Report, Vol. I, Appendix A, pp. 14 to 16, Descriptions and Harmonized Tariff Schedules
(HTS) subheadings.
11 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 36.
12 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 79.
13 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 147.
14 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 190.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

1.9 On 22 October 2001, the USITC voted on injury and made negative determinations for the
following 15 product groups (based on the 33 product categories it had investigated):
(a) for carbon and alloy billets, imports have not increased15;
(b) for 13 products comprising: (i) carbon and alloy GOES 16; (ii) rails 17; (iii) heavy
structural shapes18; (iv) fabricated units 19; (v) wire 20; (vi) nails, staples and woven
cloth21; (vii) strand, rope, cable and cordage (including stainless steel rope) 22; (viii)
seamless pipe23; (ix) OCTG (including seamless and welded) 24; (x) stainless steel
slabs25 (xi) plate26; (xii) cloth27; (xiii) seamless tubular products 28 and (xiv) welded
tubular products29; there was no injury;
1.10 The United States notified these negative determinations to the Committee on Safeguards on
26 October 2001 and this notification was circulated to WTO Members on 1 November 2001.30
1.11 The USITC made affirmative injury determinations for eight of these product groups:
(a) for seven products, including (1) certain carbon flat-rolled steel 31, (2) carbon and
alloy hot-rolled bar 32, (3) carbon and alloy cold-finished bar 33, (4) carbon and alloy
rebar34, (5) carbon and alloy fittings, flanges and tool joints 35, (6) stainless steel bar 36
and (7) stainless steel rod37, imports were a substantial cause of serious injury;
(b) for carbon and alloy welded pipe, imports were a substantial cause of threat of serious
injury38;
1.12 For four products, the USITC delivered divided determinations:39

15 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 117.
16 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 67.
17 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 118.
18 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 122.
19 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 127.
20 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 132.
21 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 142.
22 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 136.
23 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 186.
24 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 181.
25 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 224.
26 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 228.
27 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 239.
28 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 242.
29 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 246.
30 Information to be notified to the Committee where a safeguard investigation is terminated with no
safeguard measure imposed (G/SG/N/9/USA/4 of 1 November 2001), Exhibit CC-4.
31 USITC Report, Vol. I, p.55.
32 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 95.
33 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 104.
34 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 111.
35 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 174.
36 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 208.
37 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 217.
38 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 158.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(a) for carbon and alloy tin mill products, three Commissioners found that imports were
not a substantial cause of injury40, whereas three Commissioners ruled the opposite41;
(b) for stainless steel wire, three Commissioners found no injury 42, two Commissioners
found that imports were a substantial cause of threat of serious injury 43 and one
Commissioner found that imports were a substantial cause of serious injury44;
(c) for stainless steel fittings and flanges, three Commissioners found no injury 45, but
three Commissioners found that imports were a substantial cause of serious injury46;
(d) for stainless steel tool steel, three Commissioners found no injury 47, two
Commissioners found that imports were a substantial cause of serious injury 48 and
one Commissioner found that imports were a substantial cause of threat of serious
injury49;
1.13 The United States notified these affirmative and divided determinations to the Committee on
Safeguards on 26 October 2001 and this notification was circulated on 1 November 2001.50
3. Remedy recommendation by the USITC
1.14 On 26 October 2001, the TPSC requested public comments on potential safeguard action on
imports of certain steel products, including the possibility to request products exclusions.51
1.15 Pre-hearing briefs on remedy were filed by 29 October 2001 and hearings on remedy took
place from 6 to 9 November 2001. Post-hearing briefs were allowed from 13 to 15 November 2001
for the various steel products under investigation.
1.16 On 19 December 2001, the USITC forwarded its remedy recommendations, together with its
injury determinations, in its report to the US President.

39 Under United States' law, when the USITC vote is equally divided, both the affirmative and the
negative determinations are forwarded to the President an d he may consider either one to be the determination
of the USITC.
40 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 74.
41 USITC Report, Vol. I, dissenting opinion of Commissioner Devaney, reflected in p. 36, footnote 64,
p. 48, footnote 63 and p. 55, footnote 224; separate views on injury of Commissioner Bragg, p. 295; separate
and dissenting views of Commissioner Miller on injury with respect to tin mill products, p. 307.
42 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 235.
43 USITC Report, Vol. I, separate views of Chairman Koplan on injury, pp. 255 and 258 and separate
views on injury of Commissioner Bragg, p. 302.
44 USITC Report, Vol. I, separate views of Commissioner Devaney on injury, pp. 342 and 345.
45 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 250.
46 USITC Report, Vol. I, separate views of Chairman Koplan on injury, pp. 255 and 266; separate
views on injury of Commissioner Bragg, p. 303; separate views of Commissioner Devaney on injury, pp. 347
and 350.
47 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 231.
48 USITC Report, Vol. I, separate views on injury of Commissioner Bragg, p. 301; separate views of
Commissioner Devaney on injury, pp. 336 and 340.
49 USITC Report, Vol. I, separate views of Chairman Koplan on injury, pp. 255 and 262.
50 Notification under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on finding a serious injury or
threat thereof caused by increased imports (G/SG/N/8/USA/8 of 1 November 2001), Exhibit CC-5.
51 Public Comments on Potential Action Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 With Regard to
Imports of Certain Steel, Federal Register, Vol. 66, No. 208, 26 October 2001, p. 54312.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

1.17 For the eight products for which affirmative injury determinations had been made, the USITC
recommended a four-year programme of tariffs and tariff-rate quotas:52
(a) an additional duty of 20% ad valorem, to be reduced to 17% the second year, 14% the
third year and 11% the fourth year for: (i) certain carbon flat-rolled steel (excluding
slabs); (ii) carbon and alloy hot-rolled bar; (iii) carbon and alloy cold-finished bar;
and (iv) stainless steel rod;
(b) an additional duty of 15% ad valorem, to be reduced to 12% the second year, 9% the
third year and 6% the fourth year for (v) stainless steel bar;
(c) an additional duty of 13% ad valorem, to be reduced to 10% the second year, 7% the
third year and 4% the fourth year for (vi) carbon and alloy fittings, flanges and tool
joints;
(d) an additional duty of 10% ad valorem, to be reduced to 8% the second year, 6% the
third year and 4% the fourth year for (vii) carbon and alloy rebar;
(e) a tariff-rate quota with an additional duty on imports in excess of year 2000 United
States imports of 20% ad valorem, to be reduced to 17% the second year, 14% the
third year and 11% the fourth year for (viii) carbon and alloy welded pipe;
(f) a tariff-rate quota with an additional duty of 20% ad valorem on imports in excess of
7 million short tons, to be reduced to 17% for imports in excess of 7.5 million short
tons the second year, 14% for imports in excess of 8 million short tons the second
year and 11% for imports in excess of 8.5 million short tons the second year for (ix)
slabs.
1.18 In addition, the USITC recommended that the remedy on certain carbon flat-rolled steel
(including slabs) apply to Mexico but not to Canada, the remedy on carbon and alloy hot-rolled bar,
cold-finished bar and stainless steel bar apply to Canada but not Mexico, the remedy on carbon and
alloy rebar and stainless steel rod not apply to either Canada or Mexico and the remedy on carbon and
alloy fittings, flanges and tool joints apply to both Canada and Mexico. The USITC recommended
that the remedy on carbon and alloy welded pipe
 not apply to Mexico but was equally divided
concerning its application to Canada.53
1.19 The USITC further recommended that no remedy apply to Israel, to beneficiaries of the
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, the Andean Trade Preference Act, or to Jordan.54
1.20 The USITC finally recommended that the remedy on carbon and alloy welded pipe not apply
to certain large diameter products, as primary producers of these products did not object to such
exclusion.55
1.21 Dissenting opinions on remedy from some Co mmissioners proposed higher additional duty
rates (up to 40%)56 or three year programme of quotas, as well as other treatment in respect of imports
from Canada and Mexico.57

52 USITC Report, Vol. I, pp. 2 and 3.
53 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 3.
54 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 3.
55 USITC Report, Vol. I, pp. 3, 378 and 379.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

4. Request for supplementary information
1.22 Following issuance of the USITC Report, the United States submitted to the Committee on
Safeguards a supplementary notification regarding the USITC determinations with respect to serious
injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry producing certain steel products. 58 In this
notification, the USITC recommendations were referred to as "proposed measures".
1.23 On 3 January 2002, the USTR requested additional information from the USITC on: (i)
unforeseen developments; (ii) economic analysis of remedy options; and (iii) injury for imports from
all sources other than Canada and Mexico for the products for which the USITC recommended the
application of the remedy to Canada and/or Mexico.59
1.24 This request for additional information was notified to the Committee on Safeguards on
15 January 2002 and the notification was circulated to WTO Members on 15 January 2002.60
1.25 The USITC produced supplementary information on the economic analysis of remedy options
on 9 January 200261 and on unforeseen developments and on injury for imports from all sources other
than Canada and/or Mexico on 4 February 2002.62
1.26 On 14 March 2002, the United States notified the Committee on Safeguards that copies of the
public versions of the supplementary information provided by the USITC were available for review in
the Secretariat of the WTO and this supplementary notification was circulated on 18 March 2002.63
5. Trade Policy Staff Committee actions
1.27 In addition to the information requested of th e USITC, the USTR conducted its own separate
investigation through the multi-agency TPSC.
1.28 On 26 October 2001, before the USITC finished its investigation, the TPSC requested public
comments on the potential safeguard action on imports of certain steel products, including domestic
producers' written proposals on adjustment actions, requests to exclude products, and what action (if

