UNITED STATES - MEASURES TREATING EXPORTS RESTRAINTS AS SUBSIDIES
Document: Report of the Panel
Date: 29 June 2001
Document codes: WT/DS194/R
Complainant: Canada
Respondent: U.S.
Third parties: Australia, EU, India
Dispute stage: Panel
Agreements cited: Art. 1.1, 10, 11, 17, 19, 32.1, 32.5  Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)Art. XVI:4  Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

UNITED STATES - MEASURES TREATING
EXPORTS RESTRAINTS AS SUBSIDIES
Report of the Panel
The report of the Panel on is being
circulated to all Members, pursuant to the DSU. The report is being circulated as an unrestricted
document from 29 June 2001 pursuant to the Procedures for the Circulation and Derestriction of WTO
Documents (WT/L/160/Rev.1). 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: This Panel Report 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 Report is appealed to the Appellate Body, it sh all not be considered for adoption by the DSB until after the
completion of the appeal. Information on the current status of the Panel Report is available from the WTO Secretariat.

I. INTRODUCTION
A. COMPLAINT OF CANADA
1.1 On 19 May 2000, Canada requested consultations with the United States pursuant to Article 4
of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Gove rning the Settlement of Disputes ("the DSU"),
Article XXII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 and Article 30 of the Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ("the SCM Agreement"), concerning US measures that treat a
restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy to other products made using or incorporating the
restricted product if the domestic price of the restricted product is affected by the restraint
1.
1.2 On 15 June 2000, Canada and the United States held the requested consultations with a view
to reaching a mutually satisfactory resolution of the matter, but the consultations failed to settle the
dispute.
1.3 On 24 July 2000, Canada requested the establishment of a panel to examine the matter2.
B. ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE PANEL
1.4 At its meeting of 11 September 2000, the Dispute Settlement Body ("the DSB") established
a Panel pursuant to the request made by Canada in document WT/DS194/2.3
1.5 At that meeting, the parties to the dispute also agreed that the Panel should have standard
terms of reference as follows:
"To examine, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered
agreements cited by Canada in document WT/DS194/2, the matter
referred to the DSB by Canada in that document, and to make such
findings as will assist the DSB in making the recommendations or in
giving the rulings provided for in those agreements."
1.6 On 23 October 2000, the parties agreed to the following composition of the Panel:
1.7 Chairman: Mr. Michael Cartland
Members: Mr. Scott Gallacher
Mr. Richard Plender
1.8 Australia, the European Communities, and India have reserved their rights to participate in
the panel proceedings as third parties4.
C. PANEL PROCEEDINGS
1.9 The Panel met with the parties on 18 January 2001 and on 21 February 2001. The Panel met
with third parties on 18 January 2001.
1.10 On 27 April 2001, the Panel provided its interim report to the parties. See Section VII, infra.

1 WT/DS194/1.
2 WT/DS194/2.
3 See, WT/DSB/M/88 at paragraph 12.
4 WT/DS194/3.

II. FACTUAL ASPECTS
2.1 This dispute concerns the treatment of export restraints under US countervailing duty
("CVD") law. In its request for establishment of a Panel, Canada alleges that the measures at issue
include Section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. § 1677(5)), as amended by the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act ("URAA"), as interpreted by the Statement of Administrative Action ("SAA")
accompanying the URAA (H.R. 5110, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Congress, 2nd Session, 656, at
925-926 (1994)) and the Explanation of the Final Rules ("the Preamble"), US Department of
Commerce, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule (63 Federal Register 65,348 at 65,349-51
(25 Nov. 1998)), and US practice thereunder.
A. SECTION 771(5) OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930 AS AMENDED BY THE URUGUAY ROUND
AGREEMENTS ACT
2.2 Section 251 of the URAA amends Section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 so as to implement
the definition of "subsidy" in Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement. There is no disagreement between
the parties that the definition of "subsidy" in Section 771(5) as amended essentially reproduces the
definition in Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement. The parties also agree that Section 771(5) does not
specifically address export restraints.
B. THE STATEMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
2.3 When the URAA was submitted to the US Congress for passage, it was accompanied by the
SAA. Congress approved the SAA at the same time that it passed the URAA. According to the
URAA, the SAA constitutes "an authoritative expression by the United States concerning the
interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements and [the URAA] in any judicial
proceeding in which a question arises concerning such interpretation or application".5
2.4 The SAA by its own terms:
"represents an authoritative expression by the Administration regarding the
interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round agreements, both for purposes of
US international obligations and domestic law. It is the expectation of the Congress
that future Administrations will observe and apply the interpretations and
commitments set out in this Statement".6
2.5 The portion of the SAA that Canada challenges as relevant to the treatment of export
restraints under the statute is its discussion of Section 771(5)(B)(iii). This section addresses the
situation where a government "entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution". In
this context the SAA states, inter alia:
"One of the definitional elements of a subsidy under the Subsidies Agreement is the
provision by a government or any public body of a "financial contribution" as defined
by the Agreement, including the provision of goods or services. Moreover, the
Subsidies Agreement specifically states that the term "financial contribution" includes
situations where the government entrusts or directs a private body to provide a
subsidy. (It is the Administrations view that the term "private body" is not
necessarily limited to a single entity, but can include a group of entities or persons.)
Additionally, Article VI of the GATT 1994 continues to refer to subsidies provided
"directly or indirectly" by a government. Accordingly, the Administration intends

5 Exhibit CAN-7 (19 U.S.C.§ 3512(d) (1994)).
6 Exhibit CAN-2 (SAA at 656).

that the "entrusts or directs" standard shall be interpreted broadly. The
Administration plans to continue its policy of not permitting the indirect provision of
a subsidy to become a loophole when unfairly traded imports enter the United States
and injure a U.S. industry.
"In the past, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) has countervailed a variety of
programs where the government has provided a benefit through private parties. ( See,
e.g., Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada, Leather from Argentina, Lamb
from New Zealand, Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, Carbon Steel Wire Rod
from Spain, and Certain Steel Products from Korea). The specific manner in which
the government acted through the private party to provide the benefit varied widely in
the above cases. Commerce has found a countervailable subsidy to exist where the
government took or imposed (through statutory, regulatory or administrative action) a
formal, enforceable measure which directly led to a discernible benefit being
provided to the industry under investigation.
"In cases where the government acts through a private party, such as in Certain
Softwood Lumber Products from Canada and Leather from Argentina (which
involved export restraints that led directly to a discernible lowering of input costs),
the Administration intends that the law continue to be administered on a case-by-case
basis consistent with the preceding paragraph. It is the Administration's view that
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the Subsidies Agreement and Section 771(5)(B)(iii)
encompass indirect subsidy practices like those which Commerce has countervailed
in the past, and that these types of indirect subsidies will continue to be
countervailable, provided that Commerce is satisfied that the standard under
Section 771(5)(B)(iii) has been met.
 "7
2.6 Canada contends, and the United States disagrees, that the SAA requires the US Department
of Commerce ("the DOC") to treat export restraints as financial contributions.
C. THE "PREAMBLE" TO THE US COUNTERVAILING DUTY REGULATIONS
2.7 In 1998, the DOC issued Regulations implementing the URAA's amendments to the US
countervailing duty law.8 The Regulations were accompanied by an "Explanation of the Final Rules",
otherwise known as the "Preamble". In part, the Preamble contains the responses of the Department
of Commerce to comments submitted on the proposed regulations during the public comment process.
The parties agree that there is no specific Regulation addressing export restraints. They also agree
that the portions of the Preamble that are relevant to the question of export restraints are found in the
explanations of Sections 351.102 and 351.501 of the Regulations.
2.8 The Preamble, in respect of Section 351.102 states, inter alia:
"As the extensive comments on this issue indicate, the phrase 'entrusts or directs'
could encompass a broad range of meanings. As such, we do not believe it is
appropriate to develop a precise definition of the phrase for purposes of these
regulations. Rather, we believe that we should follow the guidance provided in the
SAA to examine indirect subsidies on a case-by-case basis. We will, however,
enforce this provision vigorously.

7 Exhibit CAN-2 (SAA at 926).
8 Exhibit CAN-3 (19 CFR Part 351, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule, 63 Fed. Reg. 65,348-65,418).

"We agree with those commenters who urged the Department to confirm that the
current standard is no narrower than the prior U.S. standard for finding an indirect
subsidy as described in Certain Steel Products from Korea … and Certain Softwood
Lumber Products from Canada … . Also, we believe that the phrase 'entrusts or
directs' subsumes many elements of the definitions proposed by commenters. With
respect to the suggestion that we include an illustrative list of situations that would
fall under the 'entrusts or directs' standard, we do not believe this is necessary. The
SAA at 926 lists a number of cases wh ere the Department has found indirect
subsidies in the past, and these cases serve to provide examples of situations where
we believe the statute would permit the Department to reach the same result.
Similarly, regarding the request that we define the phrase 'private entity' to include
groups of entities or persons, the SAA is clear that groups are included ( see SAA at
926). Therefore, we have not promulgated a regulation with this definition".
9
2.9 The Preamble, in respect of Section 351.501 states, inter alia:
"Regarding the issue of whether indirect subsidies can arise through the provision of
goods and services, we believe this is clearly answered by the Act.
Section 771(5)(D)(iii) states that financial contributions include the provision of
goods or services. Hence, if a private entity is entrusted or directed to provide a good
or service to producers of the merchandise under investigation, a financial
contribution exists. With regard to export restraints, while they may be imposed to
limit parties' ability to export, they can also, in certain circumstances, lead those
parties to provide the restrained good to domestic purchasers for less than adequate
remuneration. This was recognized by Commerce in Certain Softwood Lumber
Products from Canada …(" Lumber") and Leather from Argentina … (" Leather").
Further, as indicated by the SAA (at 926), and as we confirm in these Final
Regulations, if the Department were to investigate situations and facts similar to those
examined in Lumber and Leather in the future, the new statute would permit the
Department to reach the same result".
10
2.10 Canada contends, and the United States disagrees, that the Preamble requires the DOC to treat
export restraints as financial contributions.
D. "PRACTICE" OF THE US DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
2.11 According to Canada, as a matter of law, US "practice" under the statute, the SAA and the
Preamble treats export restraints as meeting the standard of Section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the statute.
Canada cites three post-WTO cases ( Live Cattle from Canada (" Cattle"), Stainless Steel Sheet and
Strip in Coils from the Republic of Korea ("Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip") and Stainless Steel Plate
in Coils from the Republic of Korea ("Stainless Steel Plate ") in support of this argument. Canada
further argues that "practice" is not an individual determination in a countervailing duty case
(although a determination normally will reflect "practice") but rather is an institutional commitment to
follow declared interpretations and methodologies that is reflected in cumulative determinations. As
such, Canada argues, "practice" is related to prece dent, in that an interpretation or methodology will
often be developed in a single case or group of cases, and becomes the "practice" followed in
subsequent cases. Canada maintains that, as a matter of US law, the DOC is bound by prior
precedents absent a reasoned explanation justifying the departure therefrom.

9 Id. at 65,349-65,350.
10 Id. at 65,351.

2.12 The United States disagrees that any post-WTO US "practice" exists in respect of the
treatment of export restraints in countervailing duty investigations. The United States states, and
Canada does not dispute, that there has been no post-WTO case in which the DOC has found an
export restraint to be a subsidy. The United States argues that as a matter of US law, case precedent is
not binding on Commerce. Concerning Canada's ar gument that "practice" is an institutional
commitment to follow declared interpretations and methodologies, the United States denies that such
a purported commitment exists, and further states that even if such a commitment existed, it would
not be binding on Commerce as a matter of US law.
2.13 Thus, the parties disagree over both the existence and the legal significance of what Canada
refers to as US "practice".
III. PARTIES' REQUESTS FOR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.
CANADA
3.1 Canada submits that the US "measures" at issue are inconsistent with the SCM Agreement
and the WTO Agreement. According to Canada, th ese "measures" commit the United States to treat
an export restraint as meeting the definition of "financial contribution" under Article 1.1 of the SCM
Agreement if, in the view of the US investigating authorities, the export restraint has the effect of
increasing the supply of the restricted good. Therefore, if the downstream product incorporating the
restrained input product is subject to a US counte rvailing duty investigation, according to Canada the
United States would consider that the definitional requirement of financial contribution is satisfied
(and, if the export restraint lowers the price of the restrained good, that the definitional requirement of
"benefit" is satisfied). Canada argues that such treatment of export restraints as financial
contributions violates the SCM Agreement and, for the same reasons, Canada alleges, the US law also
violates the WTO Agreement and the SCM Agreement.
3.2 As discussed in the preceding section, the US "measures" that Canada challenges, because it
considers that they require this treatment of export restraints, are:
(i) Section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 193011 ("Tariff Act"), as amended by the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act, which is the provision of US countervailing duty law that defines the
term "countervailable subsidy";
(ii) portions of the Statement of Administrative Action 12 accompanying the URAA
interpreting Section 771(5) with respect to export restraints;
(iii) portions of the US Department of Commerce Regulations 13 (in particular the
"Preamble" thereto) interpreting and implemen ting Section 771(5) and the SAA with respect
to export restraints; and
(iv) the ongoing practice of the DOC of treating an export restraint as a "financial
contribution" within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.
3.3 Canada indicates that the definition of "subsidy" in Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement
requires that there be a "financial contribution" (or income or price support) that confers a "benefit".
In the view of Canada, the measures at issue, taken together:

11 Annex A to First Written Submission of Canada – Exhibit CAN-1.
12 Annex B to First Written Submission of Canada – Exhibit CAN-2.
13 Annex C to First Written Submission of Canada – Exhibit CAN-3.

(i) are inconsistent with Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement and, because they require the
imposition of countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning
of Article 1.1, are inconsistent with Article 10 (as well as Articles 11, 17, and 19, as they
relate to the requirements of Article 10) and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement; and
(ii) for the same reasons, also violate obligations of the United States under both
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement and Ar ticle 32.5 of the SCM Agreement to ensure
conformity of its laws, regulations, and administrative procedures with its obligations under
the WTO agreements.
3.4 Canada therefore requests that the Panel make the following recommendation to the DSB:
- That the United States bring its "measures " into conformity with the SCM Agreement
and the WTO Agreement, including by ceasing to treat export restraints as "financial
contributions".
B. UNITED STATES
3.5 The United States requests that the Panel find:
(i) that none of the measures identified by Canada (either in its request for a panel or in
its First Written Submission) are inconsistent with Articles 1.1, 10, 11, 17, 19, or 32.1 of the
SCM Agreement; and
(ii) that the United States has not failed to ensure that its laws, regulations, and
administrative procedures are in conformity with its obligations under Article 32.5 of the
SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
IV. REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES FOR PRELIMINARY RULINGS14
A. REQUEST OF THE UNITED STATES
4.1 The United States, in a Request for Preliminary Rulings submitted after Canada's first written
submission and before the US first written subm ission, requests the Panel to dismiss Canada's
complaint by making preliminary rulings as follows:
(a) That, as neither Section 771(5), the SAA, the Preamble, nor any DOC "practice"
requires US authorities to treat export restraints as subsidies, these alleged measures, as such,
do not violate US obligations under any of the provisions cited by Canada in its request for a
panel;
(b) That US "practice" – whether past, present, or future – does not constitute a measure
properly before this Panel;
(c) That, because Canada did not include US "practice" under Section 771(5) in its
request for consultations, the parties did not actually consult on US "practice", and Canada's
panel request fails to adequately identify the US "practice" in question, Canada's claims
regarding US "practice" fail to conform to Articles 4.7 and 6.2 of the DSU, and are not
properly before this Panel; and

14 The Panel notes that the summaries of the parties' arguments set forth in Sections IV, V, and VI are
based on executive summaries of the parties' submissions, provided by the parties pursuant to the working
procedures established by the Panel.

(d) That, because Canada's panel request did not identify the SAA or the Preamble as
measures, and because, in any event, neither the SAA nor the Preamble is a measure,
Canada's inclusion of the SAA and the Preamble as separate measures in its First Written
Submission fails to conform to Article 6.2 of the DSU, and Canada's claims regarding the
SAA and the Preamble are not within the Panel's terms of reference.
4.2 In support of this request, the United States makes the following arguments.
1. Introduction
4.3 In the view of the United States, Canada is asking the Panel to rule in the abstract that never,
under any set of circumstances present or future, can an export restraint be regarded as a subsidy
program – or even a part of a subsidy program – for purposes of the SCM Agreement. Such a ruling
would step beyond the bounds of any existing dispute, and thereby usurp the "exclusive authority" of
the Ministerial Conference or the General Council to authoritatively interpret Article 1.
4.4 The United States raises what it views as four different, threshold issues related to its request
for preliminary rulings. First, none of the "m easures" Canada has identified mandate that US
authorities treat export restraints as "subsidies", as Canada alleged in its request for a panel, or as
"financial contributions." Thus, under the mandatory/discretionary doctrine, none of these "measures"
violates US WTO obligations.
4.5 Second, there simply is no DOC "practice" of treating export restraints as subsidies under
current US law. Even if such a "practice" existed, it could not be regarded as a measure.
4.6 Third, because Canada's request for a panel did not identify the SAA or the Preamble as
distinct measures subject to dispute, they are not within the Panel's terms of reference. Moreover,
because neither the SAA nor the Preamble has any legal effect independent of the statute or
regulations, neither document constitutes a measure susceptible to dispute resolution.
4.7 Fourth, "practice" was not included in Canada's consultation request, and the United States
and Canada did not actually consult on any alleged "practice". Moreover, at least until its First
Written Submission, Canada failed to identify any particular "practice" about which it complained,
and the "practice" it has now identified is not the sort of measure it originally described. Thus,
Canada's claims regarding "practice" are not properly before the Panel.
4.8 The United States argues that Canada's request that this Panel rule on discretionary measures,
and its insistence that the Panel force the United States to comply with a ruling regarding future
United States actions or "practice" – actions that may never occur – raise serious institutional
concerns regarding the fundamental structure of the WT O, as well as proper judicial method. If the
Panel were to rule that future measures, if they should ever be adopted, also violate US WTO
obligations, the Panel would be adopting a binding prospective interpretation of the SCM Agreement
and stepping well beyond the boundaries of any existing dispute.
4.9 For the United States, the procedural defects in Canada's request for a panel mean that
Canada's claims of WTO violations must fail, even if one were to assume that its interpretation of the
SCM Agreement were correct, which it clearly is not. At a minimum, the flaws in Canada's pleadings
indicate that the Panel must examine its claims with unusual care, and avoid overstepping its
authority.

2. Factual Background
4.10 The United States asserts that with respect to Section 771(5), Canada does not identify any
way that Section 771(5) itself fails to conform to US WTO obligations or needs to be amended.
Further, according to the United States, the SAA, which is a type of legislative history, does not
require the DOC to treat such measures as countervailable subsidies. The SAA permits the DOC to
treat an export restraint as a subsidy when ju stified by the terms of the statute (and the SCM
Agreement), but only if the DOC determines that doing so would satisfy the requirements of the new
subsidy definition. With respect to the Preamble, the United States argues that the passages that
Canada cites indicate that the DOC simply was of the view that Section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act
did not preclude the DOC from treating expor t restraints as subsidies in appropriate circumstances.
The DOC never stated that Section 771(5)(B)(iii) mandated that the DOC treat export restraints as
subsidies. Moreover, the DOC did not promulgate a regulation on "indirect subsidies" in general, or
export restraints in particular, and the DOC's statements were made in the context of explaining why
it was not promulgating a regulation regarding "indirect subsidies". With respect to practice, the
United States argues that Live Cattle is the only US countervailing duty ("CVD") investigation since
the implementation of the URAA even to consider whether something which arguably could be
categorized as similar to an export restraint programme might constitute a countervailable subsidy,
and the DOC found no subsidy. According to the United States, the other two cases cited by Canada
involved both a different type of financial contribution than any export restraint case (loans vs. goods)
and a different type of government action (government direction of credit vs. government restrictions
on exports).
3. Legal Argument
(a) Assuming for Purposes of Argument that Canada's Interpretation of Article 1 of the SCM
Agreement Is Correct, Section 771(5) Does Not Violate US WTO Obligations Because
Section 771(5) Does Not Mandate that the DOC Treat Export Restraints as Subsidies
4.11 The United States notes that the Appellate Body has explained, "the concept of mandatory as
distinguished from discretionary legislation was developed by a number of GATT panels as a
threshold consideration in determining when legislation as such – rather than a specific application of
that legislation – was inconsistent with a Contracting Party's GATT 1947 obligations".
15 T h i s
doctrine has continued under the WTO system, as panels and the Appellate Body have continued to
apply the mandatory/discretionary distinction in considering whether a Member's legislation is WTO-
inconsistent. For example, in Canada Aircraft , the panel applied the mandatory/discretionary
distinction in rejecting several Brazilian claims of prohibited subsidies under the SCM Agreement.
Similarly, the panel in US 301 applied the mandatory/discretionary distinction, stating that its decision
"does not imply a reversal of the classical test in the pre-existing jurisprudence that only legislation
mandating a WTO inconsistency or precluding WTO consistency, could, as such, violate WTO
provisions. Indeed that is the very test we shall apply in our analysis." The United States notes that
most recently, in the 1916 Act case, the Appellate Body set forth the traditional formulation of the
mandatory/discretionary doctrine. The Appellate Body engaged in a lengthy discussion of the
doctrine and its correct application, ultimately finding that the panel had applied the doctrine
correctly.
4.12 According to the United States, the text of Section 771(5) requires the DOC to treat export
restraints as subsidies only if they might meet all of the statute's requirements, which are in effect the
same as those of the SCM Agreement. Therefore, even assuming (wrongly) for purposes of argument
that Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement precludes ever treating an export restraint as a subsidy,

15 United States - Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 , WT/DS136/AB/R, WT/DS162/AB/R, Report of the
Appellate Body adopted 26 September 2000, para. 88 ("U.S. 1916 Act AB Report").

nothing in the text of Section 771(5) mandates that the DOC treat an export restraint as a subsidy.
This conclusion does not change if one interprets Section 771(5)(B)(iii) in light of the SAA.
Although the SAA is an authoritative expression by the United States concerning the interpretation of
the URAA, pages 925-926 of the SAA state merely that the DOC may impose countervailing duties
regarding export restraints only if such restraints meet all of the requirements for countervailability
under the statute and the SCM Agreement.
4.13 Turning to the Preamble, the United States asse rts that nothing in the Preamble requires the
DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies. At most, the Preamble expresses the DOC's view that
Section 771(5)(B)(iii) "would permit" it to treat export restraints as subsidies. Even if the Preamble
stated that Section 771(5)(B)(iii) required the DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies, such a
statement would not be binding upon the DOC as a matter of US law. Moreover, the DOC did not
promulgate a regulation on the topic of indirect subsidies in general, or export restraints in particular.
Thus, the Preamble cannot even be used as an interpretive tool, because there is no regulation to
interpret. At most, that United States argues , the Preamble is a non-binding statement by the DOC
regarding its views at the time concerning the scope of Section 771(5)(B)(iii).
4.14 With respect to Canada's claims concerning US "practice", the United States maintains that
no DOC determination has ever found that any export restraint meets the standard of
Section 771(5)(B)(iii); but even if one had, this w ould not mandate that the DOC interpret the statute
in this fashion. It is a well-established principle of US administrative law that an administrative
agency, such as the DOC, is not obliged to follow its own precedents, provided that it explains why it
departs from them. Thus, even if the DOC had made a determination under Section 771(5) in a prior
CVD proceeding that an export restraint constituted a subsidy (which it has not), the DOC would not
be bound by that determination in a future CVD proceeding involving an export restraint. The key
consideration under US law is that DOC determin ations be consistent with the statute and the
regulations.
4.15 Moreover, the United States asserts, written submissions made by Canada in the course of the
DOC's rulemaking proceeding demonstrate that Canada has agreed with the above assessment.
Canada has stated that Section 771(5) of the Tariff Act "adopts a definition of 'subsidy' that is
substantively the same as that of the [SCM] Agreement", and that the DOC "can easily, and should,
interpret the URAA consistent with US GATT obligations, which require that regulatory measures be
excluded from the definition of subsidy." (emphasis added). Canada also has stated that it
"appreciate[d] that the Department may wish to preserve its flexibility and discretion with respect to
the application of the concepts of 'indirect subsidies' . . . and has decided therefore not to propose
regulations addressing these issues at this time". (emphasis added).
4.16 In other words, according to the United States, until it decided to commence this dispute
Canada was of the view that Section 771(5) did not require the DOC to treat export restraints as
subsidies. Similarly, until it decided to commence this dispute, Canada was of the view that by
declining to promulgate a regulation on the topic, the DOC had preserved "its flexibility and
discretion" with respect to the treatment of export restraints. Now, the United States argues, Canada
is suddenly claiming that in its rulemaking proceeding the DOC somehow bound itself to treat export
restraints as subsidies. For the United States, not only do Canada's prior statements to the DOC
constitute an admission against interest for purposes of this dispute, but Canada's drastic reversal of
positions speaks volumes about the strength (and purposes) of its case.
(b) Canada's Claims Concerning "US Practice" Under Section 771(5) Should be Dismissed
4.17 The United States asserts that what Canada refers to as "practice" consists of nothing more
than individual applications of the US CVD law. While these applications themselves might

individually constitute measures, they do not, through numbers, mutate into a separate and distinct
"measure" that can be called "practice." Rather, Canada's alleged "practice" simply consists of
specific determinations in specific CVD proceedings (or in some cases only "thoughts" expressed in
specific CVD proceedings) that are not within the Panel's terms of reference and that Canada says it is
not challenging. In the view of the United States, the sort of "practice" alleged by Canada does not
constitute a measure within the meaning of the DSU.
4.18 However, even if "practice" could be considered as a measure, the United States argues that
Canada's claims regarding US "practice" still would not be properly before this Panel. Because
Canada did not identify US "practice" in its consultation request, the United States and Canada did not
actually consult with respect to US "practice", and Canada's panel request did not adequately identify
US "practice", Canada's claims fail to confor m to Articles 4.7 and 6.2 of the DSU and must be
rejected for that reason. Moreover, to the extent that Canada's First Written Submission finally
identifies the three types of "practice" about which it is complaining, none of the three types can
violate US WTO obligations: (1) pre-WTO CVD determinations cannot violate the WTO or
SCM Agreements; (2) there is no existing US "practic e" of treating export restraints as subsidies that
violates the WTO or SCM Agreements; and (3) hypothetical future US practice under Section 771(5)
is not properly before the Panel because it is not a measure, and because only the Ministerial
Conference and the General Council have the power to issue authoritative interpretations of the
SCM Agreement.
4.19 Nor, according to the United States, would rulings on possible future practice be wise. As
previously noted by the panel in European Communities – Audio Tapes , para. 365, "[I]t would [not]
be appropriate to reach findings on a 'practice' in abstracto when it had determined that the actions
taken in a particular investigation were not inconsistent with the Agreement and that the 'practice' was
not pursuant to mandatory legislation." More fundamentally, the "future practice" of a Member
simply cannot be regarded as a "measure" subject to dispute settlement, because it is purely
speculative. For that reason, the DSU applies only to measures "taken", not to measures "that may
possibly be taken in the future".
4.20 For the United States, an additional reason why Canada's claims regarding DOC "practice"
are not properly before the Panel is that those claims were not made in conformity with Articles 4.7
and 6.2 of the DSU. In its request for consultations, Canada identified the SAA and the Preamble as
the challenged measures, effectively alleging that these measures, as such, violated various US WTO
obligations. Canada did not allege that any actual application of these measures in a specific US CVD
proceeding violated US WTO ob ligations. Likewise, at the consultations which took place on
15 June 2000, the parties did not discuss any actual application of the SAA, the Preamble, or
Section 771(5) in a particular US CVD proceeding.
4.21 Nonetheless, the United States argues, in its panel request Canada for the first time in this
dispute raised US practice under Section 771(5) as a challenged measure. In the view of the United
States, Articles 4.7 and 6.2 of the DSU preclude Canada from challenging a measure which was
neither identified in its consultation request nor the subject of consultations.
4.22 The United States recalls that in Brazil - Aircraft , the Appellate Body was faced with a
situation where Brazil sought to dismiss Canada's complaint because the regulatory instruments
identified in Canada's consultation request – and on which Canada and Brazil consulted – were no
longer in effect by the time the panel was established. This was due to the fact that the regulatory
instruments in question had a short lifespan, and were constantly expiring and being re-enacted under
a new name.
4.23 According to the United States, the Appellate Body rejected Brazil's argument on the basis
that the regulatory instruments that came into affe ct after consultations were held did not change the

