UNITED STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY TURKEY
Document: REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY
Date: 20 August 2018
Document codes: WT/DS564/1; G/L/1259; G/SG/D61/1
Complainant: Turkey
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, EU, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, New Zealand, Norway, Malaysia, Mexico, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, Ukraine, UAE, Venezuela
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. I:1, II:1(a), X:3(a), XI:1, XIII:1, XIX:1  GATT 1994Art. 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 7, 8.1, 9.1, 11.1(a), 11.1(b), 12.1, 12.2, 12.3  SafeguardsArt. XIX:2  GATT 1994

UNITED STATES – CERTAIN MEASURES ON STEEL AND ALUMINIUM PRODUCTS
REQUEST FOR CONSULTATIONS BY TURKEY
The following communication, dated 15 August 2018 , from the delegation of Turkey to the
delegation of the United States , is circulated to the Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with
Article 4.4 of the DSU.

My authorities have instructed me to request consultations with the Government of the United
States pursuant to Articles 1 and 4 of the Understandi ng on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994
(GATT 1994) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards with respect to certain measures
imposed by the United States affecting imports of steel and aluminium into the United States.
These measures impose, inter alia, additional ad valorem rates of duty on imports of the certain
steel and aluminium products, and exempt certain selected WTO members from the measures.
These measures adversely affect exports of such products from Turkey to the United States.
Background to the dispute
The chronology and factual background to the measures at issue is as follows. In two sets of
presidential proclamations, dated 8 and 22 Marc h 2018, the President of the United States
announced an additional import duty of 25 per cent on certain steel products and an additional
import duty of 10 per cent on certain aluminium products from all countries, with the exception of
Australia, Argentin a, Brazil, Canada, the European Union, Korea, and Mexico. These measures
took effect on 23 March 2018.
Subsequently, on 30 April 2018, the President of the United States issued two further presidential
proclamations exempting imports from Argentina, Aust ralia, Brazil, and Korea from the additional
duties on certain steel products, and exempting imports from Argentina, Australia and Brazil from
the additional duties on certain aluminium products. These exemptions appear to apply
indefinitely. The Presiden t of the United States also extended the exemption from the additional
import duties for Canada, the European Union and Mexico until 31 May 2018.
As of 1 June 2018, the additional duties on certain steel products appear to apply to all countries
of origin, except Argentina, Australia, Brazil and Korea. The additional duties on certain aluminium
products appear to apply to all countries of origin except Argentina and Australia. Quotas appear
to have been introduced concerning steel imports from Argentina, Brazil and Korea, and
concerning aluminium imports from Argentina.
On 10 August 2018, the President of the United States amended the additional duties for certain
steel products as applicable to Turkey, by increasing them from 25 to 50 per cent, effective as of
13 August 2018. Moreover, on 10 August 2018, the President of the United States announced that
he would amend the additional duties for certain aluminium products as applicable to Turkey, by
increasing them from 10 to 20 per cent.
These measures appear to have been taken on the basis of Section 232 of the United States Trade
Expansion Act of 1962 and were preceded by two investigations on steel and aluminium products,
respectively, conducted by the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) under t hat
WT/DS564/1 • G/L/1259 • G/SG/D61/1

provision, as well as on the basis of Section 705 of the United States Code of Federal Regulations
(15 CFR 705). In both investigations, the USDOC determined that present quantities and
circumstances of steel and aluminium imports were weakening the United States' internal economy
and threatened to impair the national security as defined in Section 232.
Claims with respect to measures relating to steel and aluminium
For Turkey's first set of claims, the measures at issue are the import measures concerni ng certain
steel products and certain aluminium products. These measures consist of, have been imposed
by, are reflected in, or are based on the following documents, whether considered alone and in any
combination:
1. Presidential Proclamation 9705 of 8 Marc h 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States1;
2. Presidential Proclamation 9704 of 8 March 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States2;
3. Presidential Proclamation 9711 of 22 March 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States3;
4. Presidential Proclamation 9710 of 22 March 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into
the United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States4;
5. Presidential Proclamation 9740 of 30 April 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States5;
6. Presidential Proclamation 9739 of 30 April 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the
United States, including the Annex, To Modify Chapter 99 of the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule of the United States6;
7. Presidential Proclamation 9759 of 31 May 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the
United States, including the Annex7;
8. Presidential Proclamation 9758 of 31 May 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Aluminum into the
United States, including the Annex8;
9. Presidential Proclamation 9772 of 10 August 2018 on Adjusting Imports of Steel into the
United States, including the Annex9;
10. The Effect of Imports of Steel on the National Security, An Investigation Conducted Under
Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as Amended (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 11 January 2018)10;