56 USITC Report, Vol. I, pp. 3 and 4.
57 USITC Report, Vol. I, p. 5.
58 Notification under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on finding a serious injury or
threat thereof caused by increased imports (G/SG/N/8/USA/8/Suppl. 1 of 7 January 2002), Exhibit CC-8.
59 Letter from Mr. R. B. Zoellick to Mr. S. Koplan, 3 January 2002 (USTR supplementary information
request), Exhibit CC-7.
60 Notification under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on finding a serious injury or
threat thereof caused by increased imports (G/SG/N/8/USA/8/Suppl. 2, 15 January 2002), Exhibit CC-9.
61 USITC supplementary information on the economic analysis of remedy options on 9 January 2002,
Exhibit CC-10 (hereinafter referred to as First Supplementary Report).
62 USITC supplementary information on unforeseen developments and "affirmative" injury
determination for imports from all sources other than Canada and/or Mexico on 4 February 2002, Exhibit CC-11
(hereinafter referred to as Second Supplementary Report).
63 Notification pursuant to Article 12.1(c) and Article 9, Footnote 2, of the Agreement on Safeguards
on taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure (G/SG/10/USA/6/Suppl. 2 and G/SG/11/USA/5/Suppl. 2, 18
March 2002), Exhibit CC-12.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

any) the President should take in response to affirmative injury and remedy findings by the USITC. 64
Written comments in response to these submissions were also permitted.
1.29 In addition, during January 2002, the TPSC held a series of meetings with various parties.
The meetings were scheduled informally, via e-mail correspondence, and conducted informally.
Unlike the USITC hearings, opposing parties were not present and no formal transcript was
maintained. Rather, parties met individually with TPSC staff from as many as fifteen federal agencies
to summarize their positions and answer questions.
6. Presidential Proclamation
1.30 Under Proclamation No. 7529 of 5 March 2002, bearing the title "To Facilitate Positive
Adjustment to Competition from Imports of Ce rtain Steel Products" , completed by a Memorandum
for the Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce and the USTR, the US President imposed
definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain steel products.65
1.31 The United States notified these definitive safeguard measures and Proclamation No. 7529 to
the Committee on Safeguards on 12 March 2002 and these notifications were circulated to WTO
Members on 14 and 15 March 2002.
66
1.32 The products concerned by these definitive safeguard measures are not only those for which
the USITC reached affirmative determinations, but also two of the four products for which the USITC
made divided determinations.
1.33 On 26 March 2002, the United States made a supplementary notification to the Committee on
Safeguards under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on finding a serious injury or threat
thereof caused by increased imports for carbon and alloy tin mill products and stainless steel wire. In
the same notification, the United States provided supplementary information to be notified where a
safeguard investigation is terminated with no safeguard measure imposed with respect to stainless
steel tool steel and stainless steel flanges and fittings.67
1.34 Proclamation No. 7529 lists 11 distinct safeguard measures applicable to 15 steel products.
These measures are:

64 Trade Policy Staff Committee: Public Comments on Potential Action Under Section 203 of the
Trade Act of 1974 With Regard to Imports of Certain Steel, 66 Fed. Reg. 54312, 54323 (26 Oct. 2001)
(Exhibit CC-59).
65 Proclamation No. 7529 of 5 March 2002, "To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition from
Imports of Certain Steel Products", Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 45, 7 March 2002, p. 10553; Memorandum
for the Secretary of Treasury, the Secretary of Commerce and the USTR of 5 March 2002 on the "Action Under
Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 Concerning Certain Steel Products by the President of the United States of
America", Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 45 of 7 March 2002, p. 10593, Exhibit CC-13.
66 Notifications pursuant to Article 12.1(c) and Article 9, Footnote 2, of the Agreement on Safeguards
on taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure (G/SG/10/USA/6 and G/SG/11/USA/5, 14 March 2002 and
G/SG/10/USA/6/Suppl. 1 and G/SG/11/USA/5/Suppl. 1, 15 March 2002). Exhibit CC-14. Two corrigenda were
notified on 18 March 2002 (G/SG/N/10/USA/6/Corr.1 and G/SG/N/11/USA/5/Corr.1, 20 March 2002 and
G/SG/N/10/USA/6/Corr.2 and G/SG/N/11/USA/5/Corr.2, 25 March 2002), Exhibit CC-15.
67 Notification under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on finding a serious injury or
threat thereof caused by increased imports and Informa tion to be notified to th e Committee where a safeguard
investigation is terminated with no safeguard measure imposed (G/SG/N/8/USA/8/Suppl. 3 and
G/SG/N/9/USA/4/Suppl. 1, 28 March 2002), Exhibit CC-16.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(a) A tariff of 30% imposed on imports of "Certain Flat Steel 68 other than Slabs", that is:
(i) plate69; (ii) hot-rolled steel70; (iii) cold-rolled steel71; (iv) coated steel.72
(b) A tariff rate quota on the fifth product of the product group "Certain Flat Steel", that
is slabs.73 The out-of-quota tariff (applicable beyond 5.4 million short tons) is 30%.
(c) A tariff of 30% is imposed on imports of tin mill products74;
(d) A tariff of 30% is imposed on imports of hot-rolled bar75;
(e) A tariff of 30% is imposed on imports of cold-finished bar76;
(f) A tariff of 15% is imposed on imports of rebar77;
(g) A tariff of 15% is imposed on imports of certain tubular products78;
(h) A tariff of 13% is imposed on imports of carbon and alloy fittings and flanges79;
(i) A tariff of 15% is imposed on imports of stainless steel bar80;
(j) A tariff of 8% is imposed on imports of stainless steel wire81;
(k) A tariff of 15% is imposed on imports of stainless steel rod.82

68 This category comprises slabs, plate, hot-rolled, cold-rolled and coated steel and is referred to
elsewhere in this Report as certain carbon flat-rolled steel (CCFRS).
69 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.72.50 through 9903.72.60 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
70 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.72.62 through 9903.72.77 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
71 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.72.80 through 9903.72.98 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
72 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.72.99 through 9903.73.14 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
73 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.72.30 through 9903.72.48 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
74 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.15 through 9903.73.27 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
75 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.28 through 9903.73.38 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
76 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.39 through 9903.73.44 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
77 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.45 through 9903.73.50 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
78 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.51 through 9903.73.62 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
79 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.66 through 9903.73.72 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
80 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.74 through 9903.73.81 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
81 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.91 through 9903.73.96 in the Annex to the
Proclamation
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

1.35 The safeguard measures were effective from 20 March 2002 at 12:01 a.m., EST. 83
Nevertheless, the US President instructed the Secretary of Treasury to prescribe by regulation a date
at which estimated duties should be deposited.
1.36 Accordingly, on 20 March 2002, the United States Customs Services published a notice 84
indicating that the deposit of estimated duties on imports would be deferred until 19 April 2002. This
did not affect collection of duties with effect from the entry into force of Proclamation No. 7529.
This notice was notified to the Committee on Safeguards on 26 March 2002 and this notification was
circulated on 27 March 200285 (Exhibit CC-17).
7. Country exclusions
1.37 On the basis of the Supplementary Report of the USITC of 4 February 2002, the US President
decided to exclude imports from Canada and Mexico from all the safeguard measures.86 Imports from
Israel and Jordan were also excluded.87
1.38 Imports from developing Members of the WTO, whose share of total imports allegedly does
not exceed 3% individually and 9% collectively, were exempted from the safeguard measures. On
this basis, the following imports were not excluded from the safeguard measures:
88
(a) Slabs and certain flat steel from Brazil;
(b) Carbon and alloy fittings and flanges from India, Romania and Thailand;
(c) Carbon and alloy rebar from Moldova, Turkey and Venezuela;
(d) Certain tubular products from Thailand.
8. Product exclusions
1.39 In addition to the exclusions mentioned in the request to initiate a safeguard investigation of
22 June 2002 and accounted for in the scope of the definitive safeguard measures 89, Proclamation
No. 7529 provided for additional products exclusions. 90 These additional exclusions did not only
concern certain tubular products of large diamet er, for which the USITC recommended not to apply
any safeguard action91, but also a large number of other products.92

82 As defined in the superior text to subheadings 9903.73.83 through 9903.73.89 in the Annex to the
Proclamation.
83 Proclamation, clause (8).
84 Notice on payment of duties on certain steel products, Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 54, 20 March
2002, p. 12860.
85 Notifications pursuant to Article 12.1(c) and Article 9, Footnote 2, of the Agreement on Safeguards
on taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure (G/SG/10/USA/6/Suppl. 3 and G/SG/11/USA/5/Suppl. 3, 27
March 2002), Exhibit CC-17. This notification also comprised technical corrections to the Annex to
Proclamation No. 7529.
86 Proclamation, para. 8.
87 Proclamation, para. 11.
89 Annex to the Proclamation, para. 11. (b) (i) to (ix).
90 Annex to the Proclamation, pp. 10558 to 10592 of the Federal Register, para. 11. (b), Exhibit CC-13.
91 Annex to the Proclamation, para. 11.(b)(xlviiii)(A) to (G), reflecting the USITC Report, Vol. I, pp.
378 and 379, footnote 123.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

1.40 The United States President further instruct ed the USTR to determine whether particular
products should be excluded and, if so, within 120 days of the date of the Proclamation (not later than
3 July 2002), to publish a notice in the Federal Register to exclude them from the safeguard
measures.
93
1.41 In this context, on 5 April 2002, the USTR decided to exclude particular products from the
safeguard action.94 This decision was notified to the Committee on Safeguards on 11 April 2002 and
this notification was circulated to WTO Members on 12 April 2002.95
1.42 On 18 April 2002, the USTR specified the procedures to be applied to further consider
remaining exclusions requests. 96 Requestors and objectors were directed to file standardized
questionnaires, respectively by 23 April 2002 and 13 May 2002. New exclusions requests were
allowed by 20 May 2002.
1.43 On 21 May 2002, the USTR indicated that the sa me procedures would apply with respect to
new exclusions requests filed by 20 May 2002. 97 On 3 June 2002, the USTR further explained that
the same procedures would apply in the annual re view process through which future new exclusion
requests would be accepted.98
1.44 On this basis, the USTR published the list of exclusion requests filed before 5 March 2002 on
23 April 2002 and a first list of 150 new exclusion requests on 5 June 2002, a second list of 134 new
exclusion requests on 14 June 2002, a third list of 135 new exclusion requests on 19 June 2002 and a
fourth list of new exclusion requests on 27 June 2002.
1.45 The USTR also released a first list of exclusions concerning 61 products on 7 June 2002, a
second list of exclusions for 47 products on 17 June 2002 and a third list of exclusions relating to 116
products on 24 June 2002.