essence of the export subsidies complained about by Canada. In so doing, however, the Appellate
Body reaffirmed the important role that consultations play in the dispute settlement process.
According to the Appellate Body, "Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU . . . set forth a process by which a
complaining party must request consultations, and consultations must be held, before a matter may be
referred to the DSB for the establishment of a panel." (emphasis added). The Appellate Body found
that Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU do not "require a precise and exact identity between the specific
measures that were the subject of consultations and the specific measures identified in the request for
the establishment of a panel." (emphasis in original ). Implicit in this statement, however, is the
notion that there must be some identity between the subject of the consultations and the specific
measures identified in the panel request. If there is not, then the panel request is defective as a matter
of law.
4.24 With respect to Section 771(5), the United States does not object to its inclusion in Canada's
panel request, even though it was not identified in Canada's consultation request. In the consultation
request and at the consultations, Canada made clear its intent to challenge US law, as such. The
consultations clarified which measure Canada had to identify if it was to properly make such a
challenge.
4.25 However, the United States indicates, at no time during the consultations phase did Canada
indicate that it intended to challenge US law, as applied. In the view of the United States, there is no
identity between a law, as such, and a law, as applied. For that reason, the Panel should find that
Canada has failed to comply with Articles 4.7 and 6.2 of the DSU, and should dismiss Canada's
claims with respect to US practice under Section 771(5).
4.26 For the United States, Canada's panel request also fails to meet the requirements of Article 6.2
of the DSU, because the request fails to "identify the specific measures at issue ... ." Specifically, by
simply making a vague reference to "US practice thereunder" – "thereunder" being a reference to
Section 771(5) – Canada has failed to adequately identify the particular applications of Section 771(5)
about which it is complaining.
4.27 The United States argues that not until its First Written Submission did Canada describe any
examples of US practice that it wished to make the subject of this action (although it could easily have
done so in consultations), and even now it is by no means clear exactly what Canada considers to be
"practice" or whether it has other as-yet-unmentioned "practice" in mind. The United States asserts
that it has been prejudiced by these failures, and these failures make the requisite consultation process
an empty one (thereby undermining the overall dispute settlement process).
4.28 Finally, the United States emphasizes that subsequent to the entry into force of the WTO
Agreement, the DOC has never had any practice that "treats a restraint on exports of a product as a
subsidy to producers of other products". Live Cattle from Canada cannot be a "measure[] that treat[s]
a restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy" of the sort alleged in Canada's requests either for a
consultation or for a panel, because in that case the DOC found that the Canadian measure at issue
was not a subsidy because it did not provide a benefit. Nor did the DOC make a finding that any
export restraint constituted a "financial contribution", the sort of measure addressed in Canada's First
Written Submission.
4.29 Moreover, in the view of the United States, the two Korean steel cases cited by Canada
involved measures (government direction of credit) that are completely different from an export
restraint. Accordingly, none of the examples of "p ractice" Canada has identified even in its First
Written Submission constitute the sort of measures it has said that it challenges.
4.30 For the United States, Canada's vague and amorphous request for a panel to address actions
that have not yet been and may never be taken emphasizes the problems associated with trying to

address practice purely in the abstract. Canada's consistent failure to identify the precise "measures"
and "practice" it wishes to place at issue highlights the fact that its real complaint involves a measure
– US imposition of countervailing duties on Canadian lumber imports – that does not exist. The
United States acknowledges that it is certainly possible that the DOC will one day find that some type
of export restriction program in Canada or its pr ovinces amounts to entrusting or directing, either
alone or in combination with other restrictions, a private "body" to sell an input good to a particular
producer or producers, and meets the other requirements for a countervailable subsidy, but states that
it is also possible that the DOC will not make such a finding if and when it is faced with the issue.
Yet for both practical and juridical reasons, in the opinion of the United States the Panel would be ill-
advised to speculate on either what types of restrictions might exist or how the DOC would treat
them. Accordingly, the Panel should decline to rule on Canada's complaint and dismiss it.
(c) The Panel Should Dismiss Canada's Claims Concerning the SAA and the Preamble Because
Neither Document Was Identified as a Measure in Canada's Panel Request and Because
Neither Document Constitutes a "Measure" Within the Meaning of Article 6.2 of the DSU
4.31 The United States notes that in its panel request, Canada identified the challenged measures
as: (1) Section 771(5) (as interpreted by the SAA and the Preamble), and (2) US practice thereunder.
If Canada had intended to challenge the SAA and the Preamble as separate measures, the "as
interpreted by" phrase would have been unnecessary.
4.32 However, the United States continues, in its First Written Submission, Canada expanded its
case to include the SAA and the Preamble as separate "measures". According to the United States,
Canada cannot do so, because it is well-established that a Panel's terms of reference are fixed by the
panel request, and a complainant cannot add new measures thereafter.
4.33 For the United States, Canada's behaviour is particularly egregious in light of the fact that at
the first DSB meeting to consider Canada's panel request, the United States indicated that it
interpreted the request as involving two measur es – Section 771(5) and US practice thereunder.
Canada never took issue with this interpretation. Indeed, at the second DSB meeting, the only point
on which Canada took issue with the United States concerned the US objection to Canada's inclusion
of "practice" in its panel request.
4.34 Finally, the United States argues, even if Canada's panel request could be construed as having
separately identified the SAA and the Preamble as th ings it wished to challenge, those documents do
not constitute measures within the meaning of Article 6.2 of the DSU. According to the United
States, neither document, in itself, has any independent legal effect under US law, and neither
document authorizes nor requires any action by the US Government. In the view of the United States,
documents of this nature cannot constitute a measure within the meaning of Article 6.2.
B.
RESPONSE OF CANADA
4.35 Canada considers that each of the US requests for preliminary rulings is unfounded and
consequently requests that the Panel deny the preliminary rulings sought by the United States.
Canada argues that, in an effort to substantiate its request, the United States mischaracterizes Canada's
claim and the nature and effect of the measures under US law, as well as the relevance of the WTO
case law cited by the United States in the context of a request for a preliminary ruling.
1. The Matter Raised By Canada's Panel Request Is Properly Before This Panel
4.36 Canada notes that in the US Request for Preliminary Rulings ("the US Request"), the United
States has challenged in a variety of ways whether the matter raised by Canada's panel request is
properly before this Panel and reflects an actual dispute. Canada submits that its Panel Request sets

out both specific measures and legal claims, well within the requirements established by the Appellate
Body in Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland Cement From Mexico ,16 that
reflect the real controversy that exists between Canada and the United States with respect to the
treatment of export restraints under US countervailing duty law.
4.37 Canada recalls that in Guatemala – Cement, the Appellate Body concluded that the "matter"
referred to the DSB consists of two elements: the sp ecific measures at issue and the legal basis of the
complaint (or the claims). According to Canada , its panel request sets out four measures as
constituting the relevant aspects of US countervailing duty law that, when taken together, are
inconsistent with the provisions of the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement identified by
Canada. For Canada, these government actions all clearly satisfy the standard for a "measure" set out
in Guatemala – Cement.
4.38 Canada asserts that its legal claims also are set out in its panel request and that these claims,
which echo Canada's request for consultations, unquestionably put the United States on notice, and
have done so since the very beginning of this dispute, that Canada is of the view that the treatment of
export restraints under US countervailing duty law is inconsistent with the various identified
provisions of the SCM Agreement and WTO Agreement.
4.39 Canada argues that the United States attempts to isolate the constituent parts of US
countervailing duty law into separate pieces in order to claim that each, by itself, is meaningless. In
particular, the United States, while not objecting to Section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 as a
"measure", claims that it is the only measure, and that whether the statutory language of
Section 771(5) itself mandates the treatment of export restraints as subsidies is dispositive of this
proceeding. It also claims that the SAA and Pr eamble have no "legal effect independent from the
statute or regulations",
17 and that there is no US "practice" with respect to export restraints.
4.40 For Canada, the US characterization of the basis for Canada's complaint and its attempt at
parsing the measures so as render each measure meaningless in its own right is not supported by WTO
jurisprudence. As Canada discusses in its First Written Submission (see infra), the Panel in
United States – Sections 301 – 310 of the Trade Act of 1974 noted that a national law may be "multi-
layered," including statutory and other institutional and administrative elements that are "often
inseparable and should not be read independently from each other when evaluating the overall
conformity of the law with WTO obligations."
4.41 Canada notes that the United States also argues that in WTO dispute settlement, the meaning
of municipal law is a question of fact to be proven, and consists not only of the provisions themselves,
but also the domestic legal principles governing thei r interpretation. The United States then suggests
that a Member's views on the meaning of its own law is ordinarily worthy of some deference. Canada
notes, however, that a Panel has an independent obligation to assess municipal law to determine
whether the Member is in compliance with its WTO obligations. Canada notes that the law is well
established in this regard, and points to the Appellate Body Report in India – Patent Protection for
Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products.
4.42 Canada notes that according to the United States, Section 771(5) largely tracks the language
of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement, and t hus is not a violation of that Article. Moreover,
the United States suggests that under US principles of statutory construction, Section 771(5) cannot be
interpreted in a fashion that would violate Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the Agreement, because under "the

16 Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland Cement From Mexico , Report of the
Appellate Body, WT/DS60/AB/R, 2 November 1998 at para. 75 (hereinafter Guatemala – Cement).
17 Id. at para. 8.

Charming Betsy doctrine", an ambiguous US statute is to be "construed, where possible, to be
consistent with international obligations of the United States".
4.43 Canada agrees that the language of Section 771(5) could have been interpreted consistently
with the definition of "subsidy" in Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement, as Canada noted in its
comments submitted to the DOC during its rulemaking proceeding in 1995. For Canada, however,
this is not the question at issue. Rather, as the Appellate Body has noted ( United States – 1916 Act ),
the issue is not how a statute theoretically might be interpreted, but how it is interpreted in light of
both statutory and non-statutory elements.
4.44 As to its contention about the Charming Betsy, Canada argues, the United States omits to note
other US judicial doctrines that render the Charming Betsy doctrine meaningless in this context. In
this case, the United States has made plain in its submissions to the Panel that it interprets Article 1.1
of the SCM Agreement to permit it to countervail export restraints, and the Charming Betsy doctrine
consequently will not lead it to adopt a different interpretation of its obligations.
4.45 In Canada's view, the United States also mischaracterizes the role and significance of the
SAA. While conceding that by the terms of the statute the SAA is "an authoritative expression by the
United States concerning the interpretation of the URAA", the US Request asserts that the SAA is
merely "a type of legislative history". For Canada, this US argument is inherently contradictory and
belied by both US court decisions and the treatment of the SAA by the United States itself.
4.46 First, Canada states, the SAA is not legislative history in any ordinary sense, for the reasons
that it was required by statute, agreed betw een the US Administration and the US Congress in
advance, submitted by the US President to the US Congress with the proposed URAA legislation, and
approved by the Congress. The SAA has a function and significance in US law beyond that of
ordinary legislative history.
4.47 Second, Canada argues, the very existence of the SAA and the declaration in the statute that it
is an "authoritative expression by the United States concerning the interpretation and application of
the Uruguay Round Agreements…" makes plain that the scope and meaning of the statute are to be
determined by the SAA. This fact that has been repeatedly recognized by US courts.
4.48 Finally, Canada notes, the US attempt to downplay the significance of the SAA, treating it as
merely "encouraging" certain interpretations is completely contradictory to its position and assurances
set out in United States – Section 301. In that case, the United States declared that "[t]he SAA must,
by law, be treated as the authoritative expression concerning the interpretation of the statute in any
judicial proceeding." On this basis, Canada states, the Panel found in favour of the United States.
4.49 As regards the effect of the Preamble, Canada asserts that the US Request acknowledges that
the DOC's statements concerning export restraints in its Notice of Final Rule "would have been
binding" on the DOC if they had been made in a "reg ulation", but then claims that inclusion of those
statements in the Preamble makes them "[a]t most … a non-binding statement by the DOC regarding
its views at the time." The United States adds that it is not bound by the Preamble.
4.50 For Canada, the claim that a Preamble to Regulations has lesser legal status ignores the
administrative framework under which US agencies promulgate regulations. The DOC regulations
are issued in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA), which requires that an
agency incorporate a preamble in rules that they issue. Thus, the purported distinction between the
Preamble and the remainder of the regulation that is urged by the United States is without basis.
Moreover, Canada asserts, numerous US courts have recognized the Preamble as part and parcel of a
regulation, and thus binding.

4.51 Canada finds equally invalid the US argument that the Preamble's provisions on export
restraints are not binding because the Preamble is the only portion of the regulation that addresses the
issue. First, this argument suggests that Commerce engaged in a meaningless exercise when it drafted
its position on export restraints in the Preamble. Second, numerous US courts have treated a
preamble as a binding agency pronouncement, even where the preamble is the only portion of the
regulation that addresses the issue. In fact, according to Canada, the United States has done so in
submissions to WTO panels. In United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional
Gasoline, the United States justified certain EPA rule s as being compatible with its WTO obligation
by reference to the Preamble, including to provisions in the Preamble that contained obligations not
found in other parts of the regulation.
4.52 Finally, Canada argues, there also is no validity to the assertion that Commerce itself has
never recognized the binding nature of the Preambl e. To the contrary, in its countervailing duty
determinations, Commerce uniformly treats the Preamble to the countervailing duty regulations as an
integral part of Commerce's regulations and equivale nt in legal authority to other sections of the
regulations. Indeed, Canada states, Commerce commonly refers to the regulatory language included
in the Preamble as simply "the regulations" and relies on the Preamble as legal authority for its
interpretations. This was made evident in the Korean Steel cases.
4.53 Canada notes the United States argument that its practice of treating export restraints as
"financial contributions" is not appropriately a "measure". Canada asserts that the United States
claims that because pre-WTO determinations cannot violate WTO obligations they are irrelevant to
"practice" and "there is no existing US 'practice' of treating export restraints as subsidies that violates
the WTO or SCM Agreements"; and that Canada is seeking a ruling on a "hypothetical future US
practice". The United States is wrong on both counts.
4.54 For Canada it is clear that there is an existing US administrative practice of treating export
restraints as meeting the "financial contribution" requirement of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the
SCM Agreement, which is defined, in large part, by the United States' statements in the SAA
regarding its pre-WTO practice of countervailing export restraints. While Canada agrees that this pre-
WTO practice should have become irrelevant after the SCM Agreement came into force, the SAA
expressly provides that US practice in those cases is to continue under the SCM Agreement and the
revised US countervailing duty law.
4.55 Canada asserts that this reliance on pre-WTO cases including Leather and Lumber to describe
its continuing practice of treating export restraints as financial contributions is repeatedly confirmed
in the Regulations. There can, therefore, be no doubt that Commerce's pre-WTO practice is its post-
WTO practice.
4.56 In Canada's view, the US attempt to dismiss its post-WTO practice as irrelevant is equally
invalid. The Korean Stainless Steel cases discussed by Canada confirm the Commerce Department's
absolute adherence to the view that the "clear and unambiguous language of the SAA is that Congress
intended the specific types of indirect subsidies found to be countervailable" in past cases, including
Softwood Lumber, "to continue to be covered by the [ Tariff Act of 1930], as amended by the URAA."
For Canada, those cases also confirm the Commerce Department's view that its Regulations, like the
SAA, foreclose any discretionary consideration of "financial contribution" in the case of "indirect
subsidies".
4.57 Nor, argues Canada, can the United States escape an "existing practice" by claiming that its
discussion of financial contribution in Live Cattle was "at most dicta". Canada acknowledges that in
Live Cattle, Commerce did not find the Canadian Wheat Board's "control" of exports to be a
countervailable subsidy because it found no benefit. But, Canada asserts, Commerce's initiation of the
case, based only on allegations of an export restraint and a price effect, like its pronouncements on

"financial contribution" and "private body" in its final determination, are manifestations of its
continuing practice of considering an export restraint to be a "financial contribution." In short, the
determination made clear that Commerce did not countervail the alleged export restraint not because
it did not view an export restraint as a financial contribution but rather only because it did not find a
benefit.
4.58 More fundamentally for Canada, the "practice" at issue is not individual determinations in
countervailing duty cases as the United States suggests. Canada contends that it does not seek a
ruling overturning the determinations in particular past cases. Rather, as is recognised under WTO
jurisprudence, references to specific cases is an acceptable means of establishing an interpretation
under domestic law. Canada's challenge to US prac tice is particularly crucial to US compliance with
a DSB ruling if Canada prevails in this dispute. Canada believes that there is ample evidence from
other WTO proceedings that the United States may take the position that a change in administrative
practice is not a necessary element of compliance, even where Panel and Appellate Body reports have
plainly found the existing practice to be in violation of WTO agreements It is in this light that Canada
challenges US practice with respect to export restraints, and seeks relief that expressly addresses US
practice.
2. The Mandatory/Discretionary Distinction Is Not A "Procedural Matter" Going to The
Jurisdiction Of This Panel
4.59 Canada states that the United States claims that neither Section 771(5), the SAA, the
Preamble, nor any DOC "practice" requires US author ities to treat export restraints as subsidies, and
on this basis, that the alleged measures, as such, do not violate US obligations under any of the
provisions cited by Canada in its request for a panel. For Canada, however, this argument is based on
a mischaracterization of Canada's complaint. Canada does not contend that the US measures require
the United States to treat export restraints as subsidies. Rather, Canada's position is that the measures
require the United States to determine that an ex port restraint satisfies the "financial contribution"
element of the definition of 'subsidy" and therefore that an export restraint is countervailable if
Commerce finds that it confers a "benefit". In Canada's view, this is inconsistent with the definition
of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement because an export restraint does not come within any of the
government actions set out in Article 1.1, including, in particular, the requirements of
subparagraph 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the Agreement.
4.60 Canada notes that in support of the US argument that the measures at issue are not properly
before this Panel because they are not "mandatory", the United States cites various GATT and WTO
jurisprudence. This review culminates in a US claim that Canada's complaint should be dismissed as
a procedural matter on this basis. However, Canada argues, because this issue does not go to a
procedural matter, it is not properly the subject of a preliminary ruling.
4.61 More importantly for Canada, these cases are not relevant to this Panel's jurisdiction to hear
the "matter" brought before it by Canada. Under the GATT cases cited by the United States, the
mandatory or discretionary nature of a measure is an issue that addresses whether a measure as such
violates the GATT provisions invoked, not whether a panel has jurisdiction to hear a particular matter.
In Canada's view, this was made clear by the Appellate Body in United States – Anti-Dumping Act of
1916.
4.62 Canada further states that in a variation on that US argument, the United States asserts that
Canada is seeking an advisory opinion under the SCM Agreement and in doing so is asking the Panel
to usurp the authority of the Ministerial Conference and General Council under Article IX:2 of the
WTO Agreement. For Canada, in advancing these arguments the United States relies on dicta
regarding "judicial economy". Canada points out that this dicta addresses whether a panel should

decline to address certain issues that are not necessary to resolve the issue before it, not whether the
dispute should have been considered originally.
4.63 Canada asks the Panel to find that the measures at issue violate existing provisions in the
SCM and WTO Agreements in that they require the United States to treat an export restraint as a
"financial contribution". If export restraints do not come within the scope of the definition of
"financial contribution" in the SCM Agreement, then the treatment of export restraints under US
countervailing duty law is necessarily inconsistent with both the SCM Agreement and the
WTO Agreement. Canada contends that it is entitled to a determination of this issue so that benefits
accruing to it under these Agreements are not, and cannot, be impaired by the application of a WTO
inconsistent approach. As such this dispute is properly before this Panel.
4.64 Canada recalls that at paragraphs 58-69 of the US Request, the United States refers to a
number of GATT and WTO cases in which a panel declined to find a measure as such to be
inconsistent with GATT or WTO rules because the country maintaining the measure was able to
establish that, even though the measure could be applied inconsistently with international obligations,
the measure did not mandate a violation.
4.65 Canada argues, however, that the United States neglects to mention that in all of these cases,
either the panel first made a finding as to the obligations in question, or there was essentially no
dispute about those obligations. Put differently, where there was a dispute as to the nature of the
obligation at issue, panels first determined the m eaning of the obligation before considering whether
the measure violated that obligation. In Canada's view, none of these cases supports the US
Request.
18
4.66 Canada notes that in this dispute, the United States and Canada vigorously dispute the
requirements of the WTO rules invoked by Canada. The United States openly acknowledges that it
does not agree with Canada's interpretation, and the US measures and the US submissions make it
quite clear that under US countervailing duty law, an export restraint is considered to be a "financial
contribution." In Canada's view, these differences can be addressed only after a full hearing of the
substance of Canada's case before this Panel.
4.67 For Canada, not only is the United States incorrect in its efforts to rely upon the
mandatory/discretionary distinction in requesting a preliminary ruling, it also has mischaracterized
the "mandatory" nature of the SAA and Preamble. In response to Canada's description of how the
SAA requires the United States to treat export restraints as "financial contributions", the United States
focuses on the proviso in the SAA that states that the types of indirect subsidies identified in the SAA
will continue to be countervailable "provided that" Commerce is satisfied that the standard of
Section 771(5)(B)(iii) has been met. Canada asserts that the proviso must, however, be read in
context and that the context curtails any Commerce discretion.
4.68 Canada notes that the proviso is preceded by three paragraphs containing key directives on
the interpretation of Section 771(5)(B)(iii). The first paragraph of the SAA passage on "indirect
subsidies" declares that the "entrusts or directs" language of 771(5)(B)(iii) "shall be interpreted
broadly" to "continue [the Administration's] policy of not permitting the indirect provision of a
subsidy to become a loophole" in countervailing duty enforcement.
19 The second paragraph recites
pre-WTO Commerce practice, specifically including the countervailing of export restraints in Leather
and Lumber, and concludes that Commerce found a countervailable subsidy "where the government
took or imposed (through statutory, regulatory, or administrative action) a formal, enforceable
measure which directly led to a discernible benefit … .".