1 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 51 (March 15, 2018), pp. 11625 – 11630.
2 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 51 (March 15, 2018), pp. 11619 – 11624.
3 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 60 (March 28, 2018), pp. 13361 – 13365.
4 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 60 (March 28, 2018), pp. 13355 – 13359.
5 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 88 (May 7, 2018), pp. 20683 – 20705.
6 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 88 (May 7, 2018), pp. 20677 – 20682.
7 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 108 (May 7, 2018), pp. 25857 – 25877.
8 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 108 (May 7, 2018), pp. 25849 – 25855.
9 Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 158 (August 15, 2018), pp. 40429 – 40432.
10
https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/the_effect_of_imports_of_steel_on_the_national_securit
y_-_with_redactions_-_20180111.pdf
WT/DS564/1 • G/L/1259 • G/SG/D61/1

11. The Effect of Imports of Aluminum on the Nati onal Security, An Investigation Conducted
Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as Amended (U.S. Department of
Commerce, 17 January 2018)11;
12. Section 232 of the United States Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended12;
13. Code of Federal Regulati ons, Title 15, Section 705, Effect of Imported Articles on the
National Security13; and
14. Requirements for Submissions Requesting Exclusions From the Remedies Instituted in
Presidential Proclamations Adjusting Imports of Steel Into the United States and Adjus ting
Imports of Aluminum Into the United States; and the Filing of Objections to Submitted
Exclusion Requests for Steel and Aluminum (U.S. Department of Commerce)14
This request also covers any additional measures that may amend, supersede, supplement, add
to, update, extend, replace or implement the measures listed above, on their own or in any
combination, as well as any exclusions or exemptions from those measures. This includes in
particular any Presidential Proclamation or other legal instruments amen ding and/or increasing the
additional duties on certain aluminium products as applicable to Turkey, as announced by the
President of the United States on 10 August 2018.15

The measures at issue appear to be inconsistent with the United States ' obligations under several
provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards, in particular, but not necessarily
exclusively:
• Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, because the United States fails to accord immediately
and unconditionally any advantage, favour, pri vilege or immunity granted to products
originating in other countries, with respect to customs duties and charges and
quantitative import restrictions imposed on or in connection with importation and with
respect to all rules and formalities in connection with importation, to like products
originating in Turkey. The United States does so by applying selectively the additional
import duties on certain steel and aluminium products originating in different
Members, including by providing exemptions or applyin g alternative measures to
certain countries. The United States further does so by applying exclusively to Turkey
duties higher than to any other WTO Member subject to these duties;
• Article II:1(a) and (b) of the GATT 1994, because the United States fa ils to accord to
the commerce of most other WTO Members, including Turkey, treatment no less
favourable than that provided for in the relevant part of the United States' Schedule of
Concessions. The United States also fails to exempt products from most WTO
Members, including Turkey, from ordinary customs duties in excess of those set forth
and provided for in the United States ' Schedule of Concessions and from all other
duties or charges in excess of those imposed on the date of the GATT 1994 or those
directly and mandatorily required to be imposed thereafter by legislation in force in
the United States on that date;
• Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994, because the United States has failed and fails to
administer its laws, regulations, decisions and rulings wi th respect to, and through,
the measures at issue in a uniform, impartial, and reasonable manner; and
• Articles XI:1 and XIII:1 of the GATT 1994, because by imposing the above -mentioned
measures, in particular the above -mentioned quotas, the United States has instituted
restrictions other than duties, taxes or other charges on the importation of products of
the territory of certain other Members and fails similarly to restrict the importation of
the like product from all other Members.

11
https://www.commerce.gov/sites/commerce.gov/files/the_effect_of_imports_of_aluminum_on_the_national_s
ecurity_-_with_redactions_-_20180117.pdf
12 19 U.S.C. §1862.
13 15 CFR 705 (47 FR 14693).
14 83 FR 12106-12112, March 19, 2018.
15 See for instance https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45123607. (last visited 15 August
2018)
WT/DS564/1 • G/L/1259 • G/SG/D61/1

