UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Document: Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Brazil
Date: 22 July 2002
Document codes: WT/DS259/10
Complainant: Brazil
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Canada, Taiwan, Cuba, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, Venezuela
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2.1, 4  SafeguardsArt. XIX:1, X:3  GATT 1994Art. 2.2, 3  SafeguardsArt. I:1  GATT 1994Art. 5  SafeguardsArt. XVI  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES
ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN STEEL PRODUCTS
Request for the Establishment of a Panel by Brazil
The following communication, dated 18 July 2002, from the Permanent Mission of Brazil to
the Chairman of the Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated pursuant to Article 6.2 of the DSU.
On 5 March 2002, the President of the United States issued Proclamation No. 7529 entitled
"To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to Competition from Imports of Certain Steel Products". The
Proclamation was accompanied by a memorandum detailing "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 of 7 March 2002). The Proclamation and accompanying
memorandum are the basis for the imposition of definitive safeguard measures on imports of certain
steel products in the form of increased tariffs on certain products and a tariff rate quota on carbon and
alloy steel slabs. These measures were made effective on 20 March 2002.
On 21 May 2002, the Government of Brazil initiated procedures pursuant to Article 4 of the
Understanding of the Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (" DSU"),
Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT 1994) and Article 14 of
the Agreement on Safeguards with regard to the imposition of these measures and the view of the
Government of Brazil that the measures, the underlying investigations and ensuing reports, and the
decision of the President to impose safeguards measures are inconsistent with US obligations under
the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards (WT/ DS259/1, , ).
Consultations were held in Geneva on 13 June 2002. Both the US and Brazil agree that the
consultations have failed to settle the dispute.
As a result of the failure to resolve the dispute, the Government of Brazil 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 regarding the safeguards measures imposed by the United
States on imports of certain steel products. The Government of Brazil requests the panel make
findings that the US measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Articles I:1, X:3 and XIX of
the GATT 1994 and Articles 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Agreement on Safeguards.
Specifically, the Government of Brazil’s claims are based on the following:
1. 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.

2. 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.
3. 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."
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
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.
Brazil requests that the panel be established with the standard terms of reference set forth in
Article 7 of the DSU. To this effect, Brazil also requests the inclusion of the corresponding item on
the agenda of the next meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body, scheduled for 29 July 2002.