92 Annex to the Proclamation, para. 11.(b)(x)to (xlviii) and (xlix).
93 Annex to the Proclamation, para. 11. (c) and Memorandum, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 45,
7 March 2002, p. 10596.
94 Exclusion of Particular Products From Actions Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 With
Regard to Certain Steel Products; and Conforming Cha nges to the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United
States, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 65, 5 April 2002, p. 16484.
95 Notifications pursuant to Article 12.1(c) and Article 9, Footnote 2 of the Agreement on Safeguards
on taking a decision to apply a safeguard measure (G/SG/10/USA/6/Suppl. 4 and G/SG/11/USA/5/Suppl. 4, 12
April 2002), Exhibit CC-18.
96 Procedures for Further Consideration of Requests for Exclusions of Particular products from Actions
With Regard to Certain Steel products Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974, as Established in the
Presidential Proclamation 7529 of March 5, 2002, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 75, 18 April 2002, p. 19307,
Exhibit CC-19.
97 Procedures for Consideration of New Requests for Exclusions of Particular Products from Actions
With Regard to Certain Steel products Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974, as Established in the
Presidential Proclamation 7529 of 5 March 2002, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 98, 21 May 2002, p. 35842,
Exhibit CC-20.
98 New Requests for Exclusions of Particular products from Actions With Regard to Certain Steel
products Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974, as Established in the Presidential Proclamation 7529 of
5 March 2002; Information Collection and Procedures for Consideration, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 106,
3 June 2002, p. 38301, Exhibit CC-21.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

1.46 By the deadline of 3 July 2002 provided for in Proclamation No. 7519 to consider pending
exclusion requests, the President issued a new Proclamation 99, further extending this deadline until
31 August 2002. The three lists of product exclusions previously released were annexed to that
Proclamation.
1.47 On 8 July, the USTR published a fifth list of 82 new exclusion requests. The USTR also
released a fourth list of exclusions comprising 23 products on 11 July 2002 and a fifth list of
exclusions concerning 14 products on 19 July 2002. The latest product specific exclusions were
granted on 22 August 2002.100
II. WTO PROCEDURAL ASPECTS
A. CONSULTATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 12.3 OF THE AGREEMENT ON SAFEGUARDS
2.1 In its notification under Article 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards on finding a serious
injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports of 28 December 2001, the United States offered
to consult with Members of the WTO having a substantial interest as exporters of one or more of the
products covered by the investigation.101
2.2 Brazil, the European Communities, Korea and New Zealand requested consultations with the
United States under Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards , but each reserving their right to
further consultations once the actual measures had been imposed.
2.3 In Proclamation No. 7529, the US President instructed the USTR to conduct, prior to the date
of effective application of the definitive safeguard measures, consultations under Article 12.3 of the
Agreement on Safeguards with any Member of the WTO having a substantial interest as an exporter
of a product subject to the safeguard measures.
102 Korea requested consultations on 27 February
2002. The consultations took place in Washington, D.C. on 15 March 2002. On 6 March 2002, Japan
requested consultations. These consultations took place in Washington D.C. on 14 March 2002. On 7
March, New Zealand and the European Communities requested consultations and Brazil made its
request on 11 March 2002. All three sets of consultations were held in Geneva on 19 March 2002.
Subsequently, on 12, 18 and 26 March 2002, Norway, China and Switzerland respectively also
requested consultations with the United States. The consultations with Norway and China were held
on 25 March and 22 March 2002 respectively, in Washington D.C., and the consultations with
Switzerland were held in Geneva on 12 April 2002.
B. D
ISPUTE SETTLEMENT CONSULTATIONS
2.4 On 7 March 2002, the European Communities initiated the procedures under Article 4 of the
DSU, Article XXII:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards by requesting
the United States to enter into dispute settlement consultations. 103 Similar requests were made by

99 Proclamation No. 7576 of 3 July 2002, To Provide for the Efficient and Fair Administration of
Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 130, 8 July 2002,
p. 45285.
100 Fact sheet: Exclusion of products from safeguard on steel products, 22 August 2002, Exhibit CC-91;
List of additional products to be excluded from the Section 201 safeguards measures, as established in
Presidential Proclamation 7529 of 5 March 2002, August 22, 2002, Exhibit CC-92.
101 G/SG/N/8/USA8/Suppl.1, 7 January 2002.
102 Memorandum, Federal Register, Vol. 67, No. 45, 7 March 2002, p. 10596 (Exhibit CC-13).
103 See document WT/DS 248/1
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

Japan104 and Korea 105 on 20 March 2002. China 106, Switzerland 107 and Norway 108 also requested
consultations with the United States on 26 March, 3 and 4 April 2002 respectively. Consultations
were held in Geneva on 11-12 April 2002 jointly with the European Communities, Japan, Korea,
China, Switzerland and Norway.
2.5 New Zealand 109 and Brazil 110 later requested dispute settlement consultations with the
United States on 14 and 21 May 2002 respectively. These consultations took place in Geneva on
13 June 2002.
C. SINGLE PANEL UNDER ARTICLE 9.1 OF THE DSU
2.6 Given that none of the dispute settlement consultations succeeded in resolving the dispute, the
parties proceeded separately to request the establishment of panels to examine the issues arising from
the consultations.
2.7 In accordance with Article 6 of the DSU, the DSB established multiple panels to examine
similar matters raised by the complainants:
(a) The European Communities was the first to present a request for the establishment of
a panel.111 The first panel to address this request was set up on 3 June 2002.
(b) Japan and Korea requested the establishment of a panel. 112 The United States
opposed these requests at the special meeting of the DSB held on 3 June 2002.
However, a single panel was established under Article 9.1 of the DSU at the special
meeting of the DSB held on 14 June 2002 to consider the requests made by Japan,
Korea and, previously, by the European Communities.
(c) China, Switzerland and Norway requested the establishment of a panel on 27 May
and 3 June 2002.
113 The United States opposed China's first panel request at the
special DSB meeting of 7 June 2002 and did the same with Switzerland's and
Norway's first panel requests at the special meeting of the DSB of 14 June 2002.
Requests made by China, Switzerland and Norway were accepted at the special
meeting of the DSB of 24 June 2002. Under Article 9.1 of the DSU, these requests
were referred to the single panel already established to consider the requests made by
the European Communities, Japan and Korea.
2.8 A procedural agreement was concluded on 27 June 2002 between, on the one hand, the
European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand and, on the
other hand, the United States.
114 Pursuant to this procedural agreement, the United States accepted the

104 WT/DS249/1.
105 WT/DS251/1.
106 WT/DS252/1.
107 WT/DS253/1.
108 WT/DS254/1.
109 WT/DS258/1.
110 WT/DS259/1.
111 WT/DS248/12.
112 WT/DS249/6 and WT/DS251/7 respectively.
113 WT/DS252/5, WT/DS253/5 and WT/DS254/5 respectively.
114 WT/DS248/13, WT/DS249/7, WT/DS251/8, WT/DS252/6, WT/DS253/6, WT/DS254/6,

WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

shortening of the 60-day period for consultations under Article 4.7 of the DSU and the establishment
of the panel pursuant to the first request presented by New Zealand, as well as the establishment of a
single panel under Article 9.1 of the DSU for all the complainants involved. In return, the
complainants agreed not to ask the Director-General to appoint the panelists before 15 July 2002 and
agreed on longer time limits for submissions.
2.9 As noted above, New Zealand and Brazil had al so requested dispute settlement consultations
with the United States on 14 and 21 May 2002 respectively. These consultations took place in
Geneva on 13 June 2002.
2.10 New Zealand requested the establishment of a panel on 28 June 2002.
115 The United States
accepted this first panel request at the special meeting of the DSB of 8 July 2002. Under Article 9.1
of the DSU, this request was also referred to the single panel already established to consider the
requests presented by the European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland and Norway.
2.11 On 18 July 2002, a procedural agreement was also concluded between Brazil and the United
States.116 Under this agreement, the United States accepted the shortening of the 60-day period for
consultations and the establishment of a panel pursuant to the first request presented by Brazil. 117
Both Brazil and the United States also accepted that, in accordance with Article 9.1 of the DSU, their
dispute would be referred to the panel that had already been established to consider the requests of the
European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway and New Zealand.
2.12 Pursuant to the two agreements between the parties referred to above and in accordance with
Article 9.1 of the DSU, the DSB agreed that all these disputes would proceed according to one single
panel, whose mandate would be to examine all the requests for a panel mentioned above.
118
2.13 This single Panel was established with the following standard terms of reference:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements cited
by the European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway,
New Zealand and Brazil in documents WT/DS248/12, WT/DS249/6, WT/DS251/7,
WT/DS252/5, WT/DS253/5, WT/DS254/5, WT/DS258/9 and WT/DS259/10, the
matter referred to the DSB by the European Communities, Japan, Korea, China,
Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand and Brazil in those documents, and to make such
findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in giving the
rulings provided for in those agreements."
119

115 WT/DS258/9.
116 WT/DS259/9.
117 WT/DS259/10.
118 WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 and
WT/DS259.
119 WT/DS248/15, WT/DS249/9, WT/DS251/10, WT/DS252/8, WT/DS253/8, WT/DS254/8,
WT/DS258/12, WT/DS259/11.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