Turkey moreover co nsiders that the United States ' measures constitute emergency safeguard
measures within the meaning of Article XIX of the GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on
Safeguards. As such, the United States acts inconsistently with:
• Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994, because the United States has suspended tariff
concessions and other obligations, without these products being imported into the
territory of the United States in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or
relative to domestic production, and un der such conditions as to cause or threaten to
cause serious injury to domestic producers of like or directly competitive products, as
a result of unforeseen developments and of the effect of the obligations incurred
under the GATT 1994;
• Article 2.1 of t he Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States applies
safeguard measures to the products at issue without first having determined that such
products are being imported into its territory 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 producing like or directly competitive
products;
• Article 2.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States fails to apply
the safeguard measures at hand to imported products irrespective of their source;
• Article 3.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States applies
safeguard measures to the products in question without having conducted an
investigation and publishing a report that sets forth findings and reasoned conclusions
on all pertinent issues of fact and law;
• Article 4.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States has not
properly determined that there is serious injury, or threat thereof, to a domestic
industry, within the meaning of that provision;
• Article 4.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States has not
properly evaluated all relevant factors that have a bearing on the situation of the
domestic industry. The United Sta tes has also not properly demonstrated that a
causal link exists between increased imports and serious injury or the threat of serious
injury. The United States has also failed to ensure that the injury caused by factors
other than increased imports was not improperly attributed to increased imports. The
United States has also failed to publish the requisite detailed analysis and
demonstration of its conclusions.
• Article 5.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States is applying
safeguard measures beyond the extent necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury
and to facilitate adjustment;
• Article 7 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States is applying
safeguard measures without providing for their application only for th e period
necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment, without
limitation to four years, and without making provision for progressive liberalization at
regular intervals;
• Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because t he United States has not
endeavored to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other
obligations to that existing under the GATT 1994 between the United States and the
exporting members affected by these measures, including Turkey;
• Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States applies its
safeguard measures to products from developing country Members whose share of
imports does not exceed 3 per cent, where developing country Members with less
than 3 per cent import share collectively account for not more than 9 per cent of total
imports of the product;
• Article 11.1(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards, because the United States has taken
emergency action on imports of particular products as set forth in Article XIX of the
GATT 1994, without this action being in conformity with the provisions of Article XIX
applied in accordance with the Agreement on Safeguards;
WT/DS564/1 • G/L/1259 • G/SG/D61/1

• Article 11.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, to the extent the United States seeks
or has sought a ny voluntary export restraints, orderly marketing arrangements, or
any other similar measures on the export or the import side through the measures at
issue; and
• Articles 12.1, 12.2, and 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards and Article XIX:2 of the
GATT 1994, because the United States has failed to comply with any of the notification
and consultation obligations set out in these provisions.
In addition to, and separate from, the various inconsistencies with the United States ' obligations
under the GATT 199 4 and the Agreement on Safeguards identified above, Turkey considers that,
as a result of the application of the measures at issue, the benefits accruing to Turkey under the
GATT 1994 are being nullified and impaired and that the attainment of the objectiv es of the
GATT 1994 is being impeded within the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and
Article 26.1 of the DSU.
Claims with respect to Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962

In addition to the violations identified above, Turkey consid ers that Section 232 of the United
States Trade Expansion Act of 1962, as amended (19 U.S.C. §1862), whether considered
separately from or jointly with the implementing Section 705 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(Effect of Imported Articles on the Nati onal Security (15 CFR 705) 47 FR 14693), and as
repeatedly interpreted by the United States ' authorities, in the context of the above -listed and
other measures, appears to be “as such” inconsistent with the provisions of the GATT 1994 and
the Agreement on Safeguards listed in the preceding section, as well as with Article XVI:4 of the
WTO Agreement.

This is because Section 232, as interpreted by the United States ' authorities, provides for the
imposition of trade-restrictive measures (such as additional import duties and quotas) that restrict
imports from other WTO Members, with a view to, and the purpose of, protecting domestic
production in the United States from competition with foreign products on grounds of alleged
threats to the United States' national security, in a manner inconsistent with the disciplines set out
in the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards.

In the alternative, the ongoing use of Section 232 by the United States' authorities, which provides
protection to the domestic product ion by restricting imports from other WTO Members on the
grounds of an alleged threat to national security, is inconsistent with the United States ' obligations
under the provisions of the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards set out in the preceding
section as well as with Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
In addition to, and separate from, the various inconsistencies with the United States ' obligations
under the GATT 1994 and the Agreement on Safeguards identified above, Section 232, as
interpreted and applied by the United States' authorities, as well as the ongoing use of Section 232
by the United States ' authorities, nullify and impair benefits accruing to Turkey under the GATT
1994 and impede the attainment of the objectives of the GATT 1994 with respect to Turkey, within
the meaning of Article XXIII:1(b) of the GATT 1994 and Article 26.1 of the DSU.
Turkey reserves the right to raise additional factual and legal claims, as well as to address
additional measures, under other provisions of the co vered agreements regarding the above
matters, during the course of the consultations.

Turkey looks forward to receiving a reply from the United States to this request, with a view to
determining a mutually convenient date for consultations.