UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF STEEL WIRE ROD AND CIRCULAR WELDED QUALITY LINE PIPE
Document: Request for Consultations by the European Communities
Date: 7 December 2000
Document codes: WT/DS214/1; G/L/424; G/SG/D12/1
Complainant: EU
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Argentina, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Mexico
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 2, 3.1, 3.2  SafeguardsArt. XIX:1  GATT 1994Art. 4.1, 4.2, 5.1, 8.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.11  Safeguards

UNITED STATES – DEFINITIVE SAFEGUARD MEASURES
ON IMPORTS OF STEEL WIRE ROD AND
CIRCULAR WELDED QUALITY LINE PIPE
Request for Consultations by the European Communities
The following communication, dated 1 December 2000, from the Permanent Delegation of
the European Commission to the Permanent Mission of the United States and to the Chairman of the
Dispute Settlement Body, is circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.
The European Communities (EC) hereby request consultations with the Government of the
United States (USA) pursuant to Article 4 of th e Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing
the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), Article XXII:1 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
1994 (GATT 1994) and Article 14 of the Agreement on Safeguards (SA) with regard to the US
safeguard legislation and its application in the two cases concerning the definitive safeguard measures
imposed by the USA on imports of certain steel wire rod (wire rod) and the definitive safeguard
measures imposed by the USA on imports of certain circular welded carbon quality line pipe (line
pipe).
The EC consider that Sections 201 and 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 contain provisions
relating to the determination of a causal link betw een increased imports and injury or threat thereof
which prevent the USA from respecting Articles 4 and 5 of the SA. It also considers that Section 311
of the NAFTA Implementation Act contains provisions concerning imports originating in NAFTA
countries which do not respect the requirement of parallelism between the imported products subject
to the investigation and the imported products subject to the safeguard measure, contrary to Articles 2,
4 and 5 of the SA. The EC consider moreover that these provisions are in breach of the
Most-Favoured-Nation principle under Article I of the GATT 1994. These violations are confirmed
by the application of the aforesaid US provisions in the following specific cases.
In February 2000, the USA adopted two separate definitive safeguard measures with respect
to the importation into the US territory of wire rod and line pipe.
Under the "Proclamation 7273 of February 16, 2000-To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to
Competition From Imports of Certain Steel Wire Rod" and the "Memorandum of February 16, 2000-
Action Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 C oncerning Steel Wire Rod" by the President of
the USA, published in the Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 34, pp. 8621 to 8627 and 8629 to 8630 on
18 February 2000, the USA imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of a tariff rate quota
on imports of wire rod effective as of 1 March 2000. The relevant notification is contained in
documents G/SG/N/10/USA/4 of 18 February 2000 and G/SG/N/10/USA/4/Corr.1 of 28 March 2000.
Under the "Proclamation 7274 of February 18, 2000-To Facilitate Positive Adjustment to
Competition From Imports of Certain Circular Carbon Quality Welded Line Pipe" and the

"Memorandum of February 18, 2000-Action Under Section 203 of the Trade Act of 1974 Concerning
Line Pipe" by the President of the USA, published in the Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 36, pp. 9193 to
9198 on 23 February 2000, the USA imposed definitive safeguard measures in the form of an increase
in duty on imports of line pipe effective as of 1 March 2000. The relevant notification is contained in
document G/SG/N/10/USA/5 of 23 February 2000.
The EC consider that in both the above mentioned cases the US measures are in breach of the
US obligations under the provisions of GATT 1994 and of the Agreement on Safeguards, in
particular, but not necessarily exclusively, of:
– Article 2 SA, because, inter alia , they are based on deficient determination on the like or
directly competitive products, absence of "imports in such increased quantities" and/or "under
such conditions", lack of serious injury or threat thereof, lack of causality and non-respect of
the requirement of parallelism between the sc ope of the imported products subject to the
investigation and the scope of the imported products subject to the application of the
measures.
– Article 3(1) and 3(2) SA, because, inter alia, they do not adequately set forth the findings and
reasoned conclusions on all pertinent issues of fact and law, including the justification for the
actual measure imposed, as well as abusive recourse to confidentiality in relation to disclosure
of information.
– Articles 4(1) and 4(2) SA, because, inter alia , they are not justified by "imports in such
increased quantities" and/or "under such conditions", lack of serious injury or threat thereof,
lack of causality and non-respect of the requirement of parallelism between the scope of the
imported products subject to the investigation and the scope of the imported products subject
to the application of the measures.
– Article 5(1) SA, since, inter alia, they grant relief beyond "the extent necessary to prevent or
remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustment".
– Article 8(1) SA, because of, inter alia, non-respect of the requirements regarding the level of
concessions and other obligations and the trade compensation.
– Articles 12(2), 12(3) and 12(11) SA, because of, inter alia, non-respect of the obligation to
provide the Committee on Safeguards with all pertinent information, non respect of the
obligation to provide adequate opportunity for prior consultations with a view to reaching an
understanding on ways to achieve the objective set out in Article 8(1) SA, and abusive
recourse to confidentiality in relation to disclosure of information.
– Article I:1 of GATT 1994 since, inter alia , the safeguard measure discriminates between
products originating in the EC and products originating in other WTO countries.
– Article XIX:1 of GATT 1994, because, inter alia, they fail to show, prior to the application of
the measures, that the increases in imports and the conditions of importation of the products
covered by each of the two above-mentioned measures were the result of “unforeseen
developments” and of the effect of the USA obligations under GATT 1994.
The EC look forward to receiving the reaction of the authorities of the USA to the present
request and to setting a mutually convenient date and place to begin consultations.