UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities
Date: 8 May 2002
Document codes: WT/DS248/12
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
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by the European Communities
The following communication, dated 7 May 2002, from the Permanent Delegation of the
European Communities to the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to
Article 6.2 of the DSU.
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), the United States of America ("the US") imposed definitive safeguard
measures in the form of an increase in duties on imports of certain steel products and in the form of a
tariff rate quota on imports of "slabs". These measures are effective as of 20 March 2002.
In the view of the European Communities, these measures and the reports of the US
International Trade Commission ("the ITC") to which they refer are inconsistent with the US
obligations under the covered agreements within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the Understanding on
Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU).
On 7 March 2002, the European Communities initiated the procedures under Article 4 of the
DSU, Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and
Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards by requesting the US to enter into consultations. The
request was circulated in document WT/DS 248/1, , of 13 March 2002.
Consultations were held in Geneva on 11-12 April 2002. Consultations have allowed a better
understanding of the respective positions but have failed to settle the dispute.
In order to resolve this dispute, the European Communities hereby requests the establishment
of a panel pursuant to Article 6 of the DSU, Article XXIII of the GATT 1994 and Article 14 of the
Agreement on Safeguards with regard to the above definitive safeguard measures imposed by the
United States on imports of steel products.
Specifically, the European Communities claims and requests the Panel to find that the US
safeguard measures are inconsistent with the provisions of the GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on
Safeguards, in particular because:
– the precondition of "unforeseen developments" laid down in Article XIX:1 of the GATT 1994
was not satisfied;

– there were no increased imports, as required by Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards,
for many of the imported products under investigation;
– 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;
– 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;
– 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;
– the US 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;
– 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;
– 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;
The European Communities requests that the pane l be established with the standard terms of
reference set out in Article 7 of the DSU.
The European Communities asks that this request be placed on the agenda for the meeting of
the Dispute Settlement Body on 22 May 2002.