18 See Response of Canada to the United States' Request For Preliminary Rulings at paras. 49-51.
19 SAA at 925-926. (Annex B to Canada's First Written Submission – Exhibit CAN-2)

4.69 Canada continues that the third, and crucial, paragraph, by characterizing the export restraints
of Leather and Lumber as "cases where the government acts through a private party", declares that
those export restraints meet the entrusts or directs standard of 771(5)(B)(iii), and states that in such
cases, the amended law is to be "administered on a case-by-case basis consistent with" the pre-WTO
practice described in the preceding paragraph. In Canada's view removing any remaining doubt about
the interpretation of Section 771(5)(B)(iii) is the statement in this paragraph of the SAA of the
"Administration's view that Article 1.1(a) (1)(iv) of the Subsidies Agreement and
Section 771(5)(B)(iii) encompass indirect subsidy practices like those which Commerce has
countervailed in the past, and that these types of indirect subsidies will continue to be
countervailable… (emphasis added). Canada asserts that therefore the SAA gives Commerce explicit
direction as to the determination it should make under the proviso with regard to export restraints.
4.70 In a similar vein, Canada argues, the US Request asserts that the Preamble does not require
Commerce "to treat export restraints as subsidies"
20 (thus once again misstating the issue as "subsidy"
rather than "financial contribution"), but essentially limits its argument to claiming that "at most, the
Preamble expresses the DOC's view that Section 771(5)(B)(iii) 'would permit' it to treat export
restraints as subsidies." 21 As in the case of the SAA, when viewed in context, the "would permit"
language does not mean what the United States suggests, in Canada's view. The language comes at
the end of a paragraph that confirms that "if the Department were to investigate situations and facts
similar to those examined in Lumber and Leather in the future, the new statute would permit the
Department to reach the same result."
22 Canada states that US countervailing duty law itself is
mandatory in the sense that when Commerce finds a financial contribution, benefit, and specificity, it
must find a countervailable subsidy. Because, according to Canada, the SAA and Preamble have
already determined that an export restraint meets the financial contribution requirement, the scope of
any discretion under the "would permit" language is limited to Commerce's analysis of benefit and
specificity.
3. The Sufficiency Of The Consultations On US Practice
4.71 Canada recalls that the United States submits that Canada's "claims" regarding US practice
are not properly before the Panel based on allegations that: (1) Canada did not include US practice as
a "measure" in its request for consultations; (2) the parties did not actually consult on US practice; and
(3) Canada's Panel Request fails to adequately identify the "US 'practice' in question."
4.72 Canada states that the United States attempts to support its position by quoting selectively
from the Appellate Body report in Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft as standing for
the principle that without identity between the subject of the consultations and the specific measures
identified in the panel request, the panel request is defective as a matter of law".
23 Notwithstanding
the erroneous assertion by the US as to absence of identity between the subject of the consultations
and the specific measures identified in the panel request, Canada finds it instructive to set out more
fully what the Appellate Body actually said in the report relied on by the United States:
"We do not believe, however, that Articles 4 and 6 of the DSU … require a precise
and exact identity between the specific measures that were the subject of
consultations and the specific measures identified in the request for the establishment
of a panel.…As stated by the Panel, "[o]ne purpose of consultations … is to 'clarify
the facts of the situation', and it can be expected that information obtained during the

20 US Request at paras. 48, 80.
21 US Request at para. 80.
22 See Regulations at 65,351 (Annex C to Canada's First Written Submission - Exhibit CAN-3),
Canada's First Written Submission at para. 50.
23 US Request at para. 110.

course of consultations may enable the co mplainant to focus the scope of the matter
with respect to which it seeks establishment of a panel."
4.73 Canada states that apart from not requiring a precise and exact identity between the specific
measures that were the subject of consultations and the specific measures identified in the request for
the establishment of a panel, panels have also been directed to look to whether the "essence" of the
matters consulted on are the same as the measures identified in a panel request. In Canada's view,
there can be no doubt that this is the case in the present case.
4.74 Turning to what occurred during consultations, prior to the meeting on 15 June 2000, Canada
indicates that it notified the United States that among other things to be dealt with at the meeting:
"We also will wish to inquire as to the sources of United States … practice, if any,
that are relevant to the Department of Commerce's treatment of an alleged export
restraint under U.S. countervailing duty law in addition to the Uruguay Round
Agreements Act (URAA), the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the
URAA and the Department of Commerce's ( DOC) Explanation of its Final Rule."
24
(emphasis added)
4.75 According to Canada, this question was repeated at the consultations. Thus the United States
was well aware that Canada was concerned about US practice regarding the treatment of export
restraints. Moreover Canada states, the pre-WTO Commerce determinations identified by Canada at
the DSB meeting of September 11, 2000 are, as discussed above, plainly relevant to post-WTO
practice, given that the SAA and Preamble expressly give those cases continuing relevance.
4.76 Canada further submits that it is not challenging specific applications of Commerce's practice,
but rather the practice itself. In Canada's view, the United States was in no way "prevented … from
knowing the legal basis of the complaint,"
25 given that from the beginning of this dispute Canada has
never deviated from taking issue with the treatment of export restraints under US countervailing duty
law.
4. The Sufficiency Of Canada's Panel Request
4.77 Canada notes the US argument that with respect to the SAA and Preamble, Canada's Panel
Request is deficient because (1) the SAA and Preamble are not identified as "measures" and (2)
neither is a "measure." Canada asserts that it has already demonstrated above that the SAA and
Preamble are "measures".
4.78 Canada states in addition that contrary to the position of the United States, the sentence in
Canada's Panel Request identifying the measures at issue sets out four measures, not two. Canada
states that this is clear in Canada's First Written Submission, when after repeating the relevant
sentence from the Panel Request in paragraph 3, it breaks out the four measures in paragraph 13 as
part of explaining how Canada's description of these measures will occur in the submission. The four
measures are easily identified in this paragraph.
4.79 Canada maintains that the manner in which it has set out the measures in this case is almost
identical to the manner in which the measures in EC - Bananas were set out. In that case, the
Appellate Body considered it sufficient identification of the measures to reference the "regime for the

24 Letter from S. Marchi, Canada's Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the Permanent
Mission of Canada to the World Trade Organization, to R. Hayes, US Ambassador to the Permanent Mission of
the United States to the World Trade Organization, dated 13 June 2000. (US Exhibit 6)
25 US Request at para. 115.

importation, sale and distribution of bananas established by Regulation 404/93 (O.J. L 47 of
25 February 1993, p. 1), and subsequent EC legisl ation, regulations and administrative measures,
including those reflecting the provisions of the Framework Agreement on bananas, which implement,
supplement and amend that regime".26
4.80 Canada maintains that it has gone even further in this case in notifying, through its Panel
Request, the specific measures with which it takes issue, which Request Canada has already shown to
meet the requirements of Article 6.2 of the DSU. Further, it is clear to Canada from both the US
Request and the US First Written Submission that the United States has not been prejudiced, because
it has been able to respond fully to Canada's claims. In addition, Canada argues that its Panel Request
clearly satisfies the standard set out in Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain
Dairy Products.
27
5. Conclusion
4.81 For the foregoing reasons, Canada requests this Panel to reject the efforts of the United States
in the US Request to distract this Panel from its true task: resolving the dispute between Canada and
the United States regarding the treatment of export restraints under US countervailing duty law.
Therefore, Canada requests that this Panel find that the claims made in the US Request are without
foundation.
V. MAIN ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
5.1 The main arguments, presented by the parties in their written submissions and oral statements,
are summarized below. Summaries of the parties' written answers to written questions are attached at
Annex A.
A.
FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF CANADA
1. Introduction
5.2 Canada states that at issue in this dispute is the treatment of export restraints under US
countervailing duty law, which, in Canada's view, places the United States in violation of its
obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM Agreement)
and the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisation (the WTO Agreement).
5.3 According to Canada, under US countervailing duty law, a government regulatory action that
limits exports of a good (an export restraint) is considered to be a "financial contribution" within the
meaning of Article 1.1 (a)(1) of the SCM Agreement. US law therefore treats an export restraint as a
"subsidy" if, in the view of US investigating authorities, the export restraint has the effect of lowering
the domestic price of the restricted good to downstream users of that good. If those downstream users
of the restrained input product are subject to a US countervailing duty investigation, the alleged
"subsidy" is countervailable.
5.4 For Canada, this is inconsistent with Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement. The definition of
"subsidy" in Article 1.1 requires that there be a "financial contribution" (or an income or price
support) that confers a "benefit". The "financial contribution" element of the Agreement's definition
of "subsidy" is exhaustively defined in Article 1.1(a)(1) to encompass only particular government

26 See European Communities -- Regime for the Importation, Sale, and Distribution of Bananas,
Request for Establishment of a Panel by Ecuador, Gu atemala, Honduras, Mexico, and the United States,
WT/DS27/6, 12 April 1996. (Exhibit CAN-94)
27 Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products , Report of the
Appellate Body, WT/DS98/AB/R, 14 December 1999 at para. 123.

actions – the direct transfer of funds, the foregoing of government revenue, or the provision of goods
or services or purchase of goods – that transfer financial resources from a government, or at the
direction of a government, to a private producer. In Canada's view, an export restraint does not fall
within any of these categories.
5.5 More specifically, and contrary to US law, Canada argues, an export restraint does not fall
under Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the Agreement. An export restraint does not "entrust or direct" a
"private body" to "carry out the provision of goods" and does not meet the other requirements of
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv).
5.6 Canada asserts that the US measures that require this treatment of export restraints are
Section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, 28 as amended by the Uruguay Round Agreements Act ,
portions of the Statement of Administrative Action 29 accompanying the URAA interpreting
Section 771(5) with respect to export restraints, portions of the Preamble to the US Department of
Commerce Final Countervailing Duty Regulations 30 interpreting and implementing Section 771(5)
and the SAA with respect to export restraints, and Commerce's ongoing practice thereunder.
5.7 For Canada, in addition to being inconsistent with Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement, these
measures are inconsistent with Article 10 (as well as Articles 11, 17 and 19, as they relate to the
requirements of Article 10) and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, because they require the imposition of
countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1. For
the same reason, the measures violate obligations of the United States under both Article XVI:4 of the
WTO Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement to ensure conformity of its laws,
regulations and administrative procedures with its obligations under the WTO Agreements.
2. Pre- And Post-WTO US Countervailing Duty Law And The US Measures
5.8 Canada notes that the imposition of countervailing duties by the United States is governed by
the US countervailing duty statute, contained in Subtitle A of Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, ("the
Act") as amended from time to time. Section 701 of the Act sets forth the basic requirement that if
the administering authority determines that a countervailable subsidy is being provided to
merchandise under investigation, and the US International Trade Commission finds that a domestic
industry is materially injured by reason of imports of that merchandise, there " shall be imposed upon
such merchandise a countervailing duty … ." Thus, Canada states, the imposition of a duty is
mandatory if the subsidy and injury elements of the statute are satisfied.
5.9 Canada further notes that the definition of "countervailable subsidy" appears in
Section 771(5) of the Act. Under pre-WTO US law, there was no definition of "subsidy" as such, but
rather an illustrative list of subsidies. More generally, although some form of "government action"
was usually the predicate, a subsidy was defined as a "countervailable benefit" that was specific to
particular enterprises or industries.
5.10 Canada argues that until the 1990's, Commerce recognised that to countervail border
measures would lead to absurd results by bringing many legitimate government practices within the
ambit of the countervailing duty law, and consistently determined that border measures (including
export restraints) were not countervailable subsidies under US law.
31 Canada states that Commerce

28 Codified at 19 U.S.C. § 1677(5) (1994).
29 "Statement of Administrative Action" in H.R. Doc. No. 103-316, Vol. 1, in particular at 925-926
(1994).
30 Countervailing Duties, 63 Fed. Reg. 65,348 at 65,349-65,351 (Dep't Commerce 25 Nov. 1998) (final
rule).
31 See paragraphs 19 and 20 of Canada's First Written Submission dated 27 November 2000 (Canada's
First Submission).

departed radically from this position in two countervailing duty cases in the early 1990's, Leather
from Argentina 32 ( Leather) and Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada 33 ( Lumber).
According to Canada, Commerce concluded that the hide embargo in Leather and log export restraints
in Lumber were countervailable domestic subsidies because they had a "direct and discernible effect"
on domestic prices that benefited downstream producers. Commerce expressly did not consider the
restraint in either case to be a "provision of goods," 34 and in Lumber, rejected respondents' argument
that the export restraints were not countervailable because they involved no "financial contribution"
on the ground that neither the pre-WTO Subsidies Code nor US law required a "financial
contribution" for a subsidy to exist.
5.11 Accordingly, Canada states, the advent of the definition of subsidy in the SCM Agreement,
requiring a "financial contribution" and the consequent conferral of a "benefit" necessarily required
amendment of the US countervailing duty law. The United States undertook to implement the
definition of subsidy in the URAA by amending Section 771(5) of the Act. For Canada, although that
section, as amended, does not specifically address export restraints, it is the statutory underpinning for
the other measures that taken together with the statute commit the United States to treat export
restraints as "financial contributions".35
5.12 Canada states that the SAA accompanying the URAA sets forth the authoritative interpretation
of the URAA and the US Administration's obligations in implementing it. 36 Nearly all of the SAA
provisions on "financial contribution" focus on what the SAA refers to as "indirect subsidies" and the
Administration's intention that Section 771(5)(B)(iii) – where a government "entrusts or directs a
private entity to make a financial contribution" – be broadly interpreted to encompass practices like
those Commerce countervailed under the pre-WTO countervailing duty law. In particular, according
to Canada, the SAA directs Commerce to continue to find the circumstances of Leather and Lumber
countervailable. It is therefore an express and controlling direction to Commerce to apply
Section 771(5) to achieve the same result, with regard to export restraints, as under pre-WTO
Commerce practice.37
5.13 Canada notes that Commerce issued the Regulations implementing the URAA's amendments
to US countervailing duty law in 1998, and argues that the Regulations elaborate on the SAA's
interpretation that an export restraint satisfies the standards of the "entrusts or directs" provision in
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement and Section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the statute. First, they
confirm that the post- URAA "standard for finding an indirect subsidy" is unchanged from pre-WTO
practice. Second, they interpret the "entrusts or directs" standard as being met where a government
"causes" a private person (or group of unaffiliated private persons) to provide a benefit. Finally, they
declare export restraints to constitute a government 's entrustment or direction to a private entity to
provide goods – hence a "financial contribution" – that is countervailable if it "leads" to lower
domestic prices for the restrained good. For Canada, the Regulations thus make clear that Commerce
will find the entrusts or directs standard under Section 771(5)(B)(iii) to be met, and therefore will find
an export restraint to be a countervailable subsidy, where Commerce concludes that the producers of

32 Leather from Argentina , 55 Fed. Reg. 40,212 (Department of Commerce 2 Oct. 1990) (final
determination).
33 Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada , 57 Fed. Reg. 22,570, 22,610 (Department of
Commerce 28 May 1992) (final determination) (hereinafter Lumber).
34 See paragraph 24 of Canada's First Submission.
35 Canada notes that the Panel Report in United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974
noted that a national law may be "multi-layered," including statutory and other institutional and administrative
elements that are "often inseparable and should not be read independently from each other when evaluating the
overall conformity of the law with WTO obligations." WT/DS152/R, 22 December 1999 at paragraphs 7.26 and
7.27.
36 See paragraphs 32-35 of Canada's First Submission.
37 See paragraphs 36-41 of Canada's First Submission.

the restrained product are providing it to downs tream users for what Commerce views as "less than
adequate remuneration", i.e. whenever Commerce finds that a "benefit" has been conferred.38
5.14 Canada asserts that like the SAA and the Regulations, US practice pursuant to those measures
treats an export restraint as meeting the standard of Section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Act, as a matter of
US law.39
3. Legal Argument
(a) To Be A Countervailable Subsidy, A Practice Must Satisfy The Definition Of "Financial
Contribution"
5.15 Canada notes that under the SCM Agreement countervailing duties may only be imposed
against "subsidies". 40 For Canada, the US measures are inconsistent with US obligations under the
SCM Agreement because export restraints are not "subsidies" within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the
Agreement.
5.16 Canada states that the definition of "subsidy" in Article 1.1 applies by its own terms for all
purposes under the SCM Agreement. It thus applies in determining whether a countervailing duty
may be imposed under Article 10 of the Agreement, whether the evidence is adequate for initiating a
countervailing duty investigation under Article 11, and whether a provisional or final countervailing
duty may be imposed under Articles 17 or 19. Further, Article 32.1 of the Agreement provides that
"[n]o specific action against a subsidy of another Member can be taken except in accordance with the
provisions of GATT 1994, as interpreted by this Agreement" (emphasis added). Hence to be
countervailable a practice must satisfy the definition of "subsidy" in Article 1.1. No provision of the
WTO Agreements permits imposition of countervailing duties in circumstances or against practices
that do not meet the definition of "subsidy" in the SCM Agreement.
5.17 Canada asserts that the definition of subsidy in Article 1 of the SCM Agreement has two
discrete elements: (1) that there be "a financial contribution by a government or any public body"; and
(2) that "a benefit is thereby conferred". As the Appellate Body declared in Brazil – Export Financing
Programme for Aircraft , "financial contribution" and its conferral of a benefit are "separate legal
elements in Article 1.1 … which together determine whether a subsidy exists"41 [emphasis in the
original]. Moreover, for Canada, the terms of the Agreement make clear that the nature of the
government action is conclusive as to whether there is a "financial contribution" under
Article 1.1(a)(1). If a government has not acted in a manner enumerated in Article 1.1(a)(1), then a
"financial contribution" does not exist and there can be no "subsidy".
5.18 That particular kinds of government actions are prerequisites to the existence of a "subsidy" is
confirmed for Canada by the negotiating history of the SCM Agreement. According to Canada, the
United States proposed defining the term "subsidy" as any government action that confers a benefit,
thus avoiding the need to show a financial contribution.
42 That US proposal, however, which
reflected pre-WTO US law by focusing solely on the existence of a "benefit" and placing no limitation
on the nature of the government action required, was rejected, in favour of the language of
Article 1.1(a)(1). Canada asserts that the US position that the SCM Agreement changed nothing from
pre-WTO US law is therefore untenable.

38 See paragraphs 42-51 of Canada's First Submission.
39 See paragraphs 52-60 of Canada's First Submission.
40 Canada notes that the specificity and injury requirements of the SCM Agreement must also be
satisfied before countervailing duties may be imposed. However, for Canada, at issue in this case is the
meaning of the definition of "subsidy".
41 WT/DS46/AB/R, 2 August 1999 at paragraph 157.
42 See paragraph 71 of Canada's First Submission.

5.19 Moreover, Canada argues, the definition of "financial contribution" in Article 1.1(a)(1) is
exclusive and exhaustive as demonstrated by the ordinary meaning of the terms in their context and
confirmed by the negotiating history. The list of types of "financial contributions" in subparagraphs
(i) to (iv) of Article 1.1(a)(1) is introduced by "i.e. where," meaning "that is." This restricting term
makes clear that the list is exhaustive , not illustrative. By contrast, Canada states, where the
SCM Agreement negotiators intended a list to be illustrative, they used expressions such as "e.g."
instead. Successive, drafts of the Agreement text confirm this, showing an early shift from illustrative
("such as where") language to the definitive "i.e. where" that appears in the final text.
43
(b) The Treatment Of Export Restraints As An "Indirect Subsidy" Is Inconsistent With The
Express Terms Of The SCM Agreement
5.20 Canada notes that Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement sets out four categories of
government action that can constitute a "financial contribution." The first three are where a
government or public body (i) makes a direct or potential direct transfer of funds, such as grants,
loans, or loan guarantees; (ii) foregoes or does not collect government revenue otherwise due, such as
tax credits; and (iii) provides goods or services (other than general infrastructure) or purchases goods.
Notably, Canada states, each of these types of government action involves a transfer of economic (i.e.
financial) resources from a government to producers of goods or services. Canada argues that an
export restraint, by contrast, does not constitute such a transfer of financial resources by a government
and does not fall within any of these three categories. It is not a direct transfer of funds, the foregoing
of government revenue, or a provision of goods.
5.21 Canada states that the fourth category, in Ar ticle 1.1(a)(1)(iv), provides for an indirect
financial contribution. In Canada's view, to meet th e terms of that provision, five elements must be
satisfied: (a) a government must entrust or direct; (b) a private body; (c) to carry out one or more of
the types of functions listed in subparagraphs (i) through (iii); (d) which would normally be vested in
a government; and (e) the practice must, in no real sense, differ from practices normally followed by
governments. For a practice to qualify under Article 1.1(a)(iv), it must satisfy each of these elements.
For Canada, however, an export restraint satisfies none of them. The United States' assertion that an
export restraint falls within Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) as a government entrustment or direction to a private
body to provide goods to domestic users of the restrained product is therefore profoundly mistaken.
5.22 First, Canada argues, an export restraint does not "entrust or direct" anyone to do anything
affirmative. In their plain meaning, the words "entrusts or directs" connote an affirmative action to
order or commission someone to do something. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary defines
the term "entrust" as meaning to "invest with a trust; give (a person, etc.) the responsibility for a task
…".
44 "Entrust" thus carries a strong connotation of agency. The ordinary meaning of the term
"direct" is "to give authoritative instructions to; to ordain, order or appoint (a person) to do (a thing) to
be done; order the performance of".45
5.23 For Canada, these meanings are reinforced by the terms that immediately follow "entrusts or
directs", namely "to carry out". The ordinary meaning of "to carry out" is to "conduct to completion,
put into practice"46 or "to put into execution". 47 When read together, "entrusts or directs … to carry
out" suggests the communication of a duty or instru ction that is to be discharged or executed.

43 See paragraph 75 of Canada's First Submission.
44 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p. 831.
45 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 1 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p. 679.
46 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, vol. 1, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993), p. 343.
47 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary , 10 th ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1993),
p. 176.

According to Canada, an export restraint does not commission or charge or authoritatively instruct
producers of the restrained good to do anything; rather it limits their ability to export.
5.24 Second, Canada asserts, an export restraint does not entrust or direct a "private body" (or, as
used in US law but with the same meaning, a "p rivate entity") because the universe of private
producers of a good are not a "private body".
5.25 Rather, the ordinary meaning of "body' is "a group of persons or things: … a group of
individuals organised for some purpose … ." 48 The term "private body" thus connotes for Canada an
organised private group or collective entity that has a separate and independent existence." Put
differently, the fact that individuals may be described by a common characteristic – e.g. gold miners,
persons under 21, farmers or doctors – does not transform the universe of such individuals into a
"private body". Consequently, under the plain language of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv), as unorganised
individual producers, the hide producers and loggers of Leather and Lumber were not "private bodies"
in Canada's view.
5.26 Third, Canada argues, an export restraint does not entrust or direct a private body to "carry
out the provision of goods", but rather by definition limits the ability to export. It involves no transfer
of financial resources by a government to producers of goods. Indeed, as noted above, Commerce
itself expressly did not consider the export restraints in Leather or Lumber to constitute the provision
of goods.49 Producers of a good supply that good in the domestic market to the extent they wish to do
so, and whether or not there is an export restraint.
5.27 For Canada, under the United States' interpretation, a vast array of government regulatory
measures that do not meet the requirements of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement and were never meant
to be covered by it would become subject to the Agr eement. If an export restraint is considered to be
the provision of a good because it might result in greater domestic availability of a product, then any
measure that might induce or encourage domestic producers to increase the supply of a product would
have to be considered to be the provision of a good, and hence a financial contribution. In Canada's
view, this reflects an unthinkable expansion of the definition of "subsidy" in the SCM Agreement that
would undermine the bargain reached by the negotiators during the Uruguay Round and eliminate the
security and predictability that was achieved with the successful negotiation of the Agreement.
5.28 Canada states that the fourth and fifth elements of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) require that the
"function" in subparagraphs (i) through (iii) that a government "entrusts or directs a private body to
carry out" be one that "would normally be vested in the government", and that "the practice, in no real
sense, differs from practices normally followed by governments". Canada argues that these elements
are legal prerequisites to a financial contribution within Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) that are, by definition,
not met if, as in the case of export restraints, no function enumerated in subparagraphs (i) through (iii)
is involved. But as significantly for Canada, these elements add important context demonstrating that
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) is not a catch-all for governmental regulatory actions that in some sense may
result in economic benefits. Rather, it is intended to ensure that a government cannot avoid otherwise
applicable subsidies disciplines by entrusting or directing a private surrogate to make one of the types
of financial contribution delineated in Article 1.1(a)(i), (ii) or (iii) that the government normally
would have made directly. In Canada's view, an export restraint is plainly not a measure of that kind.
5.29 Finally, Canada maintains, the negotiating history confirms that export restraints are not
within the definition of subsidy in the SCM Agreement. During the Uruguay Round negotiations, the
United States itself recognised that the definition of "subsidy" that became Article 1.1(a) of the SCM

48 Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary , 10th ed. (Springfield, Mass.: Merriam-Webster, 1993) at
128.
49 See Lumber, 57 Fed. Reg. at 22,592, 22,609.

Agreement did not encompass export restraints. This is evident from US proposals tabled in the
Subsidies Negotiating Group, in which the United States sought disciplines on so-called "industrial
targeting" practices, including export restraints, in addition to subsidies defined in Article 1.1.
5.30 Canada further states that in its proposals, the United States considered an export restraint to
be a targeting "policy tool", and considered such "policy tools" to be separate and distinct from a
"subsidy". Thus, in Canada's view, the United Stat es plainly understood that an export restraint fell
outside the ambit of the definition of subsidy, an d effectively acknowledged this in the Negotiating
Group.50 Moreover, these US efforts to bring export restraints within the coverage of the SCM
Agreement failed, as was widely recognised by private US interests in their assessments of the
Uruguay Round negotiations.51
5.31 Canada argues that although the United States clearly failed in its attempt to have the
language of the SCM Agreement accommodate previous US law, the United States nevertheless
declined to alter the treatment accorded to export restraints under US law when purporting to
implement the new obligations of the Uruguay Round. While the United States amended the statutory
language of its countervailing duty law, it used the device of the SAA and the Regulations to assure
that the statutory language would be interpreted and implemented according to pre-WTO US law, and
contrary to the requirements of the SCM Agreement.
(c) The US Measures Also Violate The United States' Obligation To Bring Its Law Into
Conformity With The WTO Agreements
5.32 Canada argues that for the same reasons as discussed above, the treatment of export restraints
under US law is also inconsistent with the United States' obligations under Article XVI:4 of the WTO
Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement.
5.33 By their terms, Canada states, the obligations set out in these Articles are unqualified. They
reflect the fact that a law, regulation or administrative procedure that violates a WTO obligation
creates uncertainty and adversely effects the competitive opportunities for goods or services of other
Members. The fact that US law provides for the application of countervailing duties to practices that
are not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement means that the United
States has failed to ensure the conformity of its laws, regulations and administrative procedures with
its obligations under the SCM Agreement. Thus the United States should also be found in violation of
its obligations under Articles XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement.
B.
FIRST WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES
1. Introduction
5.34 In the view of the United States, for the Panel to find in Canada's favor, the Panel must
conclude that there is no imaginable set of circumstances in which an export restraint could operate as
a subsidy. The United States considers that Canada presents little, if any, description of particular
export restraints that exist in the real world. It is possible, in the US view, for an export restraint to
meet all of the definitional elements of an indirect subsidy set forth in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv).
Therefore, Canada's extraordinary request for an authoritative interpretation by the Panel of the SCM
Agreement must fail as a matter of substance.

50 See paragraphs 96-104 of Canada's First Submission.
51 See paragraphs 105-107 of Canada's First Submission.

2. Legal Argument
(a) Canada Bears the Burden of Proof
5.35 The United States argues that in this case, the burden of proof faced by Canada is formidable.
Canada has taken upon itself the burden of proving the negative; that there is not and never will be an
export restraint that could be regarded as a subsidy under Article 1.1. Canada has attempted to
surmount this difficult burden of proof by virtually avoiding discussion of any actual export restraint
measures that may exist in the world today, effectively asking the Panel to make an authoritative
interpretation in the absence of any facts.
(b) The SCM Agreement Does Not Preclude Treating an Export Restraint as a Subsidy
(i) As an Economic Matter, Export Restraints Are Recognized as Subsidies
5.36 The United States maintains that there is no question that economically, and in the vernacular,
export restraints are regarded as subsidies. In discussing an export restraint imposed by Indonesia, the
WTO Secretariat explained: "Restricting exports of the primary resource encourages downstream
processing by providing, in effect, an input subsidy to processors." This view is widely shared among
other international institutions. Numerous academic and policy studies also agree with this view. The
United States notes that Canada argues that notwithstanding this general view, export restraints can
never technically qualify as subsidies under Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.
(ii) Ruling Out the Possibility that Export Restraints Could Constitute Subsidies Would Be
Inconsistent with the Object and Purpose of the SCM Agreement
5.37 The United States asserts that the elements of Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties constitute "one holistic rule of interpretation rather than a sequence of separate tests
to be applied in a hierarchical order."
52 A recent panel described the object and purpose of the SCM
Agreement as follows: "In our view, the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement is to impose
multilateral disciplines on subsidies which distort international trade." For the United States, this
view is consistent with the generally held view of subsidies as distortions of international trade.
5.38 The United States asserts that this purpose is borne out by the text of the SCM Agreement
itself. Indirect subsidies are encompassed by Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv). While these measures do not
necessarily entail a cost to government, they are certainly "forms of government intervention [that]
distort international trade." If cost to government were a required element, the United States argues,
subparagraph (iv) would be meaningless.
53
5.39 For the United States, the ordinary meaning of subparagraph (iv) indicates that indirect
subsidies are potentially actionable. There is no rational way for Canada to argue that indirect
subsidies are actionable in appropriate circumstances, but that a particular type of indirect subsidy –
export restraints – never can be. If the Panel were to declare that, regardless of the facts, this
particular category of indirect subsidies is beyond the purview of the SCM Agreement, in the view of
the United States the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement would be undermined by making

52 United States 301, para. 7.22.
53 For the United States, "cost to government" is inco mpatible with the term "benefit" because it would
exclude from the scope of that term the very situations described by Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv). Canada Aircraft (AB),
para. 160.

circumvention of obligations by Members too easy. The Appellate Body previously has warned that
this is an outcome to be avoided.54
(iii) The Text and Context of Article 1.1 Indicate that an Export Restraint Can Constitute an
Indirect Subsidy Within the Meaning of Subparagraph (iv)
Canada's Narrow Approach to the Interpretation of Article 1.1 Is Wrong
5.40 According to the United States, neither the text of Article 1.1 in general nor subparagraph (iv)
in particular expressly excludes export restraints from the definition of "subsidy," 55 and Article 1.1
and subparagraph (iv) should be given an expansive reading.56 Canada, however, argues for a narrow
interpretation of Article 1.1. Canada relies primarily upon the use of the phrase "i.e., where" to
introduce the list of types of financial contributions in Article 1.1(a)(1).
5.41 The United States agrees that "i.e." is generally a limiting term. However, the phrase "i.e.,
where" is found in the chapeau of Article 1.1(a)(1). To the extent that the phrase is limiting, in the
view of the United States it merely limits the cate gories of "financial contributions" to four. The
phrase is not found within subparagraph (iv) itself. For the United States, while the phrase "i.e.,
where" establishes that the universe of subsidies is finite, it does not establish whether that finite
universe is large or small.
5.42 According to the United States, the text of subparagraph (iv) suggests a universe that is not as
confined as the one hypothesized by Canada. Subparagraph (iv) states that a financial contribution
exists where: "a government . . . entrusts or directs a private body to carry out one or more of the type
of functions illustrated in (i) to (iii) above" (emphasis added). In the US view, the word "type" means
"the general form, structure or character distinguishing a particular group or class of things." Thus,
the inclusion of the word "type" suggests that functions of the same general form, structure, or
character as those illustrated in subparagraphs (i) through (iii) would likewise constitute the indirect
provision of a financial contribution. Thus, the United States argues, the definition of an indirect
financial contribution in subparagraph (iv) is not as limited as Canada would have the Panel believe.
5.43 In the US view, one of Canada's own arguments supports this conclusion. Canada contends
that where the drafters intended a list to be illustrative, they used other terms - "e.g." or "such as".
Canada refers to other subparagraphs of Article 1.1(a)(1). To the United States, this indicates that
Canada recognizes that the phrase "i.e., where" in the introductory part of Article 1.1(a)(1) does not
limit the subparagraphs of Article 1.1(a)(1) to only the items listed in those subparagraphs where the
subparagraphs themselves contain language that is expansive rather than exhaustive. Because
subparagraph (iv) likewise contains language that is expansive rather than limiting, the United States
argues that subparagraph (iv) must be interpreted broadly.
57

54 Canada Autos (AB) , para. 142, in which the Appellate Body found the panel's interpretation of
Article 3.1(b) of the SCM Agreement to "be contrary to the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement, because
it would make circumvention of obligations by Members too easy."
55 The United States does not rule out the possibility that, depending on the facts, other provisions of
Article 1.1 might be relevant.
56 The United States notes that the Appellate Body has cautioned against interpretations that "elevate
form over substance and that permit Members to circumvent . . . subsidy disciplines ... ." Canada Dairy (AB),
para. 110.
57 According to the United States, in light of this discussion, Canada's statements regarding the
evolution of the phrase "i.e., where" have limited, if any, relevance.