2.14 The Director-General was requested to determine the composition of this single Panel with
reference to paragraphs 7 and 10 of Article 8 of the DSU on 15 July 2002. On 25 July, the
Director-General appointed the following persons to serve as the Panel:
Chairman: Mr Stefán Jóhannesson
Members: Mr Mohan Kumar
Ms Margaret Liang
2.15 Canada, Chinese Taipei, Cuba, Malaysia Mexico, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela reserved
their rights to participate in the Panel proceedings as third parties. By a letter dated 23 October 2002,
Malaysia informed the Panel of its decision to withdraw as a third party from the Panel proceedings.
2.16 On 29 July 2002, the Panel met with the parties for its organizational meeting. On
31 July 2002, the panel wrote to the parties issuing some preliminary organizational rulings and
indicating the rules of procedure to be followed by the Panel.
2.17 On 29, 30 and 31 October 2002, the Panel had its first substantive meeting with the parties.
The Panel sent questions to the parties on 31 October 2002 and parties forwarded their answers to the
Panel's questions on 12 November 2002. On 10, 11 and 12 December 2002, the Panel had its second
substantive meeting with the parties. The Panel sent questions to the parties on 13 December 2002.
The Panel extended the deadline for responding to the Panel's questions from 21 December 2002 to
6 January 2003. The United States requested permission to comment further on some of the
complainants' answers. On 16 January 2003, the Pane l authorized all the parties to provide further
comments on some of the panel's questions.
2.18 On 28 January 2003, the United States requested the Panel to issue separate reports pursuant
to Article 9.2 of the DSU. On 30 January 2003, the complainants opposed that request. A series of
communications between the parties followed. On 3 February 2003, the Panel wrote to the parties
that a decision on the United States' request would be issued with the Interim Panel Report but that, in
any case, should the United States' request be accepted by the Panel, all such separate Panel Reports
would have the same descriptive part. The letter reads as follows:
"On 28 January 2003, the Panel received a request from the United States pursuant to
Article 9.1 of the DSU that the Panel issue eight separate panel reports rather than
one consolidated report. This request was made by the United States in light of the
fact that during the previous DSB meeting (held on 27 January 2003) some
complainants expressed the view that "in the case of multiple complaints for which a
single panel report was issued, individual parties could not seek adoption of the report
only in respect of the panel requested by an individual complainant". The United
States asserted in its letter that it did not understand the basis for this "all-or-nothing"
approach because, for example, a responding party's right to seek a solution to one or
more of the individual complaints without adoption of a report (or without an appeal)
would be compromised. The United States noted in its letter that while it was
sensitive to the work involved in preparing separate reports, in the EC – Bananas III
dispute, the panel wrote one master report, and issued identical separate reports for
each co-complainant, omitting inapplicable paragraphs where necessary.
On 30 January, the complainants wrote to the Panel opposing the request that had
been made by the United States for a number of reasons, notably because the request
had not been made in a timely fashion; that complying with the request would result
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

in additional delays; that had the complainants known that multiple reports would be
issued, they would have presented their arguments differently and that the United
States request was contrary to the procedural arrangements negotiated between all the
parties (WT/DS248/13, WT/DS249/7, WT /DS251/8, WT/DS252 /6, WT/DS253/6,
WT/DS254/6, WT/DS258/10 and WT/DS259/9) and contrary to the Panel's working
procedures.
On 31 January, late morning, the Secretariat, on behalf of the Panel, sent a fax to all
parties informing them that the Panel was considering the US request of 28 January
and the complainants' letter of opposition dated 30 January and that, by close-of-
business Monday, 3 February, the Panel's response would be communicated to the
parties, including the date of issuance of the descriptive part in disputes WT/DS248,
WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252,WT/D S253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 and
WT/DS259.
On 31 January, late afternoon, the United States responded to the complainants' letter
of 30 January. For the United States, the complainants appeared to confuse the fact
that a single panel had been established to consider the separate panel requests with
the question of whether that single panel must issue a single report. In the United
States' view, the fact that this dispute has been operating as a single proceeding in no
way means that the results of the single proceeding would be a single report. The
United States insisted that it had never waived its rights under Article 9.2 of the DSU
and that the Panel's working procedures do not exclude the possibility of multiple
reports. It submitted that, up to this point, the United States had considered that even
though it could have requested separate reports, its rights were sufficiently protected
with a single report. That situation changed since the last DSB meeting when the
United States became aware of the complainants' interpretation of Article 9 of the
DSU, which, according to the United States, threatens the United States' dispute
settlement rights. For the United States, its request of 28 January 2003 is, indeed,
timely. To the complainants' claim that they would have structured their arguments
differently had the United States made its request earlier, the United States responded
that, throughout the proceedings, individual complainants had maintained their
autonomy by raising different claims, arguments, answers to questions, etc. The
United States added that the complainants have not indicated how they would have
proceeded differently if they had known beforehand that there would be a single
panel report. The United States essentially submitted that, in any case, the
complainants cannot have more rights under a single report than under multiple
reports, since they can have no more rights under a single proceeding than they would
have had under separate proceedings. For the United States, the only difference
between a single report and separate reports is that the latter approach would make
perfectly clear that each complainant has righ ts only with regard to those claims that
it raised. Finally, the United States reiterated that the Panel could use, for instance,
the model used in the in the EC – Bananas III dispute, in which the panel wrote one
master report, and issued separate reports wi th regard to each complaint that excised
the findings not relevant to that complainant; such an approach for this dispute should
minimize any burden to the Secretariat and not delay issuance of the reports.
On 31 January, early evening, Japan, Switzerland and, subsequently, the European
Communities, asked the Panel to ignore the second letter from the United Sates of 31
January and to rule on the US request on the basis of only the first US letter of 28
January 2003 and the complainants' letter of 30 January. Those complainants raised
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

strong objection to the timing and manner in which the United States had chosen to
file the letter of 31 January to the Panel, claiming, inter alia , that in so doing, the
United States was fully aware that some of the complainants' capitals were already
closed for the weekend. Japan argued that the United States was simply trying to
delay the Panel's decision and that, in the process, the United States had totally
ignored due process and fair play. For the European Communities, all of the
arguments that had been raised by the United States were answered either by the text
of the DSU, the Appellate Body Report in the Byrd Amendment case or the
complainants' letter. The European Communities stated that it does not consider that
the issuance of a single panel report, rather than multiple reports, reduces or adds to
the rights of any of the parties. It also does not consider that multiple panel reports
are needed to make this clear. Finally, the European Communities noted that all
complainants have an interest in the complaints of the others as evidenced by the fact
that they are all third parties in each other's cases.
Afterwards, in the evening of 31 January (just before the receipt of the European
Communities' communication mentioned in the preceding paragraph), the United
States responded that Japan and Switzerl and's communications appeared to assume
that complainants have the right to respond to the arguments that the United States
has made but the United States should not have the right to respond to the arguments
that the complainants have made.
Japan responded by reiterating that the United States was only trying to prolong the
debate, burden the Panel and the Secretariat with further communications, and delay
the solution of this important dispute. Japan queried why the United States waited a
full day, until the evening of Friday, 31 January 2003 to re-start the exchange of
communications. Finally, Japan reiterated that the Panel should make its decision
only on the basis of the complainants' letter of 30 January 2003 and the first US letter
of 28 January 2003.

The Panel is well aware of the time-limit obligations provided for in the DSU
including those mentioned in Articles 12.8 and 20, and of the importance of
proceeding expeditiously with this dispute (as with all disputes).
The Panel is also well aware of the provisions of Article 9 of the DSU, including the
Panel's obligation to ensure that the rights that all parties would have enjoyed had
separate panels been proceeded with be taken into account.
The Panel also recalls that the establishment of a single panel was agreed to by the
parties. Further, the coordination of the complainants' oral presentations at both
substantive meetings of the Panel (as well as parties' answers to the Panel's questions)
was encouraged by the Panel and agreed to by all parties. The Panel notes in this
regard that the United States, in its letter of 31 January, recognized that a single panel
process may benefit all parties, reduce delays and ensure respect of WTO Members'
rights in dispute settlement.
The Panel has decided that it will examine and assess the request made by the United
States while it is completing its legal analysis of the complainants' claims. The Panel
will form a conclusion on this US request, including whether separate panel reports
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

can be issued when a single panel has been established and when multiple disputes
are being examined according to a single panel process and whether an answer to this
question is necessary for the settlement of the present dispute. The Panel will
communicate to the parties its decision on such matters when it issues its Interim
Panel Report.
The Panel notes, however, that as indicated in Article 15 of the DSU, a Panel Report
shall contain a Descriptive Part which includes a description of the factual and legal
allegations and arguments of the parties to the dispute. The Panel believes that the
Descriptive Part of any panel report should include an objective reflection of the
relevant panel process. Therefore, in light of (i) the circumstances of the single panel
process followed for the disputes WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251, WT/DS252,
WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS 258and WT/DS259; (ii) the timing of the US
request, that is, a few days before the issuance of the Descriptive Part; (iii) the fact
that the Panel is examining a series of safeguard measures that are in place for only
three years; (iv) the need to ensure due process, the Panel is of the view that a single
Descriptive Part should, in any case, be issued by the Panel. Should the Panel reach
the conclusion that multiple Panel Reports are to be issued, all such Panels Report
will have the same Descriptive Part.
The parties will note when they receive the draft Descriptive Part of the Panel Report
this week, that the Panel has tried to ensure that collective and individual
complainant's claims, allegations and arguments are properly reflected, together with
the relevant United States' defenses. As provided for in Article 15.1 of the DSU, all
parties will be invited to comment and suggest changes to this draft Descriptive Part
to ensure that it is an objective reflection of all the parties' legal and factual
allegations and arguments.
The draft Descriptive Part in di sputes WT/DS248, WT/DS249, WT/DS251,
WT/DS252, WT/DS253, WT/DS254, WT/DS258 and WT/DS259 will, therefore, be
issued on Thursday, 6 February 2003 and, pursuant to Article 15 of the DSU, all
parties will be invited to comment on such draft Descriptive Part by 5 p.m. on
Wednesday 19 February 2003.
Finally, the Panel would like to reassure the parties that, irrespective of the Panel's
ultimate decision on whether or not to issue separate panel reports, the Panel's work
will not be unduly delayed. The Panel is exercising its utmost efforts to proceed as
expeditiously as possible in its examination of the complainants' claims, bearing in
mind that the parties have submitted more than 3,500 pages of submissions, oral
statements and answers to questions together with more than 3,000 pages of exhibits
in support of numerous claims both under GATT 1994 and the Agreement on
Safeguards, all of which raise complex and sensitive issues of facts and law."
2.19 On 6 February 2003, the Panel issued its draft Descriptive Part, pursuant to Article 15.1 of the
DSU. On 19 February 2003, the Panel received comments from the parties on the draft Descriptive
Part. On 26 March 2003, the Panel issued its Interim Reports to the parties. On 9 and 16 April 2003,
the Panel received comments from the parties. On 2 May 2003, the Panel issued its Final Reports to
the parties.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