The Text of Subparagraph (iv) Supports the Proposition That an Export Restraint Could Constitute a
Subsidy
5.44 The United States notes that under Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv), five elements are required for an
indirect subsidy. An export restraint is capable of satisfying each of these elements.
5.45 The United States argues that with respect to "entrusts or directs", "entrust" is defined in
relevant part as "invest with a trust; give (a person, etc.) responsibility for a task." Thus, if a
government gives a "private body" responsibility to carry out what might otherwise be a
governmental subsidy function of the type listed in subparagraphs (i)-(iii) of Article 1.1(a)(1), there
would be a financial contribution within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1).
5.46 In the view of the United States, definitions of the word "directs" include "cause to move in or
take a specified direction; turn towards a specified destination or target" or "to give authoritative
instructions to; to ordain, order (a person) to do (a thing) to be done ; order the performance of."
Additional definitions of "directs" include "to regulate the course of", and "to cause (something or
someone) to move on a particular course; to guide (something or someone); to govern; to instruct
(something or someone) with authority".
5.47 The United States asserts that it cannot be said that no export restraint is capable of satisfying
any of these definitions. At a minimum, an export restraint easily can be said to "regulate the
activities of" or "cause" a private body to carry out one of the enumerated functions of
subparagraph (iv), and thus provide a financial contribution.
5.48 For example, the United States argues, assume that in order to promote the production and
export of more value-added products, the government of Shangri-La decides to support its pineapple
juice industry. It begins to purchase all the pineapples from its growers and to re-sell those pineapples
to its pineapple juice industry at less than the government's purchase price. For the United States, it is
clear that a subsidy exists in such a case because the government has provided a financial contribution
to the pineapple juice industry by providing it with a good (pineapples) for less than adequate
remuneration.
5.49 Now further assume, argues the United States, that instead of purchasing the pineapples itself,
the government has sufficient control over the pineapple growers so that it can direct them to sell their
pineapples to the domestic pineapple juice industry. Here, it is the pineapple growers, and not the
government, that provides the good within the meaning of subparagraph (iii). Such a situation is , in
the US view, exactly the type of situation to which Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) is addressed. If the goods are
provided for less than adequate remuneration, a subsidy exists.
5.50 However, the United States asserts, the direction by the government of Shangri-La to the
pineapple growers to sell their pineapples to the domestic pineapple juice industry could be
effectuated through a variety of means. The government of Shangri-La could decree that growers sell
only to the domestic juice industry. According to the United States, the exact same result could be
achieved if, in the normal course, there were large volumes of pineapple exports and the government
of Shangri-La put a stop to such activity by prohibiting the export of pineapples. According to the
United States, the government, by directing the grow ers not to export, would be forcing them to sell
the pineapples they otherwise would have exported to the domestic users of pineapples.
5.51 According to the United States, if an increased supply of the product in the domestic market
causes the price for that product to be lowered, that is the same result as if the government had
ordered the growers to sell for less than market price. Thus, ordering the hypothetical pineapple
growers not to export can be the functional equivalent of ordering the growers to sell their products to

the juice industry for less than adequate remunerati on. In the US view, both types of functions fall
squarely within subparagraph (iv).58
5.52 The United States notes that Canada argues that an export restraint does not constitute a
direction to provide goods because an "export restraint does not commission or charge or
authoritatively instruct producers of the restrained good to do anything; rather, it limits their ability to
export." The United States further notes that the Panel is not restricted to the definitions chosen by
Canada.
59
5.53 For the United States, Canada's distinction between a prohibitive restriction and an
affirmative obligation is simply an elevation of form over substance. The two are functionally
equivalent – where a producer is faced with two options, a prohibition on one option is an affirmative
direction to perform the other. The United States maintains that an export ban clearly directs
producers not to export, thereby directing them to seek the only other purchasers available to them for
the sale of their goods.
5.54 The United States continues that with respect to "private body", neither the word nor the
concept of an "organized" body is contained in the SCM Agreement (regardless of what language
version is reviewed), nor should that term be read into the Agreement.60
5.55 For the United States, the word "body" has multiple meanings. For example, "body" may
refer to the singular, e.g., "an individual, a person," or the plural, e.g., "an aggregate of individuals."
The United States notes that even Canada offers the alternate definition of "a group of persons or
things." Thus, in the case of an export restraint, a government may be viewed as directing each
individual producer or producers as a group not to export, or to export only under certain limited
conditions.
5.56 For the United States, Canada's argument that "a common characteristic, – e.g., gold miners,
persons under 21, farmers or doctors – does not transform the universe of such individuals into a
'private body'" is obviously mistaken. The very dictionary upon which Canada itself relies states that
a "body" is defined to include: "an assemblage of units characterized by some common attribute and
thus regarded as a whole; a collective mass (of persons or of things)."
5.57 The United States argues that under Canada's view, an association of steel producers would
constitute a private body (presumably, because it is "organized"), but the individual steel producers
belonging to the association would not, despite the fa ct that each individual steel producer is itself a
corporate body. Consistent with the text and object and purpose of the SCM Agreement, the United
States maintains, no rational distinction can be drawn between the association and its corporate
members. Nor is there a difference between banks and credit unions (which Canada concedes are
private bodies) and any other supplier of a good or service.

58 For the United States, in either case, there is a tr ansfer of resources from the growers to the juice
industry, and "a 'subsidy' involves a transfer of economic resources from the grantor to the recipient for less than
full consideration." Canada Dairy (AB), para. 87.
59 According to the United States, Canada's Special Import Measures Act, S.C. 1984, c. 25, s.2, finds an
indirect subsidy to exist where: "The government permits or directs a non-governmental body to do any thing
referred to in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) ... ." Thus, Canada is urging on the Panel a standard that it does not
apply for purposes of its own CVD law.
60 The United States states that the Spanish vers ion of the SCM Agreement refers to an "entitad
privada", which translated into English is a "private entity." Canada relies on the French version of the
SCM Agreement which uses the phrase "organisme privé" and argues that that term means "an organised
group." However, the term "organisme" translated into English is defined as an "organisation" or a "body."

5.58 According to the United States, as long as there is some entity that could constitute a private
body even under Canada's narrow definition ( e.g., an organized association of producers) that could
be entrusted or directed by virtue of an export restraint to provide a good or service, the "private
body" element of subparagraph (iv) must be regarded as capable of being satisfied by an export
restraint.
5.59 The United States notes that the third element of subparagraph (iv) refers back to the previous
three subparagraphs, by stating that the private body must be entrusted or directed "to carry out one or
more of the type of functions illustrated in (i) to (iii) above." The United States states that the
ordinary meaning of "carry out" is to "perform, conduct to completion, put into practice." Thus, in the
case of an export restraint, if a "private body" performs the function entrusted or directed to it by the
government, this element is satisfied.
5.60 For the United States, conceptually, an export restraint qualifies under subparagraph (iii) of
Article 1.1(a)(1) regarding the provision of goods or services. In the case of an export restraint, the
United States argues, the government would be directing a private body (producers of a good) to
provide the restricted good to the domestic industry that uses the good by restricting the producers'
ability to sell elsewhere.
5.61 The United States notes that Canada argues that each type of government action in
subparagraphs (i)-(iii) "involves a transfer of economic (i.e., financial) resources from a government
to producers of goods or services" and that an export restraint is not such a transfer of financial
resources. For the United States, this argument is simply another iteration of Canada's long-held (and
rejected) position that a subsidy (whether direct or indirect) can exist only where there is some net
cost to the government.
5.62 The United States further notes that Canada also argues that the "producers of a good supply
that good in the domestic market to the extent they wish to do so, and whether or not there is an
export restraint." For the United States, this is simply not true. While producers of a good will
certainly continue to supply goods to the domestic market where an export restraint is in place
(because they have no other choice), they are not supplying the domestic market "to the extent they
wish to do so."
5.63 The United States recalls that the final element of subparagraph (iv) requires that the function
at issue "would normally be vested in the government and the practice, in no real sense, differs from
practices normally followed by governments." In the US view, Canada offers no explanation at all as
to why an export restraint never could be capable of satisfying this element. Instead, Canada merely
falls back on its erroneous arguments relating to the first three elements, and asserts (incorrectly) that
because an export restraint never could satisfy all of the first three elements, the last element
necessarily is not satisfied.
5.64 The United States maintains that putting aside Canada's failure to argue the point, the text
does not elaborate on this element. However, for the United States, a report of a GATT panel is
instructive as to the likely intended meaning of these phrases, referring specifically to the government
"functions of taxation and subsidization." The United States argues that Canada acknowledges that
whether a practice differs, in any real sense, from practices normally followed by governments
depends on the circumstances relating to the government and the financial contribution in question.
5.65 For the United States, the important point is that where a government is involved in the
provision of a good or service and, instead of providing that good or service directly, it entrusts or
directs a private body to provide the good or service to domestic purchasers, by way of an export
restraint or otherwise, there could be a financial contribution within the meaning of subparagraph (iv).
More importantly, the United States argues, it is clear that subparagraph (iv) refers to functions

"normally" performed by governments in the context of providing a subsidy; any other meaning
would leave subparagraph (iv) utterly empty.
5.66 Finally, in the view of the United States, an export restraint is capable of providing a benefit.
The United States asserts that whether a particular export restraint confers a benefit is a factual
question that can only be determined on a case-by-case basis, applying the standard set forth in
Article 14(d) of the SCM Agreement regarding the provision of goods or services. Although, the
United States argues, Canada appears to concede the possibility that an export restraint can confer a
benefit, it nonetheless argues that "if an export restraint is considered to be the provision of a good
because it might result in greater domestic availability of a product, then any measure that might
induce or encourage domestic producers to increase the supply of a product would have to be
considered the provision of a good, and hence a financial contribution." With respect to this "slippery
slope" argument, the United States indicates, the simple answer is that as a factual matter, it is
unlikely that all such measures could be found to confer a financial contribution, within the meaning
of subparagraph (iv), that results in a benefit, within the meaning of Article 1.1(b). Indeed, the
United States notes, in Live Cattle from Canada , the DOC determined that the measure in question
did not confer a benefit, and, thus, did not constitute a subsidy.
5.67 In addition, the United States recalls, only those government measures that are specific within
the meaning of Article 1.2 of the SCM Agreement are actionable. Thus, for the United States, it is
clear that not all government measures that increase the supply of a product would constitute
countervailable subsidies. Indeed, history has shown that there have been very few CVD
investigations, if any, that have involved general government "regulatory" regimes. In the US view,
the absence of such cases undermines Canada's plea for a narrow definition of subparagraph (iv)
based on an alleged flood of litigation.
The Context of Subparagraph (iv) Supports the Proposition that an Export Restraint Can Constitute a
Subsidy
5.68 The United States argues that indirect subsidies also are covered by item (d) of the Illustrative
List of Export Subsidies, and that item (d) is highly pertinent to the interpretation of Article 1.1,
because each type of subsidy described in the Illustrative List must satisfy the requirements of
Article 1.1. Thus, for the United States, the language of subparagraph (iv) must be sufficiently broad
so as to encompass "government-mandated schemes" under item (d). At a minimum, the
United States argues, it is not hard to think of export restraints as a "government-mandated scheme"
designed to benefit users of the restricted product.
5.69 In Canada - Dairy ,
 the United States asserts, the panel considered item (d) for purposes of
deciding whether Canada's dual-pricing scheme could constitute an export subsidy not listed in
Article 9.1 of the Agreement on Agriculture. The panel concluded that the scheme was a
"government-mandated scheme" of the type described in item (d). According to the panel:
[I]n the event milk were not directly provided by Canada's governments or their
agencies under Classes 5(d) and (e), in our view, it is at least indirectly provided
through government-mandated schemes. For there to be such schemes we do not
consider it necessary, as argued by Canada, that the federal or provincial
governments specifically direct a certain outcome or course of action to be achieved
or taken by the CDC, the provincial marketing boards or the CMSMC. (emphasis
added).
5.70 For the United States, this finding by the panel is highly relevant to this case, because Canada
has argued that an export restraint can never cons titute a subsidy because "[a]n export restraint does
not commission or charge or authoritatively instruct producers of the restrained good to do

anything ... ." However, in the US view, the Canada - Dairy panel flatly rejected such a standard,
finding instead that in order for an indirect subs idy to exist, it is not necessary that "governments
specifically direct a certain outcome or course of action to be achieved or taken ... ."
(iv) Nothing in the Negotiating History of the SCM Agreement Precludes the Possibility that an
Export Restraint Could Constitute a Subsidy
5.71 The United States maintains that Canada has brought up the negotiating history of the SCM
Agreement in a vain attempt to overcome the conclusion to which the text, context, and object and
purpose inexorably lead. For the United States, nothing in the negotiating history establishes that
export restraints can never constitute subsidies.
5.72 The United States recalls that Canada asserts that during the Uruguay Round negotiations,
"the United States itself recognised that the SCM Agreement definition of subsidy . . . did not
encompass export restraints." According to Cana da, this is evident from US proposals relating to
industrial targeting practices.61
5.73 According to the United States, the negotiating history reveals that, while the United States
would have preferred that the SCM Agreement explicitly address "industrial targeting," the
United States did not ever take the position that the term "subsidy" could never encompass export
restraints. More importantly for the United States, the results of the negotiations reveal no explicit
"carve out" or exception for export restraints.
5.74 The United States recalls that in order to facilitate work, the Secretariat prepared a list of
problems that had arisen in the operation of the relevant GATT 1947 agreements. The Secretariat
noted that the Group of Experts on the Calculation of the Amount of a Subsidy had been discussing
criteria to determine when certain practices might constitute countervailable subsidies and how the
amount of the subsidy should be measured. The Secretariat listed four types of subsidies discussed by
the Group – one of which was "export restrictions." Clearly, the United States argues, someone in the
Group of Experts thought that export restrictions were capable of constituting subsidies.
5.75 The United States recalls that in March 1987, it tabled its first proposal on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures, the relevant portion consisting of two paragraphs, the first of which reads:
Industry targeting consists of a government plan or scheme of
coordinated measures to assist specific export-oriented industries.
While some targeting measures are clearly covered by subsidies
disciplines, the application of the Code to other measures is unclear.
As a result, there has been extensive debate in the Subsidies Code
Committee over whether government "targeting" practices fall within
the internationally-accepted definition of a subsidy. To date,
however, there has been no agreement as to whether industrial
policy-type measures that result in the indirect channelling of
resources to a specific industry or sector constitute countervailable
subsidies or should be addressed under some other provision of
GATT. (emphasis added).
According to the United States, this paragraph sets out the common understanding that there was no
agreement as to whether government targeting practices constituted countervailable subsidies, as well

61 The United States notes in this regard that the term "industrial targeting" referred to a government
plan or scheme of coordinated measures to assist specific export-oriented industries.

as the US position that certain components of "targeting" were already covered by subsidies
disciplines.
5.76 The United States recalls that the second paragraph of its March 1987 proposal reads as
follows:
The United States believes that the Uruguay Round negotiations
should clarify what remedies are available for the trade distortions
and economic damage associated with targeting and other industrial
policy measures that affect trade. The United States is concerned that
the international trade rules do not adequately address the trade
damage that can result from industrial targeting programs.
5.77 In the view of the United States, Canada is asking the Panel to selectively read this paragraph
to mean that the United States conceded that export restraints are not encompassed under the
definition of subsidy. However, in the view of the United States, the full text of the US statement
does not support Canada's interpretation. Rather, the United States' desire to clarify that targeting and
certain other industrial policy measures are subject to international trading rules and disciplines
simply reflects the fact that there was no agreement on this issue. Other documents quoted by Canada
prove this point, according to the United States.
5.78 The United States asserts that Canada reproduces three quotations from the Secretariat's Notes
on the June 1990 meeting as alleged proof that the United States "plainly understood that an export
restraint fell outside the ambit of the definition of subsidy." The United States argues that the most
relevant quotation, however, states as follows:
[The United States ] found that among the policies most frequently
used were the following: protection of the home market, promotion
or toleration of cartels, discriminatory or preferential government
procurement practices, direction of capital (government to private) to
certain enterprises, export restrictions, and manipulation of the user
market to reduce the risk associated with product development and
commercialization.
5.79 The United States notes that Canada argues that the inclusion of "export restrictions" in this
discussion of "industrial targeting" makes it "plain" that export restraints were not regarded as
subsidies. In fact, the United States asserts, it made clear that some of the actions encompassed by
industrial targeting were, standing alone, subsidies. Indeed, the United States argues, the document
Canada quotes includes in the list of possible elements of "industrial targeting" "discriminatory or
preferential government procurement practices" (e.g., the purchase of goods by a government for
more than adequate remuneration) and the "direction of capital (government or private) to certain
enterprises." Clearly for the United States, like export restraints, these can be actionable subsidies
under Article 1.1, even though the United States categorized them as possible elements of "industrial
targeting."
5.80 In the US view, Canada also misrepresents positions taken in litigation during the pendency
of the Uruguay Round. Using partial quotations from DOC CVD determinations made at the time,
according to the United States, Canada asserts that the United States conceded that export restraints
cannot constitute a financial contribution. In the view of the United States, these determinations
obviously do not constitute part of the negotiating history of the SCM Agreement, and are therefore
irrelevant. However, the United States asserts, Canada's misrepresentations are so blatant that they
require clarification.

5.81 The United States asserts that in the Softwood Lumber case, Canada argued that an export
restraint did not constitute a subsidy because an export restraint did not constitute a financial
contribution, in the sense of a transfer of resources from the government to th e recipient. According
to the United States, it was clear that the dicta Canada has cited was based on Canada's
characterization of the meaning of "financial contribution." Consistent with its Uruguay Round
negotiating position at the time, Canada equated a "financial contribution" with a cost to the
government. This becomes clear, the United States argues, when one considers the full quotation
from the DOC determination, which Canada quotes only partially.
5.82 In a final attempt to bolster its argument, the United States asserts, Canada cites statements by
US industries concerning the results of the Uruguay Round negotiations. Notwithstanding the fact
that many of these parties expressed concern only that export restraints "might" cease to be
countervailable, in the view of the United States, US industries' assessments cannot be considered part
of the negotiating history. Moreover, even if certain US industries (erroneously) thought that the
Article 1.1 definition might preclude treating export restraints as subsidies, other US industries clearly
did not take that view.
5.83 Thus, for the United States the only thing the negotiating history demonstrates is that the
United States unsuccessfully sought to include language on targeting practices in the SCM
Agreement. However, at no time did the United States concede that export restraints could never
constitute subsidies standing alone, and the SCM Agreement contains no explicit exception for export
restraints; i.e., no indication that export restraints can never, under any circumstances, constitute a
subsidy. Yet, the United States argues, that is what Canada would have the Panel conclude, and the
Panel should decline to do so.
3. Conclusion
5.84 In the view of the United States, Canada fails to demonstrate that never, under any set of
circumstances, can an export restraint constitute a subsidy under Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.
The United States asserts that to the contrary, the United States has demonstrated that on the basis of
standard principles of treaty interpretation, subparagraph (iv) of Article 1.1(a)(1) – the provision cited
by Canada – can accommodate export restraints. As a result, the United States argues, Canada has
failed to satisfy its burden of proof.
C. F
IRST ORAL STATEMENT OF CANADA
1. The US Request For Preliminary Rulings
5.85 Canada refers to its Response to the US Request (See Section IV.B, infra).
2. The Definition Of "Subsidy" In The SCM Agreement
5.86 Canada argues that in its first written submission, the United States misinterprets the SCM
Agreement definition of "subsidy" in several respects, beginning with assertions about economics and
a flawed version of the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement. According to Canada, while the
United States purports to apply the requirements of the Vienna Convention, its approach seeks to bend
the ordinary meaning of the words in order to enable the United States to continue to act against
practices that might confer a benefit.
5.87 Canada states that as the Appellate Body made clear in Canada – Aircraft , however, the
interpretative task begins with "examining the ordinary meaning of the text". Canada agrees, and
begins with the text of Article 1.1(a)(1).

5.88 Canada asserts that the United States agrees with it that Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement
defines the universe of what constitutes a "subsidy." Thus, Canada states, both countries concur that
the existence of a "subsidy" within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement is a prerequisite
to the imposition of countervailing measures. Where Canada and the United States differ, according
to Canada, is the extent of the "universe" of government actions encompassed within the definition of
"financial contribution" in Article 1.1(a)(1) of the Agreement.
5.89 Canada states that in keeping with the approach to treaty interpretation set forth in the Vienna
Convention it believes that a government regulatory measure that restrains exports is not within the
ordinary meaning of the terms of Article 1.1 (a)(1)(iv). In restraining exports, Canada states, a
government does not "entrust or direct" a "private body" to make a financial contribution enumerated
in subparagraphs (i) through (iii), or meet the other requirements of subparagraph (iv). Each of these
failings is sufficient to render the US measures inconsistent with the SCM and WTO Agreements.
5.90 Regarding the "entrusts or directs" element, Canada notes that the United States concentrates
its arguments on the concept of "directs" rather than "entrusts", thus apparently recognizing that a
restraint on a producer's ability to export cannot be seen as investing a producer with a trust or
responsibility to carry out a governmental function.
5.91 Remarkably to Canada, however, the United States claims that the term "directs" means
"causes". Not only do these words commonly mean very different things, Canada counters, but
"causes" is taken completely out of context from dictionary definitions offered by the United States
and an export restraint plainly does not meet those de finitions. For example, if "direct" is defined to
mean "cause to take a specified direction", an export restraint would not qualify as a "direction" under
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv), because the "specified direction" would need to be "to carry out one or more of
the type of functions illustrated in [subparagraphs] (i ) to (iii)." Yet Canada maintains, the "specified
direction" in the case of an export restraint is not to provide goods, but rather is "to not export." The
same is true if "directs" is defined as "to cause (something or someone) to move on a particular
course". In the case of an export restraint, the "particular course" is " to not export", Canada states; it
is not to make a financial contribution by providing goods.
5.92 In short, Canada argues, the ordinary meaning of "directs" is to "give authoritative
instructions to" or "order a person to do a thing", and even the dictionary definitions supplied by the
United States cannot be stretched to transform the plain meaning of "directs" into "causes". Canada
argues that the drafters were obviously familiar with the concept of causation, and that it must be
assumed that if they had contemplated using that concept in subparagraph (iv) of the definition of
"financial contribution", they would have used that word.
5.93 For Canada, the US approach would lead to absurd and unpredictable results, and would
expand the SCM Agreement definition of "subsidy" beyond recognition by subjecting the exercise of
regulatory authority by governments to countervailing measures. For example, considering the
situation where a government restricts imports of steel, or increases its steel tariffs within its WTO
tariff bindings, under the US approach if this led to an increase in domestic steel prices, the
government would have "caused" private parties (steel purchasers) to provide funds to steel producers
that otherwise would not have been provided, and therefore would have provided a financial
contribution. But according to Canada this was clearly not intended.
5.94 In Canada's view, the US approach to the term "private body" is similarly aimed at
diminishing, rather than giving effect to, the ordinary meaning of the terms of the treaty, and for that
reason is equally flawed. The United States insists that "private body" can mean, among other things,
a vast number of unassociated individual persons, in effect asserting, for example, that "all persons
under 21" can be a "private body", but doing so by reference to dictionary definitions that refer to "an
assemblage" or a "collective". Canada argues that the United States offers no suggestion why the

drafters used the term "private body" if, as the US urges, they meant "private person or persons".
Finally, according to Canada, the US approach does not articulate any principle that would distinguish
between private actors in terms of which situations involve a "body" and which do not. Thus, taken
together with the US interpretation of "direct" to mean "cause", the US view would in Canada's view
mean that any government action that affects the marketplace (that is, individual buyers and sellers)
would "entrust or direct a private body." Had that been the drafters' intent, Canada maintains, they
could surely have so stated.
5.95 Canada notes that the third element of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) is that what a private body must be
directed or entrusted to do is to carry out a financial contribution within subparagraphs (i)
through (iii). Canada states that an export restraint limits a producer's ability to export, and does not
"entrust or direct" a producer to "provide goods" as the United States contends. Indeed, the US
argument to the contrary is not based on the treaty terms at all in Canada's view, but rather is simply
an assertion that an export restraint is "conceptually" the same thing as a provision of goods. For
Canada, even if this were true, Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) does not say "…the provision of goods or
anything conceptually similar ." Rather the text identifies the provision of goods as the relevant
function in subparagraph (iii).
5.96 For Canada, the US argument that government actions are countervailable where they are the
so-called "functional equivalent" of financial contributions listed in (i) through (iii) is similarly
flawed. "Functional equivalence" and "conceptual similarity" are unbounded concepts that eliminate
the textual limitations imposed in Article 1.1(a)(1) and introduce a level of subjectivity and hence
uncertainty into the definition of financial contribution that the drafters could not possibly have
intended.
5.97 Finally, Canada states, the fourth and fifth elements of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) confirm that the
expansive interpretation that the United States urges for that provision is not warranted by the text. In
Canada's view, those elements make clear that subparagraph (iv) does not open the definition of
subsidy to encompass government regulatory actions that are not financial contributions within
subparagraphs (i) through (iii), but rather is de signed to ensure that a government cannot escape
subsidy disciplines by entrusting or directing a private body to make a financial contribution that the
government normally would have made directly.
5.98 For Canada, the US hypothetical example of pineapples in Shangri-La is a telling illustration
of why an export restraint does not come within th e text of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv). Under the ordinary
meaning of the words "entrust or direct", the hypothetical export restraint does not in Canada's view
"entrust or direct" a private body to provide pineapples to the juice industry, it simply prevents the
exportation of those pineapples. Moreover, Canada maintains, the producers, who already "provide
pineapples" without government direction, may choose to continue to do so to the same extent, or
make other economic choices. Similarly, in the example, pineapple producers do not act as a
collective, but make individual and probably varying decisions. Finally, Canada argues, the US claim
that an export restraint on pineapples is the "functio nal equivalent" of ordering the growers to sell to
the juice industry at "less than adequate remuneration" is nothing less than a claim that if there is a
price effect, an export restraint may be presumed to be a financial contribution.
5.99 Put differently, Canada states, this is an assertion that a benefit can "confer" a financial
contribution. However, as the Appellate Body explained in Canada – Aircraft, a financial
contribution must cause or lead to the benefit that is conferred, and not the reverse. A benefit cannot
cause or lead to a financial contribution.
5.100 For Canada, its view of the text of the subsidy definition is borne out by the object and
purpose of the SCM Agreement. Canada notes the Appellate Body statement in United States –
Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products : "It is in the words constituting [a]