III. CLAIMS MADE BY THE COMPLAINANTS120
A. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
3.1 The European Communities claims that:
(a) The precondition of "unforeseen developments" laid down in Article XIX:1 of the
GATT 1994 was not satisfied;
(b) There were no increased imports, as required by Article 2.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, for many of the imported products under investigation;
(c) For certain products, there was an incorrect definition of the relevant domestic
industries that produce like or directly competitive products to those allegedly being
imported in increased quantities, as required by Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) in conjunction
with Article 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(d) There was no serious injury or threat of serious injury being suffered by the relevant
domestic industries, as required by Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on
Safeguards;
(e) Any increase in imports that may have occurred did not cause any serious injury or
threat of serious injury that may have been suffered by the relevant domestic
industries, as required by Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, in
particular because injury was not being suffered by the relevant domestic industries
and because injury or threat thereof caused by other factors was attributed to imports;
(f) The United States safeguard measures are not applied only to the extent necessary to
prevent or remedy serious injury, as required by Article 5.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards;
(g) There is a lack of parallelism between the products for which an increase in imports
within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards was found or
claimed, and the products in respect of which the protective measures were imposed,
contrary to the principle inherent in Articles 2.1, 4.2 and 5.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards;
(h) Neither the Report of the investigation nor the other relevant documents set forth
adequately the findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and
law, including the justification for the measures actually imposed and for all other
elements mentioned above, as required by Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards; nor did they provide the analysis and demonstration required by
Article 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards.

120 The claims set out in this section are as they appear in the parties' respective requests for
establishment of a panel and are found in consecutive order in WT/DS248/12, WT/DS249/6, WT/DS251/7,
WT/DS252/5, WT/DS253/5, WT/DS254/5, WT/DS258/9 and WT/DS259/10.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

B. JAPAN
3.2 Japan claims that:
(a) The safeguard measures are inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994 because, inter alia,
they were imposed in the absence of the requisite increase in import volume;
(b) The safeguard measures are inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994 because, inter alia,
they were imposed despite the United States Government's failure to demonstrate
causality between increased imports and serious injury and to ensure that serious
injury caused by factors other than increased imports was not attributed to increased
imports;
(c) The safeguard measures are inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.1(c) of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Articles X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994 because the
USG failed to properly define the domestic industries producing products like or
directly competitive with the imported products under investigation;
(d) The safeguard measures are inconsistent with Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a), (b) and (c) of
the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles X:3 and XIX:1 of GATT 1994 because,
inter ali a, the President imposed safeguard measures on tin mill products as a
separate like product without making a uniform, impartial and reasonable
determination that increased tin mill product imports had caused, or threatened to
cause, serious injury to the domestic industry producing the like or directly
competitive product or publishing any report setting forth the findings and reasoned
conclusions;
(e) The measures on tin mill products and stainless wire products violate Article 3.1,
4.2(c) the Agreement on Safeguards and Article X:3 of GATT 1994 because the
President's treatment of the USITC's tie injury votes on these and other products was
not uniform, impartial and reasonable nor did the President publish any report setting
forth the findings and reasoned conclusions supporting such treatment;
(f) The safeguard measures are inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement
on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 in that the sources of imports
covered by the safeguards investigation do not parallel the sources of imports falling
within the scope of the safeguard measures;
(g) The safeguard measures are inconsistent with Article 3.1 and 5.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 because, inter alia , the measures
imposed were more restrictive than those recommended by the USITC, and there was
no investigation or published report setting forth the findings and reasoned
conclusions on how they were no more restrictive than necessary to prevent or
remedy serious injury;
(h) The safeguard measures are inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and
Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia, they exempt imports
from WTO Members which are FTA partners of the United States, namely, Canada,
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

Mexico, Jordan and Israel, thereby discri minating between products originating in
Japan and products originating in such WTO Members.
C. KOREA
3.3 Korea claims that:
(a) The United States failed to comply with the provisions of Articles 2.1 and 4 of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of GATT 1994 with respect to the
determination of the relevant domestic industries that produce like or directly
competitive products;
(b) The United States also failed to satisfy the obligations contained in Articles 2, 3 and 4
of the Agreement on Safeguards as well as Article XIX of GATT 1994 with respect
to the investigation, findings, and decision regarding increased imports, serious
injury, threat of serious injury and causation. The United States was in violation of
Article X:3(a) as well with respect to tin mill products;
(c) The United States is in breach of Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 as regards the
requirement to demonstrate that "unforeseen developments" led to the increase in
imports. In this respect, not only did the United States fail to conduct separate
analyses for each product concerned, but also the explanations were insufficient to
satisfy the requirement;
(d) The United States violated Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I,
XIII and XIX of GATT 1994 for failing to apply the safeguard measures to all
imports irrespective of their sources on an MFN basis;
(e) The United States' violation of Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994 was compounded with the violation of Article X:3
of GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards. In order to exempt
imports from Canada and Mexico, the US President reversed the USITC's findings
made in accordance with Section 311(a) of the NAFTA Implementation Act without
providing sufficient, if any, explanation;
(f) The United States violated Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards in conjunction
with Articles 2.2 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing to meet the
requirement of parallelism between the investigation and the measures;
(g) The United States committed violations under Article 3 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, in conjunction with Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards,
because it failed to afford an opportunity for sufficient participation by interested
parties, to conduct an adequate investigation, to provide critical information on which
it relied, and to set forth in the published report the findings and reasoned conclusions
on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justification for the actual
measure imposed and the justification for the exclusion of Canada, Mexico, Israel and
Jordan;
(h) The safeguard measures exceeded the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious
injury and to facilitate adjustment, and thus are in violation of Article 5 of the
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