provision, read in their context, that the object and purpose of the states parties to the treaty must first
be sought." As such, Canada argues, the United States has not only mischaracterized the object and
purpose of the SCM Agreement, it has also deprived the text of Article 1.1 of its true meaning by
beginning and basing its entire analysis on such a view.
5.101 In Canada's view, while one of the purposes of the SCM Agreement is to discipline certain
forms of government action that may distort international trade, this is not the only object and purpose
of the Agreement. Another purpose of the Agreement is to discipline the use of countervailing duty
measures, hence its title "Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures". While discipline in
regard to both of these "purposes" has now been achieved through the Agreement, Canada maintains,
the fundamental question under the Agreement remains: "What forms of government action are
subject to these disciplines?"
5.102 Canada notes that the United States' first written submission begins with an excerpt from the
"Statement Made by the Delegation of C anada at the Meeting Held on 28-29 June 1988 ." Canada
asserts that the United States has, however, quoted only selectively from Canada's statement, and that
when considered in the context of the full statemen t, which is found in a section entitled "Parameters
for the scope and application of countervail"
62, it is clear that Canada is speaking to the question of
why, in Canada's view, disciplines on countervail were needed in the SCM Agreement.
5.103 With this in mind, Canada agrees that the SCM Agreement disciplines the use of trade-
distorting subsidies. However, Canada maintains, the Agreement does so by defining the concept of a
subsidy, by specifying what kinds of subsidies are prohibited, actionable, or non-actionable and by
setting out the rules on how countervailing measures are to be applied against actionable subsidies.
Accordingly, it is clear that the Agreement not only creates disciplines on the use of subsidies, but
also creates disciplines on when countervailing measures may be imposed. This balance was an
integral part of arriving at the negotiated result.
5.104 Finally, Canada argues, the United States claims that the Canadian interpretation of
Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement would "make circumvention of obligations by Members too easy."
Yet for Canada, whether an export restraint constitutes circumvention of the SCM Agreement turns on
whether export restraints are covered by the SCM Agreement. If they are not covered, then
maintaining an export restraint would not constitute circumvention. Therefore in Canada's view, the
US argument is circular because it assumes the conclusion it desires to prove.
3. The United States' Arguments Regarding th e "Economics" of Export Restraints are
Misplaced
5.105 Canada notes that the United States first asserts that there is "no question that economically,
and in the vernacular, export restraints are regarded as subsidies" because they can have price effects.
Such an assertion in Canada's view assumes that a potential economic effect determines whether there
is a financial contribution under Article 1.1(a)(1). For Canada, whatever the United States may think
a subsidy is in the "vernacular" is not relevant to the meaning of the definition of subsidy in the SCM
Agreement, and none of the sources relied on by the United States addresses whether an export
restraint comes within the meaning of the text of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.
5.106 More specifically, Canada argues, the United States alleges that when faced with an export
restraint, a domestic producer has only one economic choice and that is to sell the restrained good to
domestic purchasers of that good. From an economic perspective, in Canada's view, this is simply
incorrect. It does not inevitably follow that an ex port restraint will force a domestic producer of the
restrained good to sell into the domestic market. Furthermore, as Commerce itself recognized in

62 The entire statement was attached to Canada's Oral Statement as Exhibit CAN–106.

Anhydrous and Aqua Ammonia from Mexico , it does not necessarily follow that a reduction in the
price of the restrained good, if any, in the domestic market for that good after the imposition of an
export restraint, will be caused by that export restraint63.
5.107 In the view of Canada this same mistaken approach to economics underlies the points that the
United States tries to make through its hypothetical discussion of the pineapple industry in Shangri-La
that is prohibited from exporting. As presented by the United States, a pineapple grower in Shangri-
La would have no choice but to sell pineapples to the domestic pineapple juice industry, which for
Canada is simply not true. Pineapple growers could make a number of different choices in response
to a restraint on the export of pineapples. Growers might switch to growing another fruit or other crop
that the land is suited to. They could choose to become integrated producers and produce pineapple
juice products with their own and/or others' production or they could supply pineapples to other end
users or make other choices. While Canada acknowledges that an export restraint limits a domestic
producer's ability to export the restrained good, it maintains that it is not true that an export restraint
"requires" or "forces" a producer of the restrained good to sell it to particular users of that good at
lower prices. As such it does not "entrust or direct" these producers.
5.108 Thus, in Canada's view, the United States is wrong in asserting that an export restraint is the
"functional equivalent" of ordering producers of a restrained good to sell the restrained good to
domestic users of that good. For Canada, this does not necessarily follow either economically, or
from a textual analysis of the wording of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement. As such, the
efforts of the United States to broaden the plain meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the Agreement
beyond any reasonable interpretation of those words must in Canada's opinion fail.
D.
FIRST ORAL STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
5.109 The United States argues that the WTO does not regulate opinions and WTO dispute
settlement does not deal with "thought crimes." Instead, the WTO regulates – and WTO dispute
settlement deals with – measures taken. With respec t to the subject matter of this dispute, the United
States maintains, relevant measures would be either (1) the imposition of countervailing duties in a
manner inconsistent with the SCM Agreement, or (2) the enactment of a law, regulation or procedure
that mandates domestic authorities to impose countervailing duties in a manner inconsistent with the
SCM Agreement. The United States notes that Canada does not allege the former, and asserts that the
United States has not done the latter.
5.110 The United States argues that it is bad enough that Canada seeks to enjoin the DOC from
expressing tentative opinions, but to make matters worse, Canada seeks to obtain its injunction by
asking the Panel to rule entirely in the abstract that never, under any set of circumstances present or
future, can an export restraint constitute a subsidy under Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.
5.111 In the view of the United States, Canada's extraordinary request for an advisory opinion has
dangerous implications for the WTO dispute settlement system. The United States indicates that it
has no hesitation in addressing the substantive issues raised by Canada, but feels compelled to address
the broader systemic issues first.
5.112 The United States maintains that it is not seeking to deny Canada any of its rights, but that it
is simply faced with a situation where the United States has not taken any measures that impair
Canada's WTO rights. The United States argues that should it ever take such measures, Canada's right
to challenge such actions is fully preserved.

63 See Canada's First Written Submission at para. 19, footnote 8.

5.113 In the view of the United States, there is a well-established method by which the Panel can
dismiss Canada's attempt to have panels get into the business of regulating Members' opinions and
issuing authoritative interpretations. That method is to apply the mandatory/discretionary doctrine.
5.114 The United States notes that Canada does not dispute the continuing validity of the
mandatory/discretionary doctrine or the US interpretation of that doctrine. Instead, the United States
argues, Canada advances the factually inaccurate argument that the various documents it has cited
require the DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies (or financial contributions). Alternatively,
Canada makes the novel argument that even if these documents do not require that the DOC treat
export restraints as subsidies (or financial contributions), the Panel cannot make that finding until it
first makes a ruling, in the abstract, that an export restraint can never, under any set of circumstances
present or future, constitute a subsidy under Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement. For the
United States, Canada is wrong on both counts.
5.115 With respect to Section 771(5), the United States maintains, Canada has consistently
acknowledged that Section 771(5), on its face, does not require the DOC to treat export restraints as
subsidies (or financial contributions). Thus, ther e appears to be agreement that Section 771(5) does
not mandate WTO-inconsistent action.
5.116 Turning to the SAA, the United States argues that Canada alleges that the United States has
attempted to misportray that document's status. In the view of the United States this is not the case, as
set forth in paragraph 75 of the US Request.
5.117 The United States asserts that its disagreement with Canada is not with the SAA's status
(although the United States does disagree that it is a "measure" in its own right), but rather with what
the SAA means. In the view of the United States, the only way one can read the SAA is as a decision
by Congress and the Administration to refrain from deciding exactly what types of measures
previously falling under the rubric of "indirect subsidies" could be considered as subsidies under the
new definition set forth in Section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act and Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the
SCM Agreement.
5.118 As a matter of US law, the United States as serts, the Preamble is at most a non-binding
statement by the DOC regarding its views at the time concerning the scope of Section 771(5)(B)(iii).
The United States recalls that the DOC did not promulgate a regulation dealing with indirect subsidies
in general, or export restraints in particular. While the DOC expressed the view in the Preamble that
export restraints might qualify as subsidies in appropriate circumstances, it did not definitively say
that they do or otherwise bind itself to that view.
5.119 The United States notes that Canada cites a handful of cases – none of which involve the
DOC's regulations or even the US countervailing duty law – for the proposition that agency
statements in preambles to notices of final rules are always binding on the agency. However, for the
United States each of these cases is either distinguishable or does not support the proposition for
which it is submitted, as demonstrated by US Exhibits 26-29. Of particular significance to the
United States is the fact that the Preamble was not included in the Code of Federal Regulations. This
is because, the United States maintains, pursuant to the regulations governing the Code of Federal
Regulations, the DOC did not intend the Preamble to have legal effect.
5.120 The United States argues with respect to the DOC Preamble that it was perfectly consistent
with notions of transparency and good government for the DOC to express its tentative thinking on
the issue of indirect subsidies, and that it would be a perverse result if the Panel were to penalize a
Member for demonstrating greater transparency with respect to its thinking.

5.121 Like tribunals around the world, the United States notes, the DOC in a given case may cite a
variety of materials to justify its determination, including such things as prior DOC determinations
and law review articles, none of which are binding on the DOC. Thus, the DOC's citation to the
Preamble does not, in the view of the United States, confer binding status on the Preamble.
5.122 In the US view, Canada's definition of "practice" constantly shifts, with Canada now saying
that by "practice" it means "an administrative commitment or policy to adhere to a particular legal
view and to apply a particular interpretation or methodology." Under any of the definitions used by
Canada, the United States maintains, "practice" does not bind the DOC so as to require it to treat
export restraints as subsidies (or financial contributions).
5.123 In the view of the United States, Canada seems to argue that even if the measures it has
identified do not individually give rise to a WTO violation, they do when considered together.
However, the United States argues, Canada does not explain how this conclusion is justified on the
basis of any provision in the DSU or any other WTO agreement.
5.124 The United States argues that Canada amazingly argues that the Panel should make an
authoritative interpretation of Article 1.1 first before dealing with the mandatory/discretionary
doctrine. However, in the view of the United States, Canada's discussion of GATT and WTO panel
reports on this point does not support its position. In none of the cases discussed does it appear that
the respondent requested a preliminary ruling. The United States asserts that there is nothing in the
DSU or this Panel's Working Procedures that lim its preliminary rulings in the manner suggested by
Canada, and that in addition, none of the cited cases expressly holds that a Panel must decide
substantive issues first before invoking the mandatory/discretionary doctrine.
5.125 The United States maintains that there is a fundamental difference between the cases invoked
by Canada and this case. In the cases cited by Canada, the panels were asked to opine on discrete
measures maintained by the respondent, which is not the case here. In this dispute, according to the
United States, the measures really at issue include not only the documents challenged by Canada, but
an unidentified number of current and future export restraints. In the US view, the Panel cannot do
what Canada asks it to do without opining in the abstract, and without any facts before it, that there
never has been and never will be an export restraint capable of satisfying the definition of a subsidy in
Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement.
5.126 If the Panel finds – as the United States thinks it must – that the measures in question do not
require what Canada says they do, for the United States that should be the end of the matter; anything
else the Panel might say would be dicta.
5.127 The United States argues that Canada currently says that "practice" does not consist of
individual determinations in particular countervailing duty cases, but instead consists of the DOC's
institutional state of mind, which Canada describes as an "administrative commitment or policy." The
DOC's state of mind does not constitute a measure "taken" within the meaning of the DSU according
to the United States. In addition, the DOC's stat e of mind could not violate any of the provisions
invoked by Canada.
5.128 For the United States, Article 1.1 is a definitional provision. Thus, strictly speaking, US
"practice" – whatever that is defined to be – cannot violate Article 1.1. The United States maintains
that Article 10 does not apply here, because Canada says it is not challenging the actual imposition by
the United States of countervailing duties under Section 771(5) as the result of a finding that an export
restraint is a subsidy, and that Articles 11, 17 and 19 of the SCM Agreement are inapplicable here for
the same reason as is Article 10. The United States notes that Canada has not challenged – and the
United States has not even taken – "specific action" under Section 771(5) with respect to an export

restraint, and the DOC's state of mind cannot constitute "specific action." Therefore, according to the
United States, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement also is inapplicable.
5.129 The United States maintains that with respect to Article 32.5, the US statute, regulations, and
procedures are fully in conformity with the SC M Agreement. An "administrative commitment or
policy" is not within the scope of Article 32.5. In the US view, the same conclusion holds for
Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. There can be no breach of Article 32.5 or Article XVI:4
absent a law, regulation or procedure that mandates a violation of some other provision of the SCM
Agreement.
5.130 The United States strongly objects to paragraph 40 of Canada's Response in which, the
United States maintains, Canada attempts to portray the United States as having failed to comply with
DSB rulings. The United States asserts that in no case has a WTO panel determined that the
United States has failed to implement a DSB ruling, and under Article 23 of the DSU, Canada cannot
make such a determination unilaterally.
5.131 According to the United States, Canada essentially asserts that "practice" – however it is
defined – should be regarded as a measure taken because one should presume that WTO Members
will act in bad faith. The United States notes that the Appellate Body has explained that such a
presumption is not allowed.
5.132 In the view of the United States, for the reasons set forth in the US Request, Canada's claims
regarding "practice" should also be dismissed due to Canada's failure to comply with Articles 4.7 and
6.2 of the DSU. Accepting for purposes of argument the equitable doctrine of "prejudice" that the
Appellate Body and panels have grafted on to the requirements of the DSU, the United States submits
that it has been prejudiced. Moreover, the United States maintains that there is prejudice to it and the
WTO dispute settlement system when the notification and consultation requirements are treated in a
pro forma way that precludes a thorough and accurate description of what the complainant is
challenging.
5.133 The United States notes, in regard to why the SAA and the Preamble are not measures, that
neither document has any independent legal effect under US law.
5.134 With respect to the question of whether either document is within the Panel's terms of
reference, the United States notes that in its Response, Canada does not even attempt to explain how
one could possibly read its panel request as encompassing the SAA and the Preamble as independent
measures. Moreover, at two DSB meetings, the United States recalls that it expressed its belief that
Canada had substituted Section 771(5) for the SAA and the Preamble as the challenged measure, and
Canada did not challenge the accuracy of the US assessment.
5.135 The United States argues that it demonstrated in its first submission that an export restraint is
capable of satisfying all of the elements of subparagraph (iv) of Article 1.1(a)(1) of the
SCM Agreement. Whether a particular export restraint practice fulfilled all of the elements for a
subsidy is something that could only be determined on the basis of a case-specific analysis of actual
evidence. Here, in the US view, it is enough to say that Canada has failed to demonstrate that never,
under any set of circumstances, could an export restraint practice satisfy all of the elements.
5.136 The United States maintains that a reading of its first submission demonstrates that the United
States has engaged in a thorough textual analysis of subparagraph (iv). However, the object and
purpose of the SCM Agreement is relevant to the interpretation of subparagraph (iv), and it is relevant
that Canada's interpretation is inconsistent with that object and purpose, as well as with the common
understanding of what is and is not a subsidy.

5.137 The United States argues that it has not said that all government interventions that distort
international trade qualify as subsidies. Rather, it has emphasized that any government intervention
would have to meet all of the definitional elements of an actionable subsidy.
5.138 According to the United States, the European Communities' "slippery slope" argument is
without merit, because in the examples given, it is difficult to see where there would be a financial
contribution. Moreover, in the 10 years since the DOC's determination in Leather from Argentina, the
United States argues, the "parade of horribles" has not taken place.
5.139 At paragraph 90 of Canada's first submission, the United States recalls, Canada states that an
export restraint does not qualify as a subsidy because "[i]t involves no transfer of financial resources
by a government to producers of goods." Thus, the United States does not agree that it has
mischaracterized Canada's position. Rather, Canada is advancing the same net cost to government
position that has been repeatedly rejected.
5.140 Finally, the United States asserts, it has been suggested that export restraints can never
constitute subsidies because, even though they may limit a producer's opportunities and can reduce
the price the producer charges for an input (as Canada has conceded in this case), they do not force
producers to sell their goods domestically to targeted customers at pre-determined prices or in pre-
determined quantities. According to this line of argument, the United States notes, there is no
government "direction" because the producer's freedom of action is limited, but a pre-determined sale
or price is not mandated.
5.141 For the United States, this argument is fatally flawed for several reasons. First, there is no
requirement in the text of subparagraphs (iii) or (iv) of Article 1.1(a)(1) that the price or quantities at
which goods are provided to the subsidized party be specified. Second, there is no requirement that
the beneficiaries of the subsidy practice at issue must be "targeted customers", although it may well be
that a particular export restraint practice could satisfy such a requirement. Third, there is no support
for the proposition that in order for a subsidy to exist, the government must determine exactly the
scope and extent of the benefit it wishes to confer and the class of beneficiaries at the time of the
government action; the Panel in Canada - Dairy rejected this argument. Fourth, it is irrelevant to say
that producers who would otherwise export may be ab le to adapt to modified market conditions, such
as by doing something else. With respect to th e US hypothetical regarding pineapple growers, the
United States believes that it has been conceded that if the government directed pineapple growers to
sell at a fixed price or in pre-determined quantities to juice processors, an indirect subsidy would
exist. However, in this scenario, the United States maintains, pineapple growers also would be free to
leave the pineapple growing business, enter the juice processing business, or engage in a totally
different business (for example, growing bananas). The United States fails to see how the theoretical
ability to adapt in this scenario would not preclude a finding of an indirect subsidy, but it would
preclude such a finding in the scenario where the government direction does not specify precise prices
or quantities.
5.142 Moreover, the United States asserts, there may be circumstances where a producer, faced with
an export restraint, has no other option but to sell to the domestic processor, such as where the export
restraint applies to a raw material. In other words, there may be situations where engaging in another
business is not an option. In the US view, this is a factual question that has to be decided case-by-
case on the basis of evidence, rather than speculation.
5.143 In summary, the United States argues, Canada has failed to carry its burden of proof; Canada
has failed to demonstrate that an export restraint can never constitute a subsidy. However, the Panel
does not even need to get this far in its analysis according to the United States, because the focus of
Canada's challenge is on opinions, not measures. The United States maintains that while it might be
tempting to address the substantive, abstract issue posed by Canada, to do so would distort the

purpose and role of WTO dispute settlement. Thus, the United States submits that the proper outcome
in this case is for the Panel to simply find that none of the measures cited by Canada require the DOC
to treat an export restraint as a subsidy (or a financial contribution).
E. SECOND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF CANADA
1. Introduction
5.144 Canada notes that its second written submission responds to the first oral statement of the
United States. As a preliminary matter, Canada notes that the United States continues to claim that
what Canada seeks in this dispute is an "advisory opinion" under the SCM Agreement. Canada
disagrees, arguing that what Canada is seeking a ruling against the US measures at issue that treat an
export restraint as a "financial contribution." Ultimately, in Canada's view, such a ruling will require
resolution of the differences between the United States and Canada as to whether the US measures at
issue are inconsistent with the provisions of the SCM and WTO Agreements invoked by Canada.
Canada states that the resolution of these differences is of particular concern to it because of the direct
impact that the treatment of export restraints under US CVD law has had and continues to have on
Canada and Canadian industry. This impact is exemplified, for example, by Canada's request for
WTO consultations in Live Cattle and, as was evident from the discussion at the first substantive
meeting, by the immediate threat posed to Canadian lumber exports to the United States by threats of
a countervailing duty investigation being commen ced after the imminent expiry of the Softwood
Lumber Agreement.
2. The Role Of The Mandatory/Discretionary Distinction As A Defence In WTO
Jurisprudence
5.145 Canada argues that it has already demonstrated that whether or in what degree a challenged
measure is discretionary with respect to an alleged violation of WTO rules is not properly
characterized as a procedural or jurisdictional issue.
 Furthermore, Canada states, it has demonstrated
in its Response that the GATT and WTO cases relied on by the United States turn out, on
examination, not to depend on whether a measure was wholly or partly mandatory or discretionary in
the abstract. Rather, the Panels in those cases, after resolving any controversy as to the requirements
of the GATT/WTO rules at issue, found that the defending party had demonstrated adequately that it
had sufficient discretion to conform with those rules. Further, in all of these cases it was explicit or
implicit that the defending party not only could, but would, use the discretion in question to conform
with the proper interpretation of the relevant rules.
5.146 Canada submits that the United States has continued to claim that the mandatory/discretionary
distinction means that the challenged US measures cannot be found inconsistent with the SCM and
WTO Agreements, regardless of the proper interpretation of those agreements, based on an argument
that errs both in its interpretation of GATT and WTO precedent and in its representation of the legal
force of the US measures as a matter of US law. In Canada's view, the US argument concerning the
"mandatory/discretionary doctrine" in this dispute can be summarized as follows: (i) the
United States considers that the WTO does not permit dispute settlement rulings on the conformity of
challenged measures with WTO rules if the measures, as a matter of domestic law, do not "require" or
"mandate" the action that is alleged to be inconsistent with WTO rules; and (ii) the United States is of
the view that under US law the measures challenged by Canada do not either separately, or as a
whole, ever "require" treating an export restraint as a financial contribution. Canada disagrees with
the US arguments both under WTO law and under US law.

(a) GATT/WTO Case Law
5.147 Canada asserts that it is well established that a WTO Member can challenge legislation of
another Party, independent of any specific application of that legislation, on grounds that the
legislation, as such, is inconsistent with rules of the WTO. The purpose of permitting such challenges
is to ensure predictability of conditions for trade by allowing parties to challenge measures that
necessarily will result in action inconsistent with GATT/WTO obligations. This is so in Canada's
view since such measures can themselves "chill" trade by compelling Members to modify their
behaviour in order to comply with a measure which they reasonably anticipate will be applied to their
exports. Canada recalls that in United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 , the Appellate Body cited
with approval statements by the Panel in United States – Superfund that indicated that GATT 1947 is
not only directed at protecting current trade but also at creating the predictability needed to plan future
trade and that contracting parties must therefore be able to challenge existing legislation mandating
actions at variance with the General Agreement and not wait until such legislation has actually been
applied to their trade.
5.148 Canada states that it has already demonstrated in its previous submissions why the measures
challenged by Canada require that export restraints be treated as "financial contributions" under US
countervailing duty law and why this treatment is inconsistent with the United States' obligations
under the SCM and WTO Agreements. Canada notes that the United States argues that United States
– Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 and other cases considering the mandatory/discretionary distinction
support the US contention that the Panel cannot find the US measures at issue to be inconsistent with
the SCM and WTO Agreements because the measures do not require the treatment of which Canada
has complained (and which the United States does not consider to be inconsistent with the obligations
in question). In Canada's view, however, the cases cited by the United States do not support this
argument.
5.149 According to Canada, the mandatory/discretionary distinction does not mean that discretion
of any type or degree will allow a defending party to successfully avail itself of this defence. In
United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 , Canada states, the Appellate Body stated that in light of
the case law developing and applying the mandatory/discretionary distinction, the discretion enjoyed
by the US Justice Department to initiate or not to initiate criminal proceedings "is not discretion of
such a nature or of such breadth as to transform the 1916 Act into discretionary legislation … ."
64
Similarly, in United States – Malt Beverages , the Panel found the discretion not to enforce a law that
was inconsistent with the GATT did not make the law as such consistent with the GATT.65
5.150 Regarding the measures at issue in this dispute, Canada notes that Section 771(5)(B)(iii) does
not specifically address export restraints. Section 771(5)(B)(iii) can be considered "discretionary", in
the limited sense that Commerce, as the investigating authority, has to determine whether an export
restraint, or any other practice subject to a countervailing duty investigation, is a financial
contribution. However, Canada states, Section 771(5)(B)(iii) does not exist in isolation. Consistent
with the reasoning of the Panel in United States – Section 301, Section 771(5)(B)(iii) is "inseparable"
from the SAA, Preamble and US practice and, therefore, cannot be considered in isolation.
5.151 In each of the cases cited by the United States where a measure was held to be
"discretionary", Canada states, the Panel found not only that sufficient discretion existed for the
executive to be able to apply the law consisten tly with its GATT obligations, but also that the
defending party both could use that discretion to act in a manner consistent with the GATT rule at
issue and either had done so or was in some sense committed to do so. 66 Canada asserts that in each

64 Id. at para. 91.
65 United States – Malt Beverages at para. 5.60.
66 See Canada's Second Written Submission at paras. 12-14.

of these cases, the Panel satisfied itself, often on the basis of assurances from the defending party as to
how it would interpret its legislation, that the ex ecutive authority had sufficient discretion under the
challenged legislation to avoid any violation of the GATT.
5.152 Further, Canada argues, the Panel in United States - Section 301 found that a Member could
"curtail its discretion" to violate a WTO obligation, by its interpretation of such discretion in the SAA
and subsequent actions. For Canada, the converse must follow. A complaining Member must
similarly be allowed to challenge whether a Member has "curtailed its discretion" not to violate a
WTO commitment. Thus, while Section 771(5)(B)(iii) itself does not mandate inconsistent action in
the sense that it can (and properly should) be interpreted and applied consistently with WTO rules, the
SAA and the Preamble in Canada's view "curtail the discretion" of executive authority in the context
of this dispute such that the legislation will be interpreted and applied in a WTO-inconsistent manner.
(b) The US Measures At Issue
5.153 For Canada, the sharp contrast between the above cases and the circumstances of this dispute
is clear. In this dispute, rather than providing assurance that the United States will not treat export
restraints as a financial contribution, the US measures in Canada's view demonstrate that the US
executive authority has committed itself to interpre t its legislation in a WTO-inconsistent manner.
Canada notes that the United States argues that it could interpret its legislation otherwise, but argues
that the US measures and statements make clear that it will not, at least in the absence of a decision of
the DSB confirming that this is required by US obligations.
5.154 For Canada, this is not to say that the United States is acting in bad faith. Rather, in this
situation, unlike that of the cases on which the United States seeks to rely, it is apparent to Canada
that United States believes, wrongly, but in good faith, that its interpretation is not inconsistent with
its WTO obligations. The fact that the United States believes its interpretation to be WTO consistent
is made clear in the SAA, Preamble and through US practice. In Canada's view, given the importance
that GATT/WTO Panels have placed on statements by the United States regarding how it intended to
interpret its legislation (especially United States – Superfund, United States – Measures Affecting the
Importation, Internal Sale and Use of Tobacco and United States – Section 301), the interpretation set
out in the US measures in this dispute, requiring a WTO-inconsistent treatment of export restraints,
should be given significant weight. To Canada it demonstrates that Commerce is committed to act in
a manner that is inconsistent with the United States' WTO obligations. As a result, Canada argues, the
US measures at issue nullify and impair benefits accruing to Canada under the SCM and WTO
Agreements.
5.155 Canada states that in invoking the mandatory/discretionary distinction as a defence in this
dispute, the United States claims that the measures at issue provide Commerce with sufficient
discretion not to treat export restraints as financia l contributions while at the same time asserting that
to do so would not be inconsistent with the United States' WTO obligations. However, for Canada,
this discretion which the United States argues is provided for in the SAA proviso and the "would
permit" language of the Preamble is so curtailed that Commerce's ability to act in a WTO-consistent
manner has been effectively foreclosed. In other words, to the extent that there is any element of
discretion in these measures, in Canada's view it is not of a nature to allow the United States to invoke
the mandatory/discretionary distinction as a defence in this dispute because the SAA has directed how
that discretion is to be exercised and the Preamble and US practice reflect this direction.
5.156 Canada submits that it has demonstrated in its Response that the SAA gives Commerce
explicit direction as to the determination it should make under the proviso with regard to export
restraints. In Canada's view, if the proviso leaves any discretion to Commerce, it is limited to
satisfying itself that an alleged indirect subsidy involves a "formal, enforceable measure." If it does,
Canada argues, Commerce must conclude that the standard in Section 771(5)(B)(iii) has been met.

Since an export restraint by its nature involves a formal, enforceable measure, and the SAA has so
declared, it is Canada's position the SAA mandates Commerce to conclude that in the case of an
export restraint, the standard of Section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the statute and Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the
SCM Agreement have been satisfied, and to find a countervailable subsidy if Commerce makes a
factual finding in an investigation of a "benefit" to the industry subject to investigation.
5.157 Likewise for Canada the language in the Preamble that the United States claims provides
Commerce with sufficient discretion to not treat export restraints as financial contributions, the
"would permit" language, fails to provide the United States sufficient discretion to successfully avail
itself of the mandatory/discretionary distinction in this case. Because in Canada's view the SAA and
Preamble have already determined that an export restraint meets the financial contribution
requirement, the scope of any discretion under the "would permit" language is therefore limited to
Commerce's analysis of benefit and specificity.
5.158 For Canada, the extent to which the United States has curtailed its discretion in the context of
export restraints is most clearly demonstrated by the passage in which the SAA authoritatively directs
Commerce to consider circumstances similar to Leather and Lumber to come within the meaning of
Section 771(5)(B)(iii). By demonstrating that in those particular circumstances Commerce must treat
an export restraint as a financial contribution, in Canada' view this passage conclusively refutes the
US position that, in effect, the Panel must rule in favour of the United States if it concludes that there
is any set of circumstances in which an export restraint could ever be a financial contribution. While
Canada considers that an export restraint does not constitute a financial contribution, Canada argues
that it is well established that a measure is inconsistent with a WTO rule if that measure mandates
action inconsistent with the WTO in particular circumstances, even if in other circumstances the
action might not be inconsistent with the WTO.
67
3. US Contentions That The Preamble Has No Legal Effect Misstate US Administrative
Law And The Role Of The Commerce Preamble
5.159 According to Canada, the various US contentions that the Preamble to the Commerce
Department's final countervailing duty regulations reflects merely "tentative opinions" or "at most a
non-binding statement by the DOC regarding its views at the time" are inconsistent with US
administrative law and misstate the role of the Preamble. Canada notes that, under US law, Commerce
must conform to its declared interpretation of the statute in the Preamble absent a "compelling reason
for departure".68
5.160 Canada states that the United States relies in particular on an argument that only a regulation
published in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) has general applicability and legal effect, and
claims that the fact that Commerce's Preamble to its final regulations was not published in the CFR is
"a strong indication" that it does not have legal effect. In Canada's view, this is not, however, a rule
of US administrative law. Kenneth Culp Davis, a renowned authority on US administrative law,
states in his treatise that "courts should not rely on publication, or lack of publication, in the Code of
Federal Regulations as evidence that an agency statement is, or is not, a rule." Criticising the decision
in American Portland Cement Alliance v. EPA for its reference to CFR publication, Professor Davis
notes that the American Portland Cement Alliance court relied on an outdated case and "apparently
overlooked" a subsequent opinion in which the court of appeals emphasised that "publication, or lack
of publication, in the Code of Federal Regulations is not more than 'a snippet of evidence of agency

67 See Argentina – Measures Affecti ng Imports of Footwear, Tex tiles, Apparel and Other Items ,
WT/DS56/AB/R, 27 March 1998.
68 NMB Singapore v. United States, 780 F. Supp. 823, 827 (Ct. Int'l Trade 1991).

intent.'"69 Moreover, Canada submits, the US assertion as to the significance of CFR publication is
not even supported by the cases on which the United States relies, both of which involved the
reviewability of proposed, as opposed to final, regulations. Commerce promulgated its countervailing
duty regulations, including the Preamble, as final and effective upon the date of publication in the
Federal Register. Although parts of the regulation were later codified and published in the CFR, for
Canada that later CFR publication neither diminishes nor adds to the legal authority of the regulations,
including the Preamble, as published in the Federal Register.
5.161 Canada argues that the United States' other primary basis for asking this Panel to dismiss the
language of the Preamble is its assertion to this Panel that Commerce did not intend the Preamble to
have legal effect. Canada asserts, however, that it has been unable to locate any such prior statement,
and it does not comport with the record of Commerce determinations, US court decisions reviewing
Commerce determinations, or the US reliance on the Preamble as having legal effect before WTO
panels.
5.162 Canada argues that since 1 January 1995, the Commerce Department has relied on the
Preamble to its proposed or final countervailing duty regulations in fully 103 anti-dumping and
countervailing duty determinations. In none of these instances, according to Canada, did Commerce
intimate that it did not consider the Preamble to have legal effect, or that it was relying on mere
"tentative opinions" to determine duties in trade remedy cases. Rather, in all cases, it cited the
Preamble as stating the applicable interpretation or rule, and simply proceeded to apply it to affect the
legal rights of parties to the proceedings. In some of these cases, Canada states, the Preamble
statement relied upon provided critical elaboration of, or described exceptions to the interpretation
stated in, an accompanying regulation, while in many of the cases, the declaration on which
Commerce relied occurred only in the Preamble. Canada notes that it has set out a number of
examples in which, in Canada's view, Commerce has relied solely on the Preamble for its
determinations on issues.
70
5.163 For Canada, the most dramatic examples of Commerce application of the Preamble's
interpretations and methodologies with conclusive legal effect are in the context of whether a benefit
is passed through in an arm's-length privatisation, and in the Live Cattle and Korea Stainless Steel
cases. In parallel to its lengthy statements on export restraints, Canada states, the Preamble
extensively addresses whether an arm's-length privatization eliminates a benefit from pre-privatization
subsidies.71 In that discussion, Commerce declared that it was not promulgating a regulation and
emphasized that the statute left it discretion to determine the impact of a change in ownership on a
case-by-case basis. According to Canada, Commerce nonetheless declared that it would continue its
pre-WTO practice of only examining benefit at the time of bestowal of subsidy, and that its pre-WTO
"repayment/reallocation methodology", under which some portion of the benefit of past subsidies is
passed through, "achieves th[e] objective" of retaining its discretion to make case-by-case
determinations. In other words, Canada states, Commerce decided the key legal issue – that at least
some "benefit" survives an arm's-length privatization – by declaring in the Preamble that its pre-WTO
methodologies continued to apply, and limited its "discretion" to applying a formula to measure the
amount of the benefit. Canada states that Commerce has subsequently applied its pre-WTO
methodology in numerous post-WTO privatisation cases.
5.164 For Canada, the Korean Stainless Steel cases provide another stark example of Commerce
application of the Preamble as conclusive of an issue, and in circumstances that make clear just how

69 Kenneth Culp Davis and Richard J. Pierce Jr., Administrative Law Treatise , 3d ed. Supp. 2000
(Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Co., 2000) at 167-68.
70 See Canada's Second Written Submission at para. 34.
71 Regulations, 63 Fed. Reg. at 65,351-55 (Annex C to Canada's First Written Submission – Exhibit
CAN-3).

controlling are the Preamble's references to Argentine Leather and Softwood Lumber. In a portion of
the Preamble, Commerce interprets Section 771(5)(D)(iii) of the statute, which implements
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) of the SCM Agreement and lists as a financial contribution "the provision of
goods or services, other than general infrastructure." Canada states that in declaring that roads or
bridges may benefit particular industries rather than society as a whole, Commerce cites the pre-WTO
Certain Steel Products from Korea case – the same case that is referenced in the indirect subsidies
discussion in the SAA and Preamble – in which Commerce had found port facilities at Kwangyang
Bay not to constitute "general infrastructure" for purposes of its pre-WTO "specificity" test, and
therefore to be countervailable.72 When the issue arose again in the post-WTO Stainless Steel cases,
Canada notes, Commerce stated:
"The infrastructure provided at Kwangyang Bay was not provided for the good of the
general public; . . .therefore, it is not "general infrastructure." . . . Therefore, the
infrastructure at Kwangyang Bay is countervailable. Indeed, the "Explanation of the
Final Rules" (the Preamble) to the new CVD regulations . . . specifically cites to the
infrastructure provided at Kwangyang Bay in Steel Products From Korea as an
example of industrial parks, roads, rail lines, and ports that do not constitute 'general
infrastructure,' and which are countervailable. . . . See CVD Final Rules, 63 FR at
65378-79."
73
5.165 Thus, according to Canada, Commerce, in deciding a significant issue in post-WTO cases,
found that the Preamble's interpretation of "general infrastructure", and in particular its citation to a
pre-WTO case finding Kwangyang Bay not to be "general infrastructure" was dispositive. In
Canada's view, it is difficult to conceive, ther efore, how Commerce would not find the Preamble's
interpretation concerning export restraints and its citation of Softwood Lumber from Canada equally
dispositive in a case posing the same issue.
5.166 Finally, for Canada, the US contention that the Preamble reflects mere "tentative opinions" is
belied by US court cases and the United States' own use of a preamble in WTO dispute settlement
proceedings. According to Canada, in US courts, Commerce relies on the Preamble as the legal basis
for its determinations and the courts uphold Commerce on that basis.
4. "Practice" Is A Measure, And Fits Within The WTO Concept Of "Mandatory"
5.167 Canada asserts that as the United States well knows, agency "practice" is an extremely
common concept in US law. Commerce routinely and expressly refers to its "practice" in anti-
dumping and countervailing duty determinations, giving legal effect to that "practice" as
determinative of the interpretations and methodologies it applies, as shown by cases cited by
Canada.
74 Further, Canada argues, practice is related to precedent, in that an interpretation or
methodology will often be developed in a single case or group of cases, and becomes the "practice"
followed in subsequent cases. For Canada therefor e, practice is not an individual determination in a
countervailing duty case (although a determination normally will reflect "practice") but rather is an
institutional commitment to follow declared interpretations and methodologies that is reflected in
cumulative determinations.

72 Id., at 65,378.
73 Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip in Coil from the Republic of Korea , 64 Fed. Reg. 30,636, 30,659
(Department of Commerce 8 June 1999) (final determination) (Exhibit CAN-23); Stainless Steel Plate in Coils
from the Republic of Korea , 64 Fed. Reg. 15,530, 15,548 (Department of Commerce 31 Mar. 1999) (final
determination) (Exhibit CAN-24).
74 See Canada's Second Written Submission at para. 40.

5.168 Canada states that when Commerce issues countervailing duty and anti-dumping regulations,
it sets forth its practice in those regulations, including the Preamble. Commerce practice is often not,
however, articulated in regulations. Indeed, until final substantive countervailing duty regulations
were issued in 1998, Canada argues, Commerce had never issued final regulations setting forth its
substantive interpretations of US law and the met hodologies it would apply. Consequently, for much
of the last twenty years, the interpretations and methodologies that dictated Commerce determinations
in countervailing duty cases were simply a function of Commerce "practice". Thus, Canada submits,
although "practice" is reflected in Commerce regulations when those are issued, "practice" is an
independent basis for Commerce action that is given legal effect in addition to or in the absence of a
statement of that practice in regulations.
5.169 That practice is independent of regulations is evident to Canada in Commerce's issuance of an
Amended Regulation Concerning the Revocation of Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Orders in
response to the WTO Panel determination on DRAMs from Korea.
75 In the preamble to that
regulation, Canada notes, Commerce declared that while the WTO decision necessitated a change to a
commerce standard, it did not invalidate several aspects of Commerce "practice", which would
continue in effect.
5.170 Moreover, Canada asserts, it is a fundamental principle of US law that an agency may not
depart from its practice and precedents except in narrow circumstances, where the change from prior
policies and standards is express, deliberate, and adequately explained. In Canada's view those
narrow circumstances cannot arise here, where the United States plainly has no intention of departing
from a treatment of export restraints that it insists is correct.
5.171 Canada argues that the "practice" challenged here is the Commerce Department's commitment
to adhere to a particular legal view and to appl y a particular interpretation or methodology. With
respect to the treatment of an export restraint as a financial contribution, in Canada's view it includes
pre-WTO practice of Commerce in Leather from Argentina and Softwood Lumber from Canada ,
because that practice has expressly been incorpor ated in current US practice through the SAA and
Preamble. It further includes post-WTO practi ce of the Commerce Department, as confirmed in Live
Cattle and the Korea Stainless Steel cases, which are cumulative examples evidencing Commerce's
commitment to apply the practice stated in the Pream ble, notably, to apply "a standard no narrower
than the prior US standard for finding an indirect subsidy".
5.172 In Canada's view, because Commerce has articulated its "practice" with respect to export
restraints in the Preamble to final countervailing duty regulations that are in effect, there is currently
no substantive distinction between Commerce's treatment of export restraints under the SAA and the
Preamble and its treatment of export restraints under its "practice". Moreover, the SAA and Preamble
are inconsistent with the United States' obligations under the SCM Agreement, independent of the
"practice" Canada is challenging. In that sense, while Canada believes that "practice" is as much a
measure susceptible to dispute settlement as any law, regulation or other act of a Member, Canada
considers that a finding by this Panel with regard to "practice" is not essential to a finding that the
other US measures are inconsistent with WTO obligations.
5.173 To Canada, however, "practice" is relevant to compliance by the United States with a WTO
ruling in Canada's favour. That is, if this Panel finds that the US statute, as interpreted by the SAA,
the Preamble, and in US practice, is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement in that it commits the
United States to treat an export restraint as a financial contribution, Canada believes that the
United States would need to, inter alia, alter its practice by ceasing to treat an export restraint as a
financial contribution in initiating and making determinations in countervailing duty cases. Canada
states that it has therefore included "practice" as a measure to underscore this point, and seeks a

75 64 Fed. Reg. 51,236 at 51,239 (Dep't Commerce 22 Sept. 1999) (final rule) (Exhibit CAN-109).

specific recommendation from the Panel that the Unit ed States bring its measures into conformity
with the SCM Agreement and the WTO Agreement, in cluding by ceasing to treat an export restraint
as a financial contribution.
5. Comments On The US Submissions Regarding The SCM Agreement In The US Oral
Statement
5.174 In Canada's view, the central issue in this dispute has been and remains whether the treatment
of export restraints under the US measures is inconsistent with the definition of "financial
contribution" in Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement, an issue that necessarily depends on
interpreting that provision according to the ordinary meaning of its terms in their context and in light
of the object and purpose of the Agreement. Canada argues that as it set forth in its first oral
statement, the US effort to fit export restrain ts within the definition of financial contribution
represents a deeply flawed attempt to apply these principles of treaty interpretation.
5.175 Canada asserts that the United States simply redefines the critical term "directs" to mean
"causes" in the broadest of senses, a contention which relies on an extrapolation from dictionary
meanings taken out of context. Canada states that the word "directs" in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) means
that a government must give authoritative instructi ons to the "private body" to carry out a certain
action, while the definition selected by the United States – "regulating the course of, or causing
something or someone to move on a particular course" - has a quite different meaning. Further,
Canada submits, as Canada pointed out in its first oral statement, an export restraint plainly does not
meet even the US definition of "directs". More importantly, the word "causes" is simply not found in
the text of subparagraph (iv).
5.176 In addition, Canada notes, the United States argues that whether a particular export restraint
fulfilled all of the elements for a "subsidy under Article 1.1" could only be determined on the basis of
a case-specific analysis of actual evidence. While to Canada it is true that whether "a benefit is
thereby conferred" within Article 1.1(b) would require an evidentiary analysis, "benefit" is not at issue
here. Canada submits that if the Panel agrees with it that an export restraint is not a "financial
contribution" under Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv), the question of "benefit" would never arise, since no case
alleging that an export restraint is a "subsidy" could ever properly be initiated.
5.177 Canada notes that the United States also claims that there is no "slippery slope" of finding a
host of government regulatory measures encompassed under its interpretation of subparagraph (iv).
In Canada's view, a simple example may demonstrate its error. In possible reaction to the reduction
or elimination of a duty, importers might increase their imports of a product, potentially leading to
increased domestic supply and, under certain economic conditions, to a reduced market price for the
good to downstream users. Under the US interpretatio n of subparagraph (iv), as in its view of export
restraints, Canada argues, the government, in reducing the duty, would have "entrusted or directed"
the importers to "provide goods" to domestic users of the product. Under both Canadian and EC
arguments, government actions such as a reduction in import duties are simply not within the forms of
government actions that constitute a "financial contribution" under Article 1.1(a)(1).
5.178 Finally, Canada states, in response to both Canada's and the EC's arguments regarding the
ability of producers subject to an export restraint to adapt to market conditions, the United States
continues to argue that an export restraint is nonetheless a government "entrustment or direction" to
"provide goods" that is countervailable if a benefit and specificity are found. Canada notes that the
freedom of producers to adapt to the imposition of an export restraint highlights the lack of an
entrustment or direction under Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv). In Canada's view, a direction by the government
to not undertake one activity simply does not translate, under subparagraph (iv), into a direction to
undertake another.

F. SECOND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES
1. Introduction
5.179 By way of an overview, the United States emphasizes that what is at issue is a category of
measures – export restraints – that are regarded as "subsidies" in the normal, economic sense of the
term. The United States submits that the WTO Secretariat and United Nations organizations, to name
a few, have characterized export restraints as such. Notwithstanding this, Canada is seeking to prove
that an export restraint can never, under any set of circumstances, constitute a subsidy under the SCM
Agreement as a technical matter. In the US view, Canada advances this claim without offering any
evidence regarding the nature and operation of actual export restraints as they exist in the real world.
The United States asserts that Canada does so notwithstanding the fact that, as complainant, it bears
the burden of proof, and, in this case, bears the burden of proving the negative.
5.180 Second, for the United States there is no real, tangible dispute here. Canada is not contesting
the imposition of any countervailing duty. Indeed, in the post-WTO era, no countervailing duty has
been imposed by the DOC in respect of an export restraint against Canada or any other Member. Nor
is Canada arguing that there is a US law or regulation that, on its face, is inconsistent with any WTO
agreement. Instead, the United States submits, what Canada is really arguing is that it believes that, if
ever faced with the question, the DOC will interpret its WTO-consistent statute so as to encompass
export restraints. However, such a challenge simply does not involve a challenge to a measure
"taken" within the meaning of the DSU, according to the United States.
5.181 Third, the United States argues, notwithstanding the fact that this case should be dismissed on
procedural grounds, and notwithstanding the abstract nature of Canada's challenge, Canada is wrong
with respect to its substantive claims. The United States submits that it has demonstrated, based upon
an analysis of the text, context, and object and purpose of the SCM Agreement, that Canada is wrong
when it claims that an export restraint could never, under any set of circumstances, constitute a
subsidy. Thus, while the United States believes the Panel need not and should not address Canada's
substantive claims, should the Panel choose to do so, the United States believes that the Panel must
reject them.
2. The Mandatory/Discretionary Doctrine
5.182 Significantly for the United States, neither Canada nor the EC challenges the continuing
validity of the mandatory/discretionary doctrine. Thus, the only real question before the Panel is
whether the so-called " measures" identified by Canada require the DOC to treat export restraints as
subsidies.
(a) Section 771(5)
5.183 With respect to Section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 , the United States notes that Canada
concedes that the statute, on its face, "does not specifically address export restraints."
76 Canada has to
concede this in the US view because, as it acknowledged in 1995 in its comments to the DOC,
Section 771(5) "adopts a definition of 'subsidy' that is substantively the same as that of the Subsidies
Agreement."77 Thus, under the mandatory/discretionary doctrine, the United States asserts,
Section 771(5) does not violate US WTO obligations.

77 Request by the United States for Preliminary Rulings ("US Request"), para. 43, quoting from US-11.

(b) The SAA
5.184 The United States maintains that the parties also agree that the SAA is "authoritative" with
respect to the interpretation of Section 771(5). However, the United States believes that it has
demonstrated that all that the SAA "authoritatively" says is that the DOC must follow the standard set
forth in Section 771(5), which Canada concedes is WTO-consistent. 78 Thus, under the
mandatory/discretionary doctrine, even if the SAA were a separate measure, within the Panel's terms
of reference, in the US view it would not violate US WTO obligations.
(c) The Preamble
5.185 The United States notes that the parties agree that a regulatory preamble can be used to
interpret an agency regulation. More specifically, US case law shows that a regulatory preamble can
be used as evidence of an agency's contemporaneous understanding of its proposed rules.
79 However,
with respect to the preambular language at issue, the United States asserts, the DOC did not
promulgate a regulation nor was the preambular language included in the Code of Federal
Regulations. The United States states that it has demonstrated that, as a matter of US law, the
Preamble at issue in this case is not binding on the DOC.80
5.186 Moreover, lost in the debate over an obscure principle of US administrative law, the United
States argues, is the fact that even if the Preamble were binding on the DOC, the Preamble does not
reflect an interpretation by the DOC that Section 771(5) requires the DOC to treat export restraints as
subsidies (or financial contributions). Rather, the Preamble simply expresses the tentative opinion
that the statute "would permit" the DOC to treat an export restraint as a subsidy; i.e., that treating an
export restraint as a subsidy would be one possible interpretation of the statute.81
5.187 Thus, under the mandatory/discretionary doctrine, the United States asserts, the Preamble
does not violate US WTO obligations because (1) it is not binding on the DOC; and (2) even if it were
binding, it does not require the DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies.
(d) US "Practice"
5.188 The United States notes that Canada does not dispute the fact that there is no post-WTO case
in which the DOC has found an export restraint to be a subsidy. The United States further submits
that Canada also does not dispute the fact that, even if there were such a case, as a matter of US law it
would not be binding on the DOC.
82 Thus, under the mandatory/discretionary doctrine, the United
States argues, US "practice" – understood in the conventional sense of agency case precedent – would
not violate any US WTO obligation not to treat an export restraint as a subsidy.
5.189 However, the United States argues, in the course of this dispute Canada's definition of
"practice" has constantly evolved. In its latest in carnation, according to the United States, "practice"
is an alleged "administrative commitment" to treat e xport restraints as subsidies; in other words, the
DOC's alleged institutional state of mind. However, nowhere in any of its submissions has Canada
explained how an "administrative commitment" – whatever that may be – is binding on the DOC as a
matter of US law. Thus, even if this "administrative commitment" could constitute a measure for

78 See, e.g., US Request , paras. 35-39, 75-79; and US Answers to Question 1 (First Set) and
Questions 15, 27 and 31-33 (Second Set).
79 US Request, para. 81 and cases cited therein.
80 Id., paras. 80-83 and cases cited therein; Oral Statement of the United States ("US Oral Statement"),
paras. 17-31 and cases cited therein.
81 US Request, para. 80.
82 The United States refers, for a discussion of the non-binding nature of administrative agency
precedents, to US Request, paras. 84-85; and US Answer to Question 16(d) (Second Set).

purposes of the DSU, in the US view Canada has failed to demonstrate that this "thing" requires the
DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies. 83 Thus, under the mandatory/discretionary doctrine, the
United States asserts, any such alleged "administrative commitment" does not violate US WTO
obligations.
(e) The Measures Taken Together
5.190 The United States believes that Canada has argued that even if the documents it has identified
do not individually require the DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies, the measures do so require
when "taken together."84 However, the United States argues, nowhere in any of Canada's submissions
is there any explanation – let alone a demonstration – as to how, under US law in general, individual
measures that do not require an agency to act in a particular manner collectively can constitute such a
requirement. Nor is there any demonstration as to how, under US law, the particular documents at
issue collectively require the DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies. For the United States, the
reasons for this void in Canada's argument is that Canada's fundamental assertion is simply wrong, as
a matter of US law. Thus, under the mandatory/discretionary doctrine, the United States submits, the
measures taken together do not violate US WTO obligations.
3. None Of The Measures Cited By Canada Violate Any Of The Provisions Of The WTO
Agreements That Canada Has Invoked
5.191 The United States recalls its explanation in paragraphs 44-51 of the US Oral Statement and in
the US answer to Question 17 (Second Set), that most of the "measures" identified by Canada are
incapable of violating any of the provisions of the WTO agreements that Canada has invoked in this
case.
5.192 In the US view, none of the measures can violate Article 1.1, because Article 1.1 is a
definitional provision which does not impose obligations as such. Likewise, none of the measures can
violate Article 10 (or Articles 11, 17 and 19 as they relate to the requirements of Article 10), because
these provisions pertain to actions taken in the context of actual CVD proceedings, and Canada is not
challenging any such action. Article 32.1 is also inapplicable because it pertains to "specific action
against a subsidy of another Member", and Canada is not challenging any such action.
5.193 Thus, the United States asserts, the only provisions that could conceivably apply to a
challenge to measures "as such" are Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the
WTO Agreement, both of which apply to "laws, regulations and administrative procedures." In
general, to violate either of these provisions, a law, regulation or administrative procedure would have
to violate some other provision of a WTO agreement. In the context of this case, the United States
submits, a law, regulation, or administrative procedure would violate these provisions only if it
mandated action inconsistent with Articles 1.1, 10 (or 11, 17 and 19), or 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.
5.194 In the US view, the only measure at issue in this case which potentially could fall under
Article 32.5 or Article XVI:4 is Section 771(5), which is a "law". However, the United States argues,
Canada concedes that Section 771(5) is, on its face, not inconsistent with any of the provisions it has
cited, and the United States has demonstrated that this conclusion does not change if Section 771(5) is
interpreted in conjunction with the SAA. Thus, the United States concludes, Section 771(5) does not
violate either Article 32.5 or Article XVI:4.