Agreement on Safeguards. The measures were not limited to the serious injury
caused by increased imports;
(i) The safeguard measures are also in violation of Article 7.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards because the duration of the measures extends beyond the period of time
necessary to remedy or prevent serious injury;
(j) The United States also violated various procedural provisions of Article 12 of the
Agreement on Safeguards by failing to provide "adequate opportunity" for
consultations regarding the application of safeguard measures, to provide pertinent
information, and to make appropriate notifications;
(k) The United States is in breach of Article 8.1 of the Agreement of the Agreement on
Safeguards because a substantially equivalent level of concessions between exporting
Members and the United States has not been maintained;
(l) The United States violated Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing,
inter alia, to exclude developing countries in a non-discriminatory manner.
D. CHINA
3.4 China claims that:
(a) The United States violated Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994, since the precondition
of the "unforeseen developments" was not satisfied;
(b) The United States violated Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since there
were no increased imports for many of the imported products under investigation;
(c) The United States violated Articles 2.1, 4.2(a) and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on
Safeguards, since, for certain products, there was an incorrect definition of "the
product concerned" in order to determine any increase of imports and since some of
the United States measures do not apply to "a product";
(d) The United States violated Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) in conjunction with Article 4.1(c)
of the Agreement on Safeguards, since, for certain products, there was an incorrect
definition of the relevant domestic industries that produce like or directly competitive
products to those allegedly being imported in increased quantities;
(e) The United States violated Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards,
since there was no serious injury or threat of serious injury being suffered by the
relevant domestic industries;
(f) The United States violated Articles 2.1 a nd 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards,
since any increase in imports that may have occurred did not cause any serious injury
or threat of serious injury that may have been suffered by the relevant domestic
industries, in particular because injury was not being suffered by the relevant
domestic industries and because injury or threat thereof caused by other factors was
attributed to imports;
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(g) The United States violated Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguard, since the
United States safeguard measures are not applied only to the extent necessary to
prevent or remedy serious injury;
(h) The United States violated Articles 2.1, 4.2 and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards
since there is a lack of parallelism between the products for which an increase in
imports was found or claimed and the products in respect of which the protective
measures were imposed;
(i) The United States violated Article 5.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Article XIII of the GATT 1994, since the determination and the allocation of the tariff
rate quota for slabs were incorrect and/or discriminatory;
(j) The United States violated Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since imports
of some steel products from China as a developing country, were not excluded from
the application of the safeguard measures;
(k) The United States violated Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.2 of the
Agreement on Safeguards, since the United States measures discriminate between
products originating in China and products originating in other countries;
(l) The United States violated Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since neither
the Report of the Investigation nor the other relevant documents set forth adequately
the findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law,
including the justification for the measures actually imposed and for all other
elements mentioned above; and Article 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards, since
the above-mentioned documents did not provide the analysis and demonstration
required;
(m) The United States violated Articles 12.1,12.2 and 12.3 of the Agreement on
Safeguard since the United States failed to provide immediate notification with all
pertinent information and deprived adequate opportunity for prior consultation with
China having a substantial interest as exporters of the products concerned;
(n) The United States violated Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since the
United States failed to endeavour, in accordance with Article 12.3, to maintain a
substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations between it and
China;
(o) The United States violated Article II of the GATT 1994, since the measures consist of
withdrawal or modification of United States concessions without justification under
Article XIX of the GATT 1994, nor the Agreement on Safeguards, nor any other
provisions of the WTO Agreement.
E.
SWITZERLAND
3.5 Switzerland claims that:
(a) The precondition of "unforeseen developments" laid down in Article XIX:1 of the
GATT 1994 was not satisfied;
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(b) The safeguard measures were imposed in the absence of the requisite increase in
import volume for many of the imported products under investigation and are
therefore inconsistent with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(c) The determination of the relevant domestic industries that produce like or directly
competitive products to those allegedly being imported in increased quantities, as
required by Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards, is incorrect;
(d) The safeguard measures are inconsistent with Article 2.1 in conjunction with
Articles 2.2 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, in that the requirement of
parallelism between the scope of the investigation of the injury arising from imported
products and the scope of the safeguard measures is not met;
(e) The United States failed to demonstrate, as required by Articles 2.1 and 4.2 (b) of the
Agreement on Safeguards, causality between the increased imports and serious injury
and to ensure that serious injury caused by factors other than increased imports was
not attributed to increased imports;
(f) The safeguard measures exceeded the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious
injury and to facilitate adjustment, and thus are in violation of Article 5(1) of the
Agreement on Safeguards. The safeguard measures were not limited to the serious
injury caused by increased imports;
(g) The United States violated Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because they
failed to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations
between the exporting Member and the United States;
(h) Neither the Report of the investigation nor the other relevant documents set forth
adequately the findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and
law, including the justification for the measures actually imposed and for all other
elements mentioned above, as required by Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards; nor did they provide the analysis and demonstration required by
Article 4.2 (c) of the Agreement on Safeguards.
F.
NORWAY
3.6 Norway claims that:
(a) The United States is in breach of Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 because, inter alia,
the United States failed to show, prior to the application of the measures, that
increases in imports and conditions of importation of products covered by the above-
mentioned measures were the result of "unforeseen developments";
(b) The United States also failed to satisfy the obligations contained in Articles 2, 3 and 4
of the Agreement on Safeguards as well as Article XIX of GATT 1994 with respect
to the investigation, findings, and decision regarding increased imports, serious
injury, threat of serious injury and causation. With respect to tin mill products the
United States was also in violation of Article X:3(a), since the measure is not based
on a uniform, impartial and reasonable administration of the relevant US laws and
regulations;
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(c) The United States failed to comply with the provisions of Articles 2.1 and 4 of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of GATT 1994 with respect to the
determination of the relevant domestic industries that produce like or directly
competitive products;
(d) There is a lack of parallelism between the products for which an increase in imports
within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards was found and
claimed, and the products in respect of which the protective measures were imposed,
contrary to the principle inherent in Articles 2.1, 4.2 and 5.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards. The United States measures are thus in violation of the said Articles;
(e) The safeguard measures exceeded the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious
injury and to facilitate adjustment, and thus are in violation of Articles 5.1 and 7.1 of
the Agreement on Safeguards;
(f) The United States committed violations under Article 3 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, in conjunction with Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards,
because neither the USITC Report of the investigation nor the other relevant
documents set forth adequately the findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent
issues of fact and law, including the justification for the measures actually imposed
and for all other elements mentioned above, nor did they provide the analysis and
demonstration required;
(g) The safeguard measures are inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and
Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because of failure to correctly apply the
criteria for non-application.
G.
NEW ZEALAND
3.7 New Zealand claims:
(a) The United States has failed to demonstrate "unforeseen developments" as provided
for in Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994 ;
(b) The United States has failed to comply with the requirement of Article 2.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards that there be a requisite increase in imports before a
safeguard measure is imposed;
(c) The United States has failed to correctly determine the domestic industry that
produces like or directly competitive products, as required by Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a)
of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(d) The United States has failed to demonstrate serious injury or threat of serious injury
being suffered by the relevant domestic industries, as required by Articles 2.1 and
4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(e) The United States failed to demonstrate the existence of the requisite causal link
between the alleged increased imports and the alleged serious injury or threat thereof,
as required by Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards. Furthermore,
the United States attributed to imports injury caused by other factors, contrary to
Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards;
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(f) The United States failed to apply its safeguard measures only to the extent necessary
to prevent or remedy serious injury as required by Article 5.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards;
(g) The United States granted relief beyond the period of time necessary to prevent or
remedy any alleged serious injury and to facilitate adjustment, contrary to the
requirements of Article 7 of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(h) The United States failed to satisfy the requirement of parallelism between the
products for which an increase in imports within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards was found or claimed, and the products in respect of which
the protective measures were imposed, contrary to the principles inherent in
Articles 2.1, 2.2, 4.2 and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(i) The United States failed to apply its safeguard measures to product being imported
irrespective of its source, as required by Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(j) The United States failed to adequately set forth findings and reasoned conclusions on
all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justification for measures actually
imposed and for all other elements mentioned above, as required by Article 3.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards; nor did it provide the analysis and demonstration required
by Article 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(k) The United States failed to meet its obligations under Article 8.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards regarding the maintenance of a substantially equivalent level of
concessions and other obligations to that existing under GATT 1994;
(l) The United States did not administer in a uniform, impartial and reasonable manner,
its laws, regulations, decisions and rulings relevant to the steel safeguard and
therefore acted contrary to Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
H.
BRAZIL
3.8 Brazil claims that:
(a) The United States violated Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Article X:3 of the GATT 1994 because, inter alia, the determinations and resulting
measures were not based on proper determinations of "like or directly competitive
products" or of the domestic producers of products like or directly competitive with
the imported products;
(b) The United States violated Article 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994 because, inter alia , the determinations of injury
were not based on a proper determination of serious injury to the domestic industry;
(c) The United States violated Article 2:1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994 because, inter alia , the determinations were
deficient in terms of the requirements that imports be "in such increased quantities,
absolute or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions as to cause or
threaten to cause serious injury to the domestic industry that produces like or directly
competitive products";
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(d) The United States violated Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards
and Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994 because, inter alia, the determination failed to
establish the necessary causal link between increased imports and injury and failed to
ensure that injury from other factors was not attributed to imports;
(e) The United States violated Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and Article 3:1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia, of failure to establish that the increased
imports and the conditions of their importation were the result of "unforeseen
developments" and the effects of obligations assumed under the GATT 1994;
(f) The United States violated Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 and Article 2.2 of the
Agreement on Safeguards because, inter alia, the measures discriminate based on
source;
(g) The United States violated Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, read in
conjunction with Article 2.2, and Article 4.2(b) of the same Agreement because, inter
alia, the determination failed to respect the requirement of parallelism between the
scope of the investigation of injury and the scope of the safeguards measures;
(h) The United States violated Article 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article X:3
of the GATT 1994 because, inter alia, of the failure to afford an opportunity for
sufficient participation by interested parties and to conduct an adequate investigation,
including undue reliance on confidentiality restriction to bar disclosure of information
and the failure to set forth in the published report the findings and reasoned
conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justifications for the
exclusion of Canada and Mexico, the actual measures imposed by the President, and
the treatment afforded to tin mill products;
(i) The United States violated Article 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards because, inter
alia, the relief exceeded that necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to
facilitate adjustment;
(j) The United States actions are also inconsistent with Article XVI of the Marrakesh
Agreement establishing the WTO because the United States has failed to ensure
conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with the obligations
under the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT 1994.
IV. CONCLUSIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS REQUESTED BY
THE COMPLAINANTS
A.
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
4.1 The European Communities requests the Panel to find that:
(a) The United States has, inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, grouped together many different products for the purposes of determining
whether there are increased imports under such conditions as to cause injury and has,
inconsistently with Article 2.1 and Article 4.2(a) in conjunction with Article 4.1(c) of
the Agreement on Safeguards , failed to identify the domestic industries producing
like or directly competitive products to those allegedly being imported in increased
quantities;
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(b) The United States has, inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, imposed its safeguard measures in the absence of a sharp, sudden, recent
and significant increase in imports;
(c) The United States has, inconsistently with Articles 2.1, 3.1, 4.2(a) and 4.2(c) of the
Agreement on Safeguards, failed to provide an adequate and reasoned explanation of
the existence of serious injury and has failed to examine the financial state of the
domestic industry as a whole as required by Article 4.2(a) in conjunction with
Article 4.1(a) and 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(d) The United States has, inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, failed to establish any causal link between any increased imports and any
serious injury since it simply examined whether the other causes of injury were not a
source of injury to the domestic industry equal to or greater than the injury allegedly
caused by increased imports and has not, or has not explained in a clear and
unambiguous manner, demonstrated how it has ensured that injury caused by other
factors is not attributed to increased imports and in particular that injury caused by
imports from countries which have been excluded from the safeguard measures (i.e.
Canada, Mexico, Israel and Jordan) has not been attributed to increased imports from
other sources;
(e) The United States has, inconsistently with Articles 5.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, failed to ensure that its safeguard measures are applied only to the extent
necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury caused by increased imports;
(f) The United States has, inconsistently with to the principle inherent in Articles 2.1, 4.2
and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, failed to ensure parallelism between the
products for which an increase in imports within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards was claimed, and the products in respect of which the
safeguard measures were imposed;
(g) Neither the Report of the investigation nor the other relevant documents set forth
adequately the findings and reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and
law, including the justification for the measures actually imposed and for all other
elements mentioned above, as required by Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards; nor did they provide the analysis and demonstration required by Article
4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards.
4.2 The European Communities considers that the above violations of the GATT 1994 and of the
Agreement on Safeguards have nullified and impaired benefits accruing to it under the WTO
Agreement and accordingly asks the Panel to recommend that the United States bring its safeguard
measures into conformity with the above provisions by repealing them.
B.
JAPAN
4.3 Japan requests the Panel:
(a) To find that the safeguard measures imposed by the United States on certain steel
products are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994,
including:
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(i) the requirement to define the domestic industry as those producers producing
a product like or directly competitive with the imported product, particularly
with regard to the various flat-rolled products, as set forth in Articles 2.1 and
4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994,
and to make such a decision in a uniform, impartial, and reasonable manner
as required by Article X:3(a) of GATT 1994;
(ii) the requirement to find that increased imports of tin mill and stainless wire
products had caused serious injury to the industries producing those specific
products, or identifying a published report supporting such decisions, as
required by Articles 2.1, 3.1 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards, and
to make such a decision in a uniform, impartial, and reasonable manner as
required by Article X.3(a) of GATT 1994;
(iii) the requirement that the measures be imposed only if increased imports exist,
as set forth in Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Article XIX:1 of GATT of 1994;
(iv) the requirement that increased imports cause serious injury to a domestic
industry producing a like or directly competitive product, – and that such
injury is not falsely attributed to imports, as set forth in Articles 2.1 and
4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994;
(v) the requirement that the sources of imports covered by an affirmative injury
finding parallel the sources against which the measures are imposed, as set
forth in Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article
XIX:1 of GATT 1994;
(vi) the requirement that the measure be applied only to the extent necessary, as
required by Articles 3.1 and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994; and
(vii) the requirement that measures be imposed on imports irrespective of their
source, as set forth in Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article
I:1 of GATT 1994.
(b) Find, pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, that as a consequence of the infringement of
the above cited provisions, the United States has nullified and impaired the benefits
accruing to Japan under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994;
(c) Recommend that the DSB request that the United States Government bring its
safeguard measures on certain steel products into conformity with the WTO
Agreement; and
(d) Suggest to the DSB that in order to confor m, the United States must terminate the
measure.
C.
KOREA
4.4 Korea considers that the Untied States is in violation of its obligations under GATT 1994 and
the Agreement on Safeguards in the following respects:
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(a) The United States failed to comply with the provisions of Articles 2.1 and 4 of the
Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX of GATT 1994 with respect to the
determination of the relevant domestic industries that produce like or directly
competitive products;
(b) The United States also failed to satisfy the obligations contained in Articles 2, 3 and 4
of the Agreement on Safeguards as well as Article XIX of GATT 1994 with respect
to the investigation, findings, and decision regarding increased imports, serious
injury, threat of serious injury and causation. The United States was in violation of
Article X:3(a) as well with respect to tin mill products;
(c) The United States is in breach of Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994 as regards the
requirement to demonstrate that "unforeseen developments" led to the increase in
imports. In this respect, not only did the United States fail to conduct separate
analyses for each product concerned, but also the explanations were insufficient to
satisfy the requirement;
(d) The United States violated Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Articles I,
XIII and XIX of GATT 1994 by failing to apply the safeguard measures to all imports
irrespective of their sources on an MFN basis;
(e) The United States' violation of Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and
Articles I and XIX of GATT 1994 was compounded with the violation of Article X:3
of GATT 1994 and Article 3 of the Agreement on Safeguards. In order to exempt
imports from Canada and Mexico, the United States President reversed the USITC's
findings made in accordance with Section 311(a) of the NAFTA Implementation Act
without providing sufficient, if any, explanation;
(f) The United States violated Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards in conjunction
with Articles 2.2 and 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing to meet the
requirement of parallelism between the investigation and the measures;
(g) The United States committed violations under Article 3 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, in conjunction with Articles 2, 4 and 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards,
because it failed to afford an opportunity for sufficient participation by interested
parties, to conduct an adequate investigation, to provide critical information on which
it relied, and to set forth in the published report the findings and reasoned conclusions
on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justification for the actual
measure imposed and the justification for the exclusion of Canada, Mexico, Israel and
Jordan;
(h) The safeguard measures exceeded the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious
injury and to facilitate adjustment, and thus are in violation of Article 5 of the
Agreement on Safeguards. The measures were not limited to the serious injury
caused by increased imports;
(i) The safeguard measures are also in violation of Article 7.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards because the duration of the measures extends beyond the period of time
necessary to remedy or prevent serious injury;
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(j) The United States also violated various procedural provisions of Article 12 of the
Agreement on Safeguards by failing to provide "adequate opportunity" for
consultations regarding the application of safeguard measures, to provide pertinent
information, and to make appropriate notifications;
(k) The United States is in breach of Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because
a substantially equivalent level of concessions between exporting Members and the
United States has not been maintained;
(l) The United States violated Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing,
inter alia, to exclude developing countries in a non-discriminatory manner.
4.5 Accordingly, Korea requests that the Panel consider and find that the United States measures
concerning imports of certain steel products are inconsistent with the above-listed provisions of the
WTO Agreement.
D.
CHINA
4.6 China requests the Panel to:
(a) Find that the United States safeguard measures on certain steel products, imposed by
Proclamation No. 7529 of 5 March 2002, entitled "To Facilitate Positive Adjustment
to Competition from Imports of Certain Steel Products" and explained in a
Memorandum of 5 March 2002, entitled "Action Under Section 203 of the Trade Act
of 1974 Concerning Certain Steel Products by the President of the United States of
America" (published in the Federal Register Vol. 67, No. 45 of 7 March 2002), are
inconsistent with:
(i) Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994, since the precondition of the "unforeseen
developments" was not satisfied;
(ii) Articles 2.1, 4.2(a) and 4.2(b) in conjunction with Article 4.1(c) of the
Agreement on Safeguards, since, for certain products, there was an incorrect
definition of "the imported product concerned" and of the relevant domestic
industries that produce like or directly competitive products to those
allegedly being imported in increased quantities;
(iii) Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since there were no increased
imports for many of the imported products under investigation;
(iv) Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, since for certain
products the USITC failed to provide an adequate and reasoned explanation
supporting its findings on injury;
(v) Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, since any increase in
imports that may have occurred did not cause any serious injury or threat of
serious injury that may have been suffered by the relevant domestic
industries, in particular because injury was not being suffered by the relevant
domestic industries and because injury or threat thereof caused by other
factors was attributed to imports;
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(vi) Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since the United States
safeguard measures are not applied only to the extent necessary to prevent or
remedy serious injury;
(vii) Articles 2.1, 4.2 and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since there is a lack
of parallelism between the products for which an increase in imports was
found or claimed and the products in respect of which the protective
measures were imposed;
(viii) Article 5.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIII of the GATT
1994, since the determination and the allocation of the tariff rate quota for
slabs were incorrect and/or discriminatory;
(ix) Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, since imports of some steel
products from China as a developing country were not excluded from the
application of the safeguard measures;
(x) Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, since the United States measures discriminate
between products originating in China and products originating in other
countries.
(b) Find, pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, that as a consequence of the infringement of
the above cited provisions, the United States has nullified and impaired the benefits
accruing to China under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994;
(c) Recommend that the DSB request that the United States bring its safeguard measures
on certain steel products into conformity with the WTO Agreement; and
(d) Suggest to the DSB that in order to confor m, the United States must terminate the
measure.
E.
SWITZERLAND
4.7 Switzerland requests the Panel to:
(a) Find that the safeguard measures imposed by the United States on certain steel
products are inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994,
including:
(i) the precondition of "unforeseen development" laid down in Article XIX:1 of
GATT 1994 was not satisfied;
(ii) the requirement to define the domestic industry as those producers producing
a product like or directly competitive with the imported product, particularly
with regard to welded tubular products (other than OCTG), as set forth in
Articles 2.1 and 4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of
GATT 1994;
(iii) the requirement to find that increased imports of welded tubular products
(other than OCTG) had caused serious injury to the industries producing
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