83 The United States refers to US Answer to Question 16(d) (Second Set), explaining why an
"administrative commitment" could not be binding as a matter of US law.

5.195 With respect to the other "measures", the United States argues that they simply are not subject
to Article 32.5 or Article XVI:4. Neither the SAA, the Preamble, nor Canada's amorphously defined
"practice" constitutes a "law", a "regulation", or an "administrative procedure" within the meaning of
these provisions.
4. Canada Has Failed In Its Attempt To De monstrate That An Export Restraint Can
Never, Under Any Set Of Circumstances, Constitute A Subsidy
5.196 Concerning Canada's claim that an export restraint can never, under any set of circumstances,
constitute a subsidy under subparagraph (iv) of Article 1.1(a)(1), the United States reiterates its
position that the Panel need not and should not reach this issue. 85 Should the Panel nonetheless
choose to do so, the United States asserts that it has demonstrated that an export restraint is potentially
capable of satisfying the standards of subparagraph (iv).
(a) "Entrusts or Directs"
5.197 The United States notes that the main thrust of Canada's argument relates to the "entrusts or
directs" requirement in subparagraph (iv). The United States asserts, however, that it has previously
demonstrated that an export restraint could, in appropriate circumstances, satisfy this requirement
based upon the ordinary meaning of the terms. "Directs" means "cause to take a specified direction";
"to cause (something or someone) to move on a particular course". 86 According to the United States,
Canada can point to nothing in these definitions that excludes export restraints from coverage.
5.198 The United States notes that Canada's case with respect to "entrusts or directs" essentially is
focused on three arguments. First, Canada takes issu e with the dictionary definitions of "directs" that
employ a causal element, and seeks to insert an additional requirement that "an authoritative
instruction to do something" affirmative, as opposed to refrain from doing something, is required. 87
Second, Canada, along with the EC, argues that an export restraint can never satisfy the "entrusts or
directs" standard because the producer of the restrained product has options available to it other than
selling the product domestically, such as producing another product, processing a downstream
product, or going out of business. Third, Canada argues that if its preferred approach is not accepted,
there will be a "slippery slope" leading to the countervailing of all government regulatory actions.
(i) "Authoritative Instruction"
5.199 With respect to Canada's first argument, the United States recalls that Canada asserts that, in
the case of an export restraint, there is no specified direction to provide goods domestically, but rather
the specified direction is "to not export." Significantly, asserts the United States, Canada concedes
that export restraints constitute "direction." 88 Canada argues, however, that there must be an

85 See, e.g., US Answer to Question 39 (Second Set).
86 US First Submission , para. 31. In this regard, the United States does not concede, as Canada
suggests at paragraph 19 of Canada's Oral Statement , that the word "entrust" can be disregarded. There may
well be situations in which an export restraint constitutes the mechanism by which a government "entrusts" a
private body to provide a financial contribution within the meaning of subparagraph (iv). However, if, as the
United States has demonstrated, an export restraint can satisfy the meaning of "directs", the word "entrusts"
becomes a moot point insofar as Canada's claims in this dispute are concerned.
87 The United States argues that, significantly, this approach is inconsistent with Canada's own
contemporaneous interpretation of "entrusts or direct s", because Canada's CVD statute does not require "an
authoritative instruction". Instead, under the Canadian st atute, a financial contribution exists if a government
"permits or directs" a private body to do something. See US First Submission, para. 37, note 34.
88 Canada's Oral Statement, para. 20 ("Yet, the 'specified direction' in the case of an export restraint is
not to provide goods, but rather is 'to not export.'") (emphasis in original).

"authoritative instruction" or an "order . . . to do a thing" in order for "direction" to exist. 89 I n t h e
view of the United States, Canada cites no textual support for this proposition, but simply asserts that
its preferred dictionary definitions should govern.90
5.200 Moreover, the United States submits, Canada fails to account for the varying forms in which
an export restraint may manifest itself (a problem which would not arise if Canada had brought a case
based on real facts). Presumably, even under Canada's reading the "entrusts or directs" standard
would be satisfied if an export restraint operated in conjunction with a governmental requirement that
the restrained product must be processed domestically. At best, the United States asserts, Canada
seeks to put form over substance. When a domestic producer is in the business of selling a product,
the US view is that a restriction against exporting can be a direction to sell ( i.e., provide goods) to
domestic purchasers within any normal commercial setting.
5.201 Furthermore, according to the United States, th e word "directs" as used in subparagraph (iv)
does entail elements of causation, as recognized in Question 11(c) (Second Set). To the United States,
whether or not an export restraint causes a producer to sell domestically is a factual question that can
only be answered on a case-by-case basis. What is significant to the United States for purposes of this
dispute is that both Canada and the United States appear to agree that an export restraint is capable of
bringing about the requisite effect. Canada made the following assertion in its oral statement:
"More specifically, the United States alleges that when faced with an export restraint,
a domestic producer has only one economic choice and that is to sell the restrained
good to domestic purchasers of that good. From an economic perspective, this is
simply incorrect. It does not inevitably follow that an export restraint will force a
domestic producer of the restrained good to sell into the domestic market."
91
5.202 To the United States, implicit in the phrase "it does not inevitably follow" is an
acknowledgement by Canada that it "could" follow that an export restraint would force a domestic
producer of the restrained goods to sell into the domestic market. The United States asserts that
Canada is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, it acknowledges that in theory an export
restraint could force a domestic producer of the restrained good to sell in the domestic market. On the
other hand, it essentially asserts that this could never happen in the real world, but fails to submit a
scintilla of evidence to support this factual assertion.

89 Id., para. 21.
90 The United States asserts that Canada does try to ar gue that because the drafters also used the word
"cause" elsewhere in the SCM Agreement, this means that they must have intended that "direct" have something
other than its ordinary meaning. With respect to this argument, the United States has three observations. First,
the Appellate Body has recognized that different words can have interchangeable or overlapping meanings.
European Communities - Regime for the Impor tation, Sale and Distribution of Bananas , WT/DS27/AB/R,
Report of the Appellate Body adopted 25 September 1997, para. 203 (Appellate Body found that
notwithstanding the use of different phrases in Article 1.3 of the Licensing Agreement and Article X:3(a) of
GATT 1994, the two provisions had identical coverage). Second, to the extent that Canada is arguing that the
word "directs" as used in subparagraph (iv) has a sp ecial meaning, under customary principles of public
international law, the burden of proof is on Canada to prove that the drafters had such an intent. Vienna
Convention on the Law of Treaties , Article 31(4). Third, the United States notes that footnote 1 of the
SCM Agreement demonstrates that the drafters knew how to exclude certain practices from the scope of
Article 1.1, but did not do so in the case of export restraints.
91 Canada's Oral Statement (18 January 2001), para. 42 (emphasis added). The United States argues
that of course, the United States has not asserted that an export restraint will always have the hypothesized
effect. The US position simply is that it cannot be said that an export restraint could never have the
hypothesized effect.

(ii) "Alternative Choices"
5.203 The United States argues that Canada's second attempt to argue around the ordinary meaning
of "entrusts or directs" is its "alternative choices" argument. Canada and the EC argue that, faced
with an export restraint, producers can choose to produce another product, not produce at all, or
become processors of the downstream product.92
5.204 However, the United States submits, there may be situations in which, as a factual matter, the
producer of the restrained product does not have such options. Indeed, as discussed in the preceding
section, in the US view Canada implicitly acknowledges this possibility, and fails to provide evidence
that there could never be a real life case where Canada's theoretical options do not exist.
5.205 In any event, according to the United States, with the exception perhaps of a command,
nonmarket economy regime (something which need not be addressed in this case dealing with
hypotheticals), a producer always has choices. If a government "orders" a bank to loan to a company,
the bank always can refuse. The United States notes that there may be consequences to a refusal, but
the bank still has a choice. For the United States, this commercial reality is no different in the case of
an export restraint.
5.206 Indeed, the United States maintains, even applying the Canada/EC standard of an
authoritative instruction to sell on pre-determined conditions, a producer would have the option of
producing a different product, going out of business, or commencing production of the downstream
product. However, if the presence of choices in th is situation means that no subsidy can exist, then
for the United States subparagraph (iv) truly would be a meaningless provision – there could be no
such thing as a producer-financed subsidy.
93
5.207 In the US view, the argument that a subsidy cannot exist because of the existence of a
theoretical choice stands the SCM Agreement on its head. The United States notes that Canada has
stated that subsidies distort comparative advantage,
94 and for the United States that is precisely what
an export restraint is capable of doing. The United States notes that it can only speak in the abstract
because there are no facts in this dispute, but as an example posits that in a market based on
comparative advantage and free of any export restraint, an input would be exported to a different
market for processing there because it is more financially advantageous to do so. Because of an
export restraint, the producer of the input (which could not otherwise economically justify processing)
begins to produce the downstream product, thereby artificially enhancing production domestically at
the expense of foreign producers. The United States asserts that Canada claims that none of this is of
any concern under the SCM Agreement because the producer has choices.
5.208 For the United States, the real point is that an export restraint can cause the producer to
provide goods to domestic processors that it otherwise would not have provided absent the export
restraint. Thus, in the US view, the key ques tion as reflected in Question 11(c) (Second Set) is
whether there is a significant enough causal connection between the government's action in
introducing and enforcing an export restraint and the domestic producer's provision of the good in a
manner that would not have occurred in the market.

92 Id., para. 40. The United States notes that the EC adds the requirement that the good be provided on
the basis of certain pre-determined conditions. EC Submission, paras. 25-27. The United States believes that it
has adequately addressed this particular EC argument in its answers to the Panel's questions.
93 The United States notes that Canada says that it has now abandoned its prior position that a cost-to-
government is required in order for a subsidy to exist. Id., para. 27.
94 CAN-106.

(iii) The "Slippery Slope"
5.209 The United States asserts that Canada's final argument in support of its position that the
ordinary meaning of "entrusts or directs" should be ignored is its "slippery slope" or "doomsday"
argument.95 In the US view, part of Canada's tactic is to focus on select words chosen from the US
submissions, such as "functional equivalence" and "conceptual similarity", and characterize them as
"unbounded concepts."96 The United States submits that in so doing, however, Canada's arguments go
way beyond export restraints to encompass all indirect subsidies.
5.210 In any event, for the United States there is absolutely no factual support for Canada's
doomsday predictions. Most telling, in the ten years since Leather from Argentina and in the six years
since the WTO Agreement entered into force, doomsday has not arrived. Indeed, the United States
asserts, Canada cannot even find a real life case on which to base its claim. In fact, with respect to
export restraints, the United States has not even had occasion under post-WTO law to evaluate
whether any particular export restraint gave rise to a financial contribution. Indeed, the United States
argues, if one goes even further back and looks at pre-WTO determinations, one finds that in
Lumber III, the DOC found that the export restraints in three of the four provinces examined did not
satisfy the standard that the DOC employed at the time; the standard that Canada and the EC falsely
claim is the standard under current law.
5.211 For the United States, the most significant point about the "slippery slope" argument,
however, is that the "entrusts or directs" standard – which is an element both of US law and
subparagraph (iv) – requires a causal connection. The United States argues that some export restraints
may satisfy this standard, others may not. Even for those export restraints that might satisfy this
standard, the requirements of benefit and specificity will operate so as to weed out certain export
restraints and other types of indirect government measures from the category of actionable subsidies.
97
(b) "Private Body"
5.212 The United States asserts that it previously has demonstrated that dictionary definitions in
multiple languages thoroughly undermine Canada's peculiar interpretation of "private body", 98 and
further argues that even the EC does not support Canada's invented requirement for an "organized
collectivity."99

95 See, e.g. , Canada's Oral Statement , para. 25 ("The U.S. view would mean that any government
action that affects the marketplace (that is, individual buyers and sellers) would 'entrust or direct a private
body.'").
96 Id., para. 27.
97 According to the United States, the EC makes a sort of "reverse slippery slope" argument when it
claims that export restraints can be addressed under Ar ticle XI of GATT 1994. As a legal matter, according to
the United States, this argument is clearly wrong and inconsistent with prior EC positions. The United States
notes that in Indonesia - Certain Measures Affecting the Automobile Industry , WT/DS54/R, WT/DS55/R,
WT/DS59/R, WT/DS64/R, Report of the Panel adopted 23 July 1998, paras. 14.29-14.36, the panel agreed with
the position of the United States, Japan and the EC that a measure could be actionable under both the
SCM Agreement and Article III of GATT 1994. In particular, the panel noted the existence of footnote 56 to
Article 32.1 of the SCM Agreement, which recognizes that actions against subsidies remain possible under other
provisions of GATT 1994. Id., para. 14.36, note 659. For the United States, as a factual matter this argument is
clearly wrong, because not all export restraints will violate Article XI, and even those that do may be subject to
one or more exceptions under Article XX of GATT 1994.
98 US First Submission, paras. 40-44.
99 EC Submission, para. 28.

(c) To Carry Out One or More of the Type of Functions Illustrated in (i) to (iii) Which Would
Normally Be Vested in the Government and that in No Real Sense Differs from Practices
Normally Followed by Governments
5.213 With respect to the final elements of subparagraph (iv), the United States argues, Canada
offers no explanation as to why an export restraint is incapable of satisfying these elements. 100
Instead, it simply asserts that these elements cannot be satisfied, and offers no explanation of what
these elements mean.
5.214 The United States notes that these elements are discussed in greater detail in its answers to the
Panel's questions. The United States recalls its position that "normally vested in" and "normally
followed by governments" refer to the functions of taxation and subsidization, and asserts that support
for this position is found in the only reference on point, the 1960 Article XVI:5 Report, which refers to
the "functions of taxation and subsidization."
(d) Object and Purpose
5.215 The United States argues that Canada and the EC both object to the US reliance on the object
and purpose of the SCM Agreement, falsely suggesting that the United States has relied on object and
purpose to the exclusion of the text.
101 According to the United States, both are wrong.
5.216 In the view of the United States, the US submissions speak for themselves, and demonstrate
that the United States has not ignored the text, but instead has demonstrated that the text supports the
US position. However, the United States argues, consistent with customary principles of public
international law, as reflected in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties , object
and purpose form part of a single rule of treaty interpretation. For the United States, in this case in
particular, object and purpose are informative on how the text should be interpreted.
5.217 To the United States, what is particularly telling is its view that neither Canada nor the EC
can plausibly dispute that the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement – regardless of what weight
is attached to it – support the US position. The Un ited States recalls its previous statement that the
primary object and purpose of the SCM Agreement is to impose disciplines on certain government
measures that distort international trade.
102
5.218 The United States objects that Canada seeks to characterize the US position as "one-
dimensional" by referring to a single paragraph from the Statement Made by the Delegation of
Canada at a Meeting Held on 28-29 June 1988 , CAN-106, in which Canada noted that there need to
be limits on the use of countervailing measures. 103 While the United States acknowledges that the
SCM Agreement also regulates the use of countervailing measures, it is clear that this is not its
primary purpose. Indeed, the United States submits, virtually the entirety of CAN-106 speaks to the
need to discipline the use of subsidies as trade-distorting measures. The United States urges the Panel
to read CAN-106 in its entirety. The United States notes that even when speaking of disciplines on
countervailing measures, Canada makes it clear that great care must be taken to avoid creating a
loophole.
5.219 The United States also emphasizes that in its view neither Canada nor the EC disputes the
object and purpose of subparagraph (iv), which is to prevent governments from doing indirectly what

100 See, Canada's First Submission, para. 93; and Canada's Oral Statement, para. 28.
101 The United States asserts that the EC's accusation is particularly troubling, given that in its
submissions, the EC did not even conduct a textual analysis of Article 1.1 in general, or subparagraph (iv) in
particular.
102 US First Submission, paras. 13-20; US Answers to Questions 18-19 (Second Set).

they cannot do directly. For the United States, if the Panel, in the absence of any facts, were to
categorically exclude export restraints from the definition of Article 1.1, the object and purpose of
subparagraph (iv) would be undermined.
5.220 Finally, the United States argues, Canada claims that the SCM Agreement's method of
designating practices as either prohibited, actionable, or non-actionable supports its view that export
restraints should be excluded from the definition of Article 1.1. 104 According to the United States, if
anything the opposite is true. If export restraints were categorically excluded from Article 1.1, they
essentially would be rendered non-actionable, and the Panel effectively would be rewriting the SCM
Agreement. In the US view, the drafters of the SCM Agreement presumably provided a definition of
"subsidy" so that each particular government measure (not each category of measure) could be
evaluated on the basis of its own facts and circumstances.
5. Conclusion
5.221 Based on the foregoing, the United States renews its request that the Panel dismiss Canada's
complaint by making the preliminary rulings described in paragraph 125 of the US Request. Should
the Panel decline to dismiss Canada's complaint, the United States renews its request that the Panel
make the findings described in paragraph 87 of the US First Submission.
G. SECOND ORAL STATEMENT OF CANADA
1. Introduction And The United States' Continued Efforts To Define "Subsidy" As
"Countervailable Benefit"
5.222 Canada asserts that it has demonstrated that the measures in question treat an export restraint
as a financial contribution and that an export restraint is not a financial contribution under
Article 1.1(a)(1) of the SCM Agreement. Canada s ubmits that the US response has been that; first,
the measures do not "require" the US to treat an export restraint as a financial contribution, but leave
it to Commerce to determine on a case-by-case basis; and that second, export restraints can constitute
a financial contribution if there is merely a "causal relationship" between an export restraint and a
provision of the good to domestic users. These positions, according to Canada, rewrite both US law
and the SCM Agreement.
5.223 With regard to its first argument, Canada states, the United States relies primarily on
assertions that the measures leave Commerce sufficient flexibility in any case to decide that an export
restraint is not a financial contribution. To Canada, this alleged flexibility is illusory as the measures
have already determined that an export restraint will satisfy the financial contribution requirement.
5.224 Canada submits that while the United States argues that the measures are open to
interpretation on a case by case basis the US repeatedly states that it cannot say how any export
restraint would be treated under US countervailing duty law, and has failed to provide this Panel with
a single example of an export restraint that it would not consider to be a financial contribution. In
Canada's view, every instance of alleged flexibility turns out to be an example in which an export
restraint was not considered to be a subsidy because there was no benefit, or there was no export
restraint in the first place.
5.225 Canada notes that the second part of the US argument rests on a claim that subparagraph (iv)
is satisfied if there is a causal relationship between a government action and the provision of a good.
In Canada's view, the US analysis is not sustainable under the ordinary meaning of the language of
subparagraph (iv) in its context and in light of the object and purpose of the Agreement. There is

104 Id., para. 36.

simply no way to explain why subparagraph (iv) is written as it is if it were intended to mean what the
US claims.
5.226 To the extent the measures contain any element of discretion, Canada asserts, it is not of a
nature that enables the United States to invoke the mandatory/discretionary distinction as a defence.
Such treatment of export restraints is inconsistent with subparagraph (iv), because an export restraint
does not fall within the plain meaning of that provision. For Canada, the US claims to the contrary
reflect the continuing effort by the United States to maintain the open-ended definition of "subsidy"
that it tried, but failed, to obtain during the negotiation of the SCM Agreement.
5.227 In Canada's view, this dispute reveals a fundamental difference of opinion as to the
government actions that fall under the definition of "financial contribution" in Article 1.1. On the one
hand, Canada and the European Communities have advanced a position that relies on the ordinary
meaning of the language in its context, and provides certainty and predictability to the operation of the
SCM Agreement. The United States has advanced an interpretation of "financial contribution" that is
so broad that any government action that causes a benefit will be considered a "financial
contribution", thus, in effect, reading the "financial contribution" element out of the Agreement. For
Canada, this expands its scope to such an extent that the certainty and predictability achieved by the
negotiators is lost.
5.228 Canada submits that the fundamental approach of the United States is aptly summarized in
paragraph 2 of its second written submission, where the United States asserts that export restraints
"are regarded as 'subsidies' in the normal economic sense of the term," which means that export
restraints must be capable of being subject to countervailin g duties. According to Canada, this logic
echoes the failed US effort in the Uruguay Round to define "subsidy" as any government action that
led to a "benefit". In Canada's view, arriving at the definition of a subsidy was one of the most
important achievements of the Round, an achievement that the position of the United States seeks to
ignore. The United States begins with a subsidy in the so-called "vernacular" and works backwards to
conclude that an export restraint must be a subsidy under the Agreement. Canada asserts that the
United States, in the context of export restraints, in effect implemented the agreement it tried to
negotiate instead of the one agreed to.
2. The Measures At Issue Require The United States To Treat An Export Restraint As A
"Financial Contribution"
5.229 Canada notes that the United States argues that the SAA, the Preamble and Commerce
practice are not measures at all and, even if they were , what they direct regarding export restraints is
of no real effect as they do not require any particular action of Commerce. For Canada, these
measures clearly are measures under GATT and WTO law. If they have no import, Canada submits,
then the United States has made great efforts to crea ting meaningless interpretations of its statute. In
Canada's view these are not empty measures. They authoritatively direct Commerce to treat an export
restraint as a financial contribution.
5.230 Canada submits that the United States attempts to keep the measures in clinical isolation from
each other, but nevertheless itself recommends that the panel look to how the measures "relate to each
other, under [its] domestic law." For Canada, this approach is grounded both in common sense and in
WTO case law. The Panel in United States – Section 301 noted that statutory and non-statutory
elements of a Member's domestic law are "often inseparable and should not be read independently
from each other when evaluating the overall conformity of the law with WTO obligations."
5.231 Canada notes that the SAA is an "authoritative expression" of the US Administration's and
Congress's views regarding the "interpretation and application" of the WTO Agreements and is to be
regarded as such in US judicial proceedings. Canada submits that it gives Commerce explicit

direction as to how it is to treat export restraints. This is made abundantly clear by the statement in
the SAA that "Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the S ubsidies Agreement and Section 771(5)(B)(iii) encompass
indirect subsidy practices like those which Commerce countervailed in the past" (i.e. the export
restraints in Leather and in Lumber). Canada argues that this statement does not read "may
encompass" or "could encompass". Despite this clarity, and the clear direction in the SAA that the
"entrusts or directs" standard be interpreted broadly, Canada argues, the United States insists that the
SAA does not provide direction to Commerce on how the statute is to be interpreted. In Canada's
view, the United States downplays the significance of the SAA because of what it terms Commerce's
"freedom" to make up its own mind.
5.232 Canada notes that the United States asserts that "all that the SAA 'authoritatively' says is that
Commerce must follow the standard set forth in Section 771(5)", and that the SAA expresses no
position on indirect subsidies. For Canada, the US vi ew seems to be that the entire discussion in the
SAA on what Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement and Section 771(5)(B)(iii) encompass
should be read as Congress refraining from pre-judging the consideration of export restraints. Canada
submits that this assertion is belied by the very purpose of the SAA as an affirmative, authoritative
expression as to how the legislation is to be interpreted and applied.
5.233 Canada argues that the United States further downplays the text of the SAA by characterizing
statements made in the Korea Stainless Steel cases as simply the expression of "[Commerce's] non-
binding opinion that the results under the new standard in subparagraph (iv) may not differ
significantly from the results that would have obtained under [Commerce's] pre-WTO standard."
Canada submits that what Commerce actually said, however, was that "the clear and unambiguous
language of the SAA is that Congress intended the specific types of indirect subsidies found to be
countervailable" in the cited pre-WTO cases are to continue to be countervailable under the new law.
For Canada, this is a clear and unambiguous statement of Commerce's position, made in direct
response to the argument that loans by private foreign banks could not constitute financial
contributions.
5.234 In Canada's view, to say that Congress simply left the issue to be decided by Commerce
cannot be reconciled with the clear statements contained in the SAA and confirmed in other
legislative history such as the Senate Joint Report on the URAA
105 and more recently in Congressional
statements concerning Canadian softwood lumber only two weeks ago.106
5.235 Canada argues that the US description of the Preamble as reflecting Commerce's "tentative
opinions" is at odds with what the Preamble says. For Canada, nothing in the Preamble suggests that
the views expressed in it are in any way "tentative" or preliminary, and Commerce's past reliance on it
in the Korea Stainless Steel cases makes clear that Commerce has not treated the Preamble as
"tentative". In Canada's view, this US argument is also belied by US court cases and the
United States' use of a preamble in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. There is nothing "tentative"
in Commerce's conclusion that the standard under the URAA is no narrower than the standard under
pre-WTO law and its reliance on the SAA discussion of pre-WTO case law regarding export restraints
to make this statement. Canada argues that th e Preamble cannot be considered "tentative" when it
clearly states that Commerce will enforce the "entrust or directs" provision vigorously and that
Commerce agrees with "those commenters who urged the Department to confirm that the current
standard is no narrower than the prior U.S. standard for finding an indirect subsidy as described
in…[ Lumber]."

105 Uruguay Round Agreements Act: Joint Report of the Comm.. on Finance,Comm. on Agriculture,
Nutrition, and Forestry, Comm. on Governmental Affairs , United States Senate, 103d Cong., S. Rep. 103-412 at
91 (1994). (Exhibit CAN-134)
106 147 Congressional Record S1158 (daily ed. 7 February 2001) (statement of Sen. Snowe).
(Exhibit CAN-135)

5.236 Canada submits that in the light of the administrative framework under which US agencies
promulgate regulations, the purported distinction between the Preamble and the remainder of the
regulation is without basis. Likewise, in Canada's view, there is no basis to the claim that under US
law, Commerce's Preamble to its final regulations must be published in the CFR in order to have legal
effect.
5.237 Canada submits that the United States is incorrect in arguing that there is no US practice
relevant to the treatment of export restraints. Relevant US practice includes pre-WTO practice which
is expressly incorporated in US law through the SAA and Preamble and post-WTO practice of the
Commerce (e.g., Live Cattle and the Korea Stainless Steel cases) which evidence its commitment to
apply "a standard no narrower than the prior US sta ndard for finding an indirect subsidy". The Korea
Stainless Steel cases left no doubt, according to Canada, that Commerce practice with respect to
indirect subsidies, including export restraints, follows the dictates of the SAA and Preamble, and
claims no scope for departure from the standard set out in the SAA and Preamble.
5.238 Canada argues that the Live Cattle case is further evidence of Commerce's view that an export
restraint satisfies the "financial contribution" requirement of Section 771(5)(B)(iii). Canada notes that
in the Initiation Memorandum, Commerce specifically stated that the petitioner had provided
"evidence that the CWB controls exports"; that the petitioner claimed the CWB was limiting the
amount [of feed barley] exported to the United States"; and that the petitioner had offered "empirical
evidence that the CWB restrains exports to the United States".
 In Canada's view, Commerce's
decision to initiate an investigation of this allegation on the basis of this evidence means it necessarily
concluded that CWB's "control" over barley exports, if proved to exist, would meet the standard for a
financial contribution under Section 771(5)(B)(iii). Further, in its final determination, Canada notes,
Commerce stated its view that in the context of export restraints "the provision of a good, whether
provided directly or indirectly, for less than adequate remuneration constitutes a financial
contribution."
5.239 For Canada, if there is any element of discretion in the measures, it is not of a nature that
would allow the United States to invoke the mandato ry/discretionary distinction as a defence. The
discretion the United States claims to exist in the SAA and Preamble has been curtailed such that
Commerce is committed to apply US law inconsistently with the SCM and WTO Agreements. To
effectively invoke this defence, according to Canada, the United States would have to demonstrate
that Commerce has the discretion to disregard the SAA and Preamble and determine that an export
restraint is not a financial contribution. All of th e evidence is, however, to the contrary in Canada's
view.
3. Export Restraints Do Not Come Within Article 1.1 (A)(1)(Iv) Of The SCM Agreement
Because They Do Not "Entrust" Or "Direct" A Private Body To Provide Goods
5.240 Canada notes that the definition of "subsidy" in Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement is the
fundamental basis upon which all actions under the SCM Agreement are premised. A measure that
implements the definition inconsistent with the Ag reement nullifies and impairs the rights of other
WTO Members. In Canada's view, a proper interpretation of subparagraph (iv) of Article 1.1 results
in a conclusion that its terms do not encompass expo rt restraints. The need to show benefit and
specificity cannot justify nullifying the financial contribution element.
5.241 According to Canada, the United States ignores the word "entrusts", thus ignoring that
"entrusts" provides context for the meaning of the word "directs." While not synonymous with
"entrust", Canada argues, the word "direct" shares the same essential quality of a governmental
communication to a private body. The United States, however, effectively replaces the word "directs"
with "causes" in subparagraph (iv). For Canada, "direct" does not mean "cause." The mere fact that
something occurred does not mean that the government directed someone to do that thing.