those specific products, as required by Articles 2.1 and 4.2(c) of the
Agreement on Safeguards;
(iv) the requirement that increased imports cause serious injury to a domestic
industry producing a like or directly competitive product, and that such injury
is not falsely attributed to imports, as set forth in Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b) of
the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994;
(v) the requirement that the sources of imports covered by an affirmative injury
finding parallel the sources against which the measures are imposed, as set
forth in Articles 2.1 and 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article
XIX:1 of GATT 1994;
(vi) the requirement that the measure be applied only to the extent necessary , as
required by Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:1 of
GATT 1994; and
(b) Find, pursuant to Article 3.8 of the DSU, that as a consequence of the infringement of
the above cited provisions, the United States has nullified and impaired the benefits
accruing to Switzerland under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994;
(c) Recommend that the DSB request that the United States Government bring its
safeguard measures on certain steel products into conformity with the WTO
Agreement; and
(d) Suggest to the DSB that in order to conform, the United States must terminate rapidly
the measure.
F.
NORWAY
4.8 Norway requests the Panel to find that:
(a) By failing to demonstrate the existence of "unforeseen developments", the United
States violated Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994;
(b) Furthermore, the lack of justification and demonstration, in the report of the
competent authorities, of "unforeseen developments" also results in a violation of
Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(c) As a consequence of the fact that the USITC only considered the issue of unforeseen
developments belatedly in February 2002, third parties were not provided with an
opportunity to "present evidence and th eir views" on the issue of unforeseen
developments. The United States has thereby committed a separate violation of
Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(d) By failing to identify each specific product that is being imported, by failing to
identify properly the "like product", and by failing to appropriately define the
domestic industry of that like product, the United States acted inconsistently with its
obligations under Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article
XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994;
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(e) By excluding all informative tables regarding the domestic industry producing the
like product, including their names, there is no way of ascertaining how the
determinations are made in respect of the domestic industry, thus making it
impossible to investigate a possible wrongdoing by the United States. As such, this is
also a breach of Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(f) The United States has violated its obligations under Article 2.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards by taking safeguard measures concerning the tin mill products without
properly determining the existence of a sharp, sudden, recent and significant increase;
(g) The United States has also violated its obligations under Article 3.1 of the Agreement
on Safeguards because the USITC failed to provide adequate and reasoned
explanations of how the facts available to the USITC support the determination of a
recent, sudden, sharp and significant increase in imports;
(h) The United States has failed to demonstrate in a reasoned and adequate manner the
existence of a causal link between the alleged serious injury and increased imports.
The United States has consequently acted inconsistently with Articles 2.1 and 4.2(b)
of the Agreement on Safeguards and, in addition, Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c) since there
are no published reports that adequately sets forth findings and reasoned conclusions
on all pertinent issues of fact nor a demonstration of the relevance of the factors
examined;
(i) The findings and conclusions made by the President in respect of tin mill products,
specifically as regards the treatment of the alleged "tie vote", being not supported by
the USITC report or any other published re port, also violates Articles 3.1 and 4.2(c)
of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(j) The United States breached the principle of parallelism inherent in Articles 2.1 and
4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing to establish explicitly that imports
from countries other than Israel, Jordan, Canada and Mexico alone satisfied the
conditions set out in Articles 2.1 and 4 for the imposition of a safeguards measure;
(k) The US measures go beyond the "extent necessary" to prevent or remedy serious
injury as required by Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, and the measures
also violate Articles 3.1 and 7.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(l) The United States, by not making use of the latest import data available at the time
the safeguard measure took effect when determining which developing countries
should be excluded from the measures, violated Article 9.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards, and thus also Article I.1 of the GATT 1994.
4.9 Norway respectfully submits that the Panel should find that the United States violated its
WTO commitments on all the above accounts, and consequently conclude that the safeguard measures
imposed by the United States on certain steel products are inconsistent with the Agreement on
Safeguards and GATT 1994.
4.10 Consequently, the Panel should suggest to the DSB that the United States be requested to
bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Agreement on Safeguards and the
GATT 1994.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

4.11 Norway, furthermore, suggests that the Panel ma ke use of the power vested in it under the
Dispute Settlement Understanding, Article 19.1, and suggest the appropriate way in which the United
States may fulfil its obligations. In the present case, given the gross violations committed in respect
of all the steps in a safeguards investigation, Norway respectfully submits that the Panel should
suggest that the measure be immediately withdrawn.
G.
NEW ZEALAND
4.12 New Zealand requests the Panel to find that:
(a) The United States has failed to demonstrate the existence of "unforeseen
developments" as required by GATT Article XIX:1(a);
(b) The United States has failed to define the "domestic industry that produces like or
directly competitive products" in accordance with the provisions of Articles 2.1 and
4.1(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(c) The United States has failed to comply with the requirement of Article 2.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards that there be an increase in imports before a safeguard
measure is imposed;
(d) The United States has failed to demonstrate the existence of "serious injury" being
suffered by the domestic industry, as required by Articles 2.1 and 4 of the Agreement
on Safeguards;
(e) The United States has failed to demonstrate the existence of the causal link between
the alleged increased imports and the alleged serious injury or threat thereof, as
required by Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards. Furthermore, the
United States attributed to imports, injury caused by other factors, contrary to
Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards;
(f) The United States has failed to ensure parallelism between the products for which an
increase in imports within the meaning of Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards
was found or claimed, and the products in respect of which the safeguard measures
were imposed, contrary to the principles inherent in Articles 2.1, 2.2, 4.2 and 5.1 of
the Agreement on Safeguards;
(g) The United States has failed to apply its safeguard measures only to the extent
necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury as required by Article 5.1 of the
Agreement on Safeguards;
(h) The United States has failed to provide findings and reasoned conclusions on all
pertinent issues of fact and law as required by Article 3.1 of the Agreement on
Safeguards.
4.13 Accordingly, New Zealand respectfully requests the Panel to recommend to the DSB that the
United States bring its treatment of imports of steel products into conformity with its obligations
under the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

H. BRAZIL
4.14 Brazil requests the Panel to find:
(a) That the determination of a single flat-rolled carbon steel "like" product and a single
domestic industry producing that "like" product is contrary to United States
obligations under Articles 2.1 and 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards.
(b) That the United States imposition of safeguard measures on flat-rolled carbon steel
was inconsistent with the requirement of an increase in imports as a pre-condition to
the imposition of such measures under Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on
Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994.
(c) That the United States failed to establish the required causal link between imports and
injury to the domestic industry in the importing country as required by Article 4.2(b)
of the Agreement on Safeguards.
(d) That the United States again failed to distinguish between injury caused by imports
and injury caused by other factors as required by Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on
Safeguards and ignored the specific findings on this issue in three previous panel and
Appellate Body proceedings.
(e) That the United States again failed to meet the parallelism requirement of Articles 2.1
and 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards and ignored the specific prior findings of
panels and Appellate Body on this issue.
(f) That the United States measures, even if justified, were more restrictive than
necessary to address the injury from increas ed imports, contrary to the requirements
of Articles 3.1 and 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
(g) That the United States imposed safeguard measures on tin mill products without a
finding of injury and causation as required by Article 2 of the Agreement on
Safeguards.
(h) That the imposition of safeguard measures on tin mill products was also inconsistent
with the increased imports requirement of Articles 2.1 and 4.2(a) of the Agreement on
Safeguards and Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 and the requirement to establish
a causal link between imports and injury of Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on
Safeguards and to distinguish between injury from imports and injury from other
factors.
4.15 Brazil further requests that the Panel make the following recommendations:
(a) That the United States bring its law and practice on increased imports and causation
into conformity with the findings of this panel, prior panels, and the Appellate Body.
(b) That the United States immediately terminate safeguard measures on flat-rolled
carbon steel products and tin mill products.
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

(c) That the United States immediately bring its law and practice on the treatment of
NAFTA countries into conformity with the parallelism requirements found applicable
by this panel, prior panels, and the Appellate Body.
(d) That the Panel make it clear to the DSB th e extent to which the inconsistencies in
United States actions with its WTO obligations are inconsistencies which have been
addressed in one or more prior panel and Appellate Body reports; and that it make
clear to the DSB the extent to which the United States actions were blatantly and
obviously inconsistent with United States obligations based on the text of the relevant
agreements and prior Appellate Body findings.
V. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING – REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY RULINGS
5.1 On 29 July 2002, pursuant to Article 12.3 of the DSU, the Panel met with the parties to
establish the timetable for these proceedings and to address other organizational matters relating to the
panel process.
5.2 During that meeting, the parties raised a series of objections to, and made comments on, the
draft timetable that had been proposed and the rules of procedures that the Panel had sent to the
parties in advance of the meeting.
5.3 On 31 July 2002, the Panel sent a letter to all parties containing a series of preliminary rulings
on organizational matters which are set out below:
"Following the organizational meeting of the Panel that was held with parties on
29 July 2002, and after careful consideration of the arguments presented by the
parties in relation to various aspects of the proposed timetable and working
procedures, we would like to inform the parties of the following:
Timetable
The Panel notes at the outset that this case is likely to impose a heavy burden on
parties in terms of their obligations to make submissions as set out in the timetable for
the proceedings, a copy of which is attached. As is noted at the end of the timetable,
the Panel would like to emphasize that the calendar may be changed during the panel
process. The Panel would also like to assure parties that it will do its utmost, within
reason, to accommodate the parties' concerns and requests in relation to the deadlines
set out in the timetable. Some of the requests that have been made by the parties in
this respect are already reflected in the attached timetable.
Working procedures
With respect to the request by the United States to require production of non-
confidential versions of written submissions within 14 days following the filing of the
written submissions, the Panel notes that Article 18.2 of the DSU, upon which
paragraph 3 of the Working Procedures is based, does not impose any deadlines with
respect to the production of non-confidential summaries. The Panel recalls that,
although the production of a non-confidential summary is mandatory upon request by
any WTO Member, it is also WTO practice for panels to leave parties to agree on the
date for production of such summaries, if an y deadline is to apply. Accordingly, the
Panel urges the parties to agree as early as possible on deadlines for production of
WT/DS248/R, WT/DS249/R,
WT/DS251/R, WT/DS252/R,
WT/DS253/R, WT/DS254/R,
WT/DS258/R, WT/DS259/R

such non-confidential summaries so as to ensure that appropriate information relating
to the present dispute is disclosed to the public.
In relation to the requirement contained in paragraph 5 of the Working Procedures to
submit executive summaries, on the basis of discussions with the parties, the Panel
has decided to allow the United States to submit executive summaries that should not
exceed 30 pages. The first 15 pages should deal with the common claims raised by
the complainants. The additional 15 pages would allow the United States to deal with
specific claims made individually by one or more of the complainants but which are
not common to all the complainants.
The United States has also requested the replacement of the reference to "rebuttal
submissions" in paragraph 11 of the Working Procedures with the word "rebuttals".
In support of this proposal, the United States makes the argument that the word
"submission" is ordinarily taken to mean written submissions. Hence, the reference
to "rebuttal submissions" in paragraph 11 would restrict the application of the
qualification in that paragraph to rebuttals that have been made in writing and would
not extend to rebuttals made orally. The complainants argue in response that the
suggested amendment would allow, for example, new arguments and evidence to be
adduced orally at the Panel's second substantive meeting.
We recall the comments made by the Appellate Body in the case Argentina – Textiles
and Apparel
121 relating to what parties may argue and submit in preparation for and
during the second substantive meeting:
It is true that the Working Procedures "do not prohibit" submission of
additional evidence after the first substantive meeting of a panel with
the parties. It is also true, however, that the Working Procedures in
Appendix 3 do contemplate two distinguishable stages in a
proceeding before a panel. … Under the Working Procedures in
Appendix 3, the complaining party should set out its case in chief,
including a full presentation of the facts on the basis of submission of
supporting evidence, during the first stage. The second stage is
generally designed to permit "rebuttals" by each party of the
arguments and evidence submitted by the other parties.
We have, therefore, drafted paragraph 11 to ensure due process and to ensure that
new evidence is not adduced at a late stage in the panel process, while simultaneously
ensuring that all parties and the Panel are fully informed of all relevant evidence.
With regard to the time by which submissions must be filed with the WTO Dispute
Settlement Registrar as provided for in paragraph 17(b) of the Working Procedures,
the Panel has decided to require parties to file their written submissions with the
Registrar by 5:30 p.m. on the deadlines established by the Panel, except in relations to
deadlines falling on a Friday in which case the submissions should be filed by
5:00 p.m. In exceptional circumstances when it is not possible to comply with these
time deadlines, the parties may agree upon an alternative arrangement with the
Secretary to the Panel (Ms Dariel De Sousa).

121 WT/DS56/AB/R, para. 79.