5.242 Moreover, Canada states, the SCM Agreement drafters knew how to use "cause" or "causal
relationships", as they did in Article 15.5, but chose for subparagraph (iv) the more limiting terms
"entrusts or directs". Canada argues that the United States dismisses the multiple uses of the concept
of "causes" in the Agreement, stating that words have interchangeable or overlapping meanings. It
relies on EC –Bananas, but in that case, Canada argues, the comparison was of similar language in
two related agreements, not of different terms within the same agreement. In Canada's view, while
different agreements may use different formulations to express similar concepts, within an agreement
it is reasonable to conclude that use of a different term evidences an intent to express a different
concept.
5.243 According to Canada, the dictionary meanings relating to authoritative instructions are
appropriate in this case as they correspond with the wording in subparagraph (iv). The Concise
Oxford Dictionary is precise in this regard. For "direct" when followed by "to + infinitive", it gives as
a meaning "give a formal order or command to". Canada notes that in subparagraph (iv), the word
"directs" is followed by the infinitive "to carry out".
5.244 Canada states that an export restraint does not entrust or direct a private body to provide
goods to anyone, and that the United States itself views an export restraint "…as limiting the
opportunities available to the producer of the restrained good." According to Canada, an export
restraint will limit the export of goods but this is not the same as directing someone to provide those
goods. Canada asserts that the United States concedes that a producer always has choices but
discounts such choices as a matter of commercial reality, which is Canada's own point. In particular,
absent a measure that truly directs a producer to provide goods to someone, that producer will
exercise the choice that is in its best interest.
5.245 According to Canada, if the position of the Unit ed States were correct, then any government
action that in some way caused lower prices would become a financial contribution as there would be
some causal relationship between it and the behaviour of private market operators. In Canada's view,
had this been the intention of the drafters of the SCM Agreement, they could have accomplished it by
simply defining a subsidy as any government action that causes a benefit and is specific. Canada
states that the need to show benefit and specifici ty cannot justify nullifying the financial contribution
element.
5.246 Canada states that the United States argues that the fact that producers have choices is
consistent with the position that an export restraint is a direction to provide goods, and that the United
States reaches this conclusion through a reductio ad absurdum proposition that even where a producer
truly is ordered to provide goods, the producer would have the option of breaking the law. Canada
notes that the United States argues (and Canada agrees) that this is not a real choice. The choices
Canada described were economic and, moreover, legal choices available to the producer.
5.247 According to Canada, the United States misconstrues the portion of subparagraph (iv)
referring to "… one or more of the type of functions illustrated in (i) to (iii) …", by saying that this
phrase must be read to include functions of the same "general character" as those in those
subparagraphs despite the fact that the provision directly links the functions in subparagraph (iv) with
the functions set out in subparagraphs (i)-(iii). Canada states that the United States also reads
"illustrated" as connoting undefined functions sharing general characteristics of the functions in those
subparagraphs. That is, rather than "illustrated" meaning "making clear or evident by way of
example", it is broadened to include functions outside of those subparagraphs. In Canada's view, the
effect is to impose disciplines on a range of private actions that are not subject to discipline when
performed by governments, an untenable result.
5.248 Canada asserts that contrary to US arguments, Canada has not said that the Illustrative List
prohibits government measures that are not subsidies within Article 1.1. Rather, Canada submits,

items on the Illustrative List are to be interpreted consistent with the coverage of the definition of
"subsidy." Also, in Canada's view, subparagraph (iv) will apply to the functions illustrated in
subparagraph (iii) where there is an entrustment or direction to provide goods or services or to
purchase goods, a test that export restraints do not meet.
H. SECOND ORAL STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
5.249 The United States argues that if "bad facts make bad law", "no facts make worse law." The
United States argues that Canada is asking the Panel to rule, in the absence of facts, that a particular
category of measures can never, under any circumstances, constitute a financial contribution. For the
United States this is a recipe for not only bad law, but "worse" law. In the US view, the Panel can
avoid making "worse" law by finding that the so-called "measures" identified by Canada do not
require the DOC to treat export restra ints as subsidies. Such a finding is dispositive of this dispute,
and is the only finding the Panel could make that would be supported by evidence.
5.250 For the United States, Canada's assertion that it is not asking for an "advisory opinion" is
nonsense. The United States argues that according to Canada, even if the Panel finds that Canada is
not entitled to any relief, the Panel nonetheless must make findings on the status of export restraints,
notwithstanding that any such findings would be of no legal effect. In the view of the US, that is the
essence of a request for an "advisory opinion."
5.251 The United States asserts that Canada tries to slip in the notion that the US bears the burden
of proving that the "measures" at issue do not require WTO-inconsistent action, and argues that
Canada is wrong for at least two reasons. First, Canada has made the factual allegation that the
"measures" at issue require the DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies (or financial contributions).
As the complainant, Canada bears the burden of subs tantiating this allegation, both in terms of the
burden of coming forward and the ultimate burden of persuasion. Second, the Appellate Body did not
find in the 1916 Act case that the mandatory/discretionary doctrine is an "affirmative defense." Thus,
the United States submits, nothing in the 1916 Act case relieves Canada of its burden of proving its
allegation that the "measures" at issue require the DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies.
5.252 Turning to the mandatory/discretionary doctrine itself, the United States notes that Canada
asserts that in each of the cases cited by the United States, the panel ruled in favor of the defending
party only because that party had either applied discretionary legislation in a GATT-consistent
manner or was "in some sense committed to do so." In the US view, Canada has ignored the GATT
and WTO cases cited by the United States that directly contradict Canada's assertion. In EEC Parts,
the panel found that the EEC's application of its anti-circumvention legislation was inconsistent with
Article III:2, but found that the legislation, as su ch, was not GATT-inconsistent because it did not
require GATT-inconsistent action. In Canada Aircraft, the panel found that particular debt financing
under the Canada Account constituted a prohibited s ubsidy, but found that the Canada Account, as
such, was not WTO-inconsistent because it did not mandate the provision of export contingent
subsidies. Notwithstanding that the panel found th at Canada had applied the Canada Account in a
WTO-inconsistent manner, the panel found that "[i]n light of the distinction that GATT/WTO panels
have consistently drawn between discretionary legislation and mandatory legislation, we find that we
may not make any findings on the Canada Account programme per se."
5.253 According to the United States, another erroneous Canadian proposition is that a Member
must be allowed to challenge whether a Member has "curtailed its discretion" not to violate a WTO
commitment. In the US view, there is no authorit y for this proposition, as previously recognized by
Canada. In Canada Aircraft, Canada stated: "There is no basis in the findings of the Panel or the
Appellate Body, the SCM Agreement, or international law for imputing to Canada an obligation to
prove that discretionary laws could not possibly be used to grant export subsidies." (emphasis added).
The United States notes that Appellate Body agreed with Canada.

5.254 Turning to the application of the mandatory/discretionary doctrine to the "measures" at issue,
the United States asserts that Canada appears to be upset that the United States has not acknowledged
in this dispute that if there is a Lumber IV, the DOC will find Canadian log export restraints to be
subsidies. According to the United States, none of the members of the US delegation at the Panel
meeting – indeed, no employee of USTR or the DOC – is in a position to state what might happen if
there ever were to be a Lumber IV. Moreover, as a legal matter, what the DOC might do in a future
case is irrelevant. What is relevant for the United States is what, if anything, US law mandates the
DOC to do. In this regard, it is the opinion of the United States that if the Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration should determine in an actual CVD proceeding that a provincial log export
restraint does not constitute a financial contribution, no US court or NAFTA binational panel would
overturn that determination on the grounds that the SAA, the Preamble, or some amorphous
"administrative commitment" require a different result.
5.255 Turning to Canada's discussion of the SAA, the United States argues that no US court would
read the proviso out of existence the way Canada does. Moreover, in its comments to the DOC in
connection with the DOC's rulemaking proceeding, the United States recalls that Canada took the
position that the statute and the SAA did not require the DOC to treat export restraints as subsidies,
and that Canada also took this position in the 1999 Live Cattle case, as reflected by US-32. For the
United States, Canada's brief in Cattle also calls attention to another important portion of the SAA not
discussed so far in this case; namely, the paragraph at the top of page 925 of the SAA. According to
the United States, this portion of the SAA sets forth the general intent of Congress and the
Administration that prior DOC practice regarding the definition of "subsidy" continue only to the
extent that it is consistent with the new, WTO- consistent definition of "subsidy" set forth in the
statute.
5.256 With respect to the Preamble, in the view of the United States, Canada improperly equates the
Preamble with a regulation. The United States argues that Canada has yet to cite any case that says
the DOC is bound by anything other than a regulation. The United States notes that Canada asserts
that "U.S. courts regularly find agency statements in preambles that interpret a statute to be
controlling and reviewable like any regulation ...", and states that as authority, Canada simply refers to
cases that the United States has previously explai ned are either distinguishable or do not support the
proposition for which they are submitted.
5.257 The United States notes that Canada cites Professor Davis for the proposition that publication
in the CFR should not constitute evidence that an agency statement is, or is not, a rule. According to
the United States, Canada is inviting the Panel to undermine the credibility of its own report by taking
the views of academics regarding how US law ought to be over the opinions of a federal appellate
court regarding what US law is. Moreover, referring to US-33 and US-34, the United States argues
that when one considers what else Professors Davis and Pierce have to say, it is apparent that they are
not of the view that a legislative rule need not be published in the CFR. In addition, the United States
maintains, if one were to apply the American Mining Congress test without the criterion of
publication in the CFR, the Preamble would not qualify as a valid, binding legislative rule. Finally,
the United States states, Canada's citation to the Wiggins Brothers, Inc. case (CAN-124) is not on
point, because the court made clear that the preamble could not be disregarded because it constituted
part of the "legislative history" of the regulation that was being construed. The court did not say that
the preamble in question was itself a binding, legislative rule, which is the status that Canada attempts
to accord the DOC Preamble at issue in this case. Also, continues the United States, Canada has not
addressed the case of Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA (US-26), which stands for the
proposition that a preamble is not a "binding statement of agency policy" where the agency does not
consider the preamble as such.
5.258 In the Preamble to the proposed rules, according to the United States, the DOC expressly
stated that it was not promulgating a regulation on "indirect subsidies" in order to preserve its

"flexibility and discretion." In the Preamble to the final rules, the United States notes, the DOC
expressly stated that "the phrase 'entrusts or dire cts' could encompass a broad range of meanings. As
such, we do not believe it is appropriate to develop a precise definition of the phrase for purposes of
these regulations." Thus, for the United States, the DOC's explanation in the portion of the Preamble
at issue here makes it clear that the DOC did not intend to bind itself on the topic of indirect subsidies
by promulgating a regulation. The United States argues that it is simply absurd to assert, as Canada
does, that at the same time as the DOC was expressing an intent not to bind itself by means of a
regulation, it simultaneously intended to bind itself by means of a preambular statement explaining
why the DOC was not binding itself.
5.259 For the United States, the fact that the DOC may cite the Preamble in a particular
determination does not transform the Preamble into a binding regulation any more than would a
citation to a law review article transform the article into a binding regulation. The United States does
not dispute the fact that courts and agencies rely on regulatory preambles for purposes of interpreting
agency regulations. In this case, however, the United States argues, there is no regulation to interpret.
Moreover, Canada has not identified a single instance in which the DOC stated that it was following a
principle articulated in the Preamble because it was legally bound to do so. For the United States this
is a critical point. There is a big difference between citing the Preamble as a shorthand explanation of
the reasons why the DOC is making a particular determination, and citing the Preamble as binding
authority. The United States argues that in the first situation, the DOC, as a matter of discretion, is
citing reasoning set forth in the Preamble because it finds that reasoning to be persuasive. In the
second situation, the DOC would be following th e Preamble because it has no discretion to do
otherwise. Likewise, the United States maintains, Canada has been unable to cite a single case where
a court has said that a portion of a DOC regulatory preamble unrelated to a regulation has the force of
law.
5.260 The United States argues that in respect of DOC "practice" – whatever that may be – Canada
has not been able to cite a single US court decision standing for the proposition that agency practice in
general, or DOC practice in particular, is binding. Moreover, according to the United States, Canada's
assertion that an agency may depart from prior precedents only in "narrow circumstances" is
contradicted by the very US administrative law experts on which Canada has relied in this case. The
United States argues that as set forth in US-34, Pr ofessors Davis and Pierce are of the view that an
agency may freely overrule its precedent.
5.261 For the United States, Canada's reference to the so-called Subsidies Appendix is worthy of a
brief comment, because the history of the Subsidies Appendix totally contradicts Canada's arguments
in this case. The Subsidies Appendix was attached to a 1984 final CVD determination which
announced new DOC practice on a host of CVD methodological issues at a time when there were no
regulations. Although the DOC had not generated the Subsidies Appendix through the type of notice-
and-comment process required by the Administrative Procedure Act (" APA") for a valid, binding
legislative rule, the DOC nonetheless began to treat the Subsidies Appendix as if it were a legislative
rule. In 1988, the US Court of International Trade put a halt to this, as explained in the preamble to
the DOC's 1989 proposed regulations (CAN-5). The DOC's reviewing court told it that it could not
act as if its administrative practice was binding, because under established US principles of
administrative law, it was not. The court told the DOC that if it wanted to make its practice binding, it
would have to codify it in the form of regulations.
5.262 The United States notes that Canada claims that Article 10 of the SCM Agreement applies to
this dispute because Article 10 imposes an obligation "to 'take all necessary steps to ensure . . .' that
the imposition of countervailing duties is consistent with the SCM Agreement and Article VI of the
GATT 1994." According to the United States, Canada claims that Article 10 (and the provisions
related thereto) itself imposes an obligation on a Member to ensure the conformity of its
countervailing duty law with the SCM Agreement and Article VI. When one considers Article 10 in

full, however, it is apparent to the United States that Article 10 was intended to apply to the actions of
Members in individual countervailing duty proceedings. The reference in the first sentence to
"imposition" is suggestive of a case-specific determination, as is the reference in the second sentence
to "investigations initiated and conducted". Moreover, the United States argues, if Canada's
interpretation were accepted, Article 10 would be redundant of Article 32.5, which expressly imposes
an obligation to ensure the conformity of laws, regulations and administrative procedures. In the view
of the United States, Canada has implicitly recognized this in all of its prior submissions in this
dispute. Article 10 and Article 32.5 can each be given meaning by interpreting Article 10 as
governing actual actions taken by a Member in an actual CVD proceeding, and Article 32.5 as
governing the conformity as such of a Member's laws, regulations and administrative procedures.
5.263 According to the United States, putting aside the issue of whether the SAA, the Preamble, and
the DOC's alleged "administrative commitment" constitute "measures", even if one assumes arguendo
that these "measures" should be considered together, Canada has yet to cite any authority for the
proposition that, under US law, "measures" that individually do not require an agency to do a
particular thing do so require when considered together.
5.264 With respect to the phrase "entrusts or directs", the United States asserts that Canada simply
asks the Panel to ignore the dictionary definitions of "direct" that undermine its case. Canada claims
that the determination of whether an export restrain t constitutes a "financial contribution" is a legal,
rather than a factual, issue. However, the United States maintains, this is true only if one ignores the
ordinary meaning of "direct." All of the dictionari es referred to in this dispute include definitions
with a causal element. For the United States, it is significant that Canada has conceded that an export
restraint constitutes government "direction", and simply argues that the "direction" is "to not export."
In the view of the United States, this is nothing more than a semantic game.
5.265 Finally, the United States argues, Canada reiterates its tired argument that "the freedom of
producers to adapt to the imposition of an export restraint" means that there is no entrustment or
direction within the meaning of subparagraph (iv). The United States submits that Canada's alleged
"freedom of producers" to adapt is unsupported by any factual evidence. In an effort to gloss over its
evidentiary failings, asserts the United States, Canada misrepresents the position that the US has taken
in this case, asserting that the US is arguing that an export restraint is subject to subparagraph (iv)
"because it might result in greater domestic availability of a product ... ." The United States indicates
that its prior submissions make clear that the US position is that an export restraint might be subject to
subparagraph (iv) only if it did result in greater domestic availability. In the US view, it is Canada
which bases its position on theoretical speculation as to what an export restraint might do, because it
fears what the facts might reveal in actual cases.
5.266 Finally, what the United States sees as the emptiness of Canada's argument regarding the
"freedom of producers" is revealed by the last sentence of its answer to Question 6 (Second Set), in
which it states that a producer would have the freedom to "elect to reduce or terminate its production";
i.e., go out of business. For the United States, if this is the type of "freedom" that removes a
government measure from the scope of subparagraph (iv), then subparagraph (iv) is truly meaningless.
In a scenario in which a government directs a producer to sell a product to identified domestic
customers on pre-determined conditions (a scenario which both Canada and the EC concede ought to
fall under subparagraph (iv)), the producer would have the same "freedom" to go out of business.
5.267 With respect to the phrase "private body", to the United States it is now entirely unclear what
Canada's position is with respect to this phrase. In its answer, Canada says that "a law, regulation, or
administrative directive requiring 'all bankers' to lend (in lieu of the government lending) X percent of
their loanable funds to the widget industry might make bankers a 'private body' ... ." The
United States fails to see any substantive difference between this scenario and a scenario in which a

government, by means of an export restraint, directs producers of an input to sell only to domestic
customers.
5.268 With respect to the language in subparagraph (iv) that begins with the phrase "normally
vested in", the United States argues, as indicated in its response to Question 26(a), that because the
DOC has yet to address this language, the United States does not have a definitive position on the
meaning of this language. However, it appears to the United States that this language was drawn from
the 1960 Article XVI:5 Report, which referred to the functions of taxation and subsidization. Thus, to
the United States this language suggests that the appropriate inquiry is whether the practice that a
private body is directed to perform falls within the types of practices that a government normally
engages in for purposes of delivering a subsidy.
5.269 It appears to the United States that there are several possible interpretations of the "normally
vested in" language. Based on the fact that the functions in subparagraphs (i) through (iii) are
expressly recognized as mechanisms used by governments directly to provide financial contributions,
one possible interpretation of the "normally vested in" language is that it recognizes that the functions
listed in (i) through (iii) are normally vested in the government and places that same limitation on
functions of the same "type". As a result, under this interpretation, subparagraph (iv) encompasses
the functions in (i) through (iii), which are normally vested in the government, and functions of that
"type", provided that they are also normally vested in the government.
5.270 Another possible interpretation, according to th e United States, is that the "normally vested
in" language serves to screen out government actions that, at first blush, might appear to be
government direction to perform a function illustrate d in subparagraphs (i)-(iii). For example, using
Canada's example of a government action to break up a monopoly, looked at superficially, one might
say that this could result in the type of government-directed provision of a good at reduced prices that
qualifies as a subsidy. However, when considered from a different perspective, one could say that
governments typically do not provide subsidies by breaking up cartels and restoring normal market
conditions.
5.271 Finally, the United States notes, there is Canada's interpretation, which, as the United States
understands it, is that the language requires that the government in question have ordinarily performed
the function that the private body is directed to perform.
5.272 The United States argues that it is not uncommon for multilateral negotiations to produce
legal documents that reflect less than ideal drafting . With all due respect to the drafters, the United
States would admit that the "normally vested in" language is not a model of clarity, which makes
recourse to its negotiating history all the more important.
5.273 However, in the US view, the Panel does not have to resolve the precise meaning of this
language, because even under Canada's interpretation, Canada must still lose. Canada has not shown,
as a factual matter, that there are not and never will be situations in which a government that has
historically provided a good directly also restrains exports of that good in a manner that causes a
private body to begin to provide the good.
VI. ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES
6.1 The arguments of the third parties the European Communities, and India are set out in their
submissions and oral statements to the Panel, which are attached to this Report in Annex B. Australia
did not make a written submission or an oral statement. (See List of Annexes, page v, supra).

VII. INTERIM REVIEW
7.1 The Panel issued its interim report to the parties on 27 April 2001. On 11 May 2001, both
parties submitted written requests for review of specific aspects of the interim report. On
16 May 2001, the parties submitted comments on one another's interim review requests. Neither party
requested an interim review meeting.
7.2 Canada argues that we have inaccurately reflected its position concerning the
mandatory/discretionary distinction. We have expanded the quotation from Canada's response to a
question in paragraph 8.6 as well as reflected its response to another question in paragraph 8.8 to
provide a more complete context for our understanding of Canada's position.
7.3 Canada also suggests slight wording changes in paragraphs 8.23 and 8.50 to reflect more
accurately its arguments. The United States proposes an alternative in respect of paragraph 8.50. We
have adjusted the drafting in these paragraphs.
7.4 Canada also suggests deletion of a word in paragraph 8.75 as unnecessary, and makes a
general comment in respect of our use of the phrase "independent operational status" in
paragraphs 8.85, 8.99, 8.113, and 8.126. We disagree with the first comment, and have thus made no
change to paragraph 8.75. We do not believe that Canada has asked for a particular change to the
other cited paragraphs, nor do we feel that one is necessary. Thus, we have made no change to those
paragraphs either.
7.5 The United States requests that we expunge Sections VIII.B.2 and VIII.B.3 of our findings,
i. e., the part of the findings that address Canada's claims under SCM Article 1. In the view of the
United States, similarly to what they had argued throughout the Panel proceedings, these sections are
not necessary given our finding in Section VIII.B.4 that the US legislation does not require the DOC
to treat export restraints as a subsidy. The United States further maintains that this aspect of the
report, if followed by other panels, will have extremely serious and unfortunate consequences for the
WTO dispute settlement system. Canada disagrees, and notes that we have considered whether the
treatment complained of constitutes a violation of WTO obligations and then whether the measures at
issue mandate such treatment. Moreover, Canada points out that the Appellate Body has criticised
panels for failing to complete their analysis where panel findings on certain issues have been
overturned. We have explained the reasons for the approach we have taken and the precedents for
this approach. We have not made any change to these sections.
7.6 The United States makes further specific comments on Section VIII.B.3 in the event that we
decide to maintain it. First, the United States indicates that we have misunderstood its position
regarding the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement, and that we have not reconciled our
interpretation of Article 1 with the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement. We have completed
the quotation of Article 32 of the Vienna Convention in paragraph 8.64 following Canada's response
to this US comment. We have also made some drafting changes to paragraphs 8.62 and 8.63 to clarify
the US position, and to clarify our views on the relationship between our analysis of Article 1 and the
object and purpose of the Agreement.
7.7 The United States indicates that we have misconstrued its arguments concerning dictionary
definitions of the word "directs", and that we have only partially addressed in our findings dictionary
definitions pertaining to the word "directs" in the particular grammatical construction that is used in
Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv). We have redrafted paragraph 8.27 to reflect more fully the US argument, and
have clarified our grammatical point in paragraph 8.28. We have also slightly redrafted
paragraph 8.44 to clarify our response to the US argument.

7.8 The United States argues that we have incorrectly characterised its position as failing to
recognise "financial contribution" as a separate and meaningful legal element of a subsidy. We have
expanded the quotation from US responses to questions to clarify better its position on this point, and
have clarified the drafting in paragraph 8.39 concerning our views as to the implications of the
US position. The United States also questions the placement of footnote 135 of the report. We have
made no change in response to this comment.
7.9 The United States also argues that we have mischaracterized its arguments concerning the
phrase "type of functions" in paragraphs 8.51-8.52. We have redrafted our description of the
US arguments in these paragraphs, as well as our concluding sentence on this issue in paragraph 8.55,
to reflect more accurately the US argument, and have made consequential drafting changes in
paragraph 8.53.
7.10 The United States also identifies clerical errors in footnotes 177, 186, and 187, which we have
corrected.
7.11 We have also introduced clerical and technical corrections in Sections IV and V, and wording
changes in paragraph 8.6 and the heading to Section VIII.B.4(a).
VIII. FINDINGS
A. REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY RULINGS
8.1 We recall that the United States has requested the Panel to dismiss Canada's claims by making
the following preliminary rulings (See Section IV.A, supra):
(a) That, as neither Section 771(5), the SAA, the Preamble, nor any DOC "practice"
requires US authorities to treat export restraints as subsidies, these alleged measures, as such,
do not violate US obligations under any of the provisions cited by Canada in its request for a
panel;
(b) That US "practice" – whether past, present, or future – does not constitute a measure
properly before this Panel;
(c) That, because Canada did not include US "practice" under Section 771(5) in its
request for consultations, the parties did not actually consult on US "practice", and Canada's
panel request fails to adequately identify the US "practice" in question, Canada's claims
regarding US "practice" fail to conform to Articles 4.7 and 6.2 of the DSU, and are not
properly before this Panel; and
(d) That, because Canada's panel request did not identify the SAA or the Preamble as
measures, and because, in any event, neither the SAA nor the Preamble is a measure,
Canada's inclusion of the SAA and the Preamble as separate measures in its First Written
Submission fails to conform to Article 6.2 of the DSU, and Canada's claims regarding the
SAA and the Preamble are not within the Panel's terms of reference.
8.2 We consider that the United States' preliminary objections, particularly as to what constitute
the measures at issue and whether these measures are mandatory or discretionary in respect of the
alleged treatment of export restraints, go to the substance of the matter before us. We therefore do not
consider it appropriate to address the objections raised by the United States as threshold issues.
Rather, we address these issues as part of our substantive analysis of the claims.

B. CLAIM UNDER ARTICLE 1 OF THE SCM AGREEMENT – WHETHER THE TREATMENT OF EXPORT
RESTRAINTS AS FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE SCM AGREEMENT
AND WHETHER US LAW REQUIRES SUCH TREATMENT
8.3 The measures at issue in this case are laws of the United States: its legislation, instruments by
reference to which that legislation is to be construed, and practice pursuant to that legislation. Canada
does not challenge a particular instance in which an export restraint was the subject of a
CVD investigation. Canada maintains that the contested US measures operate separately and together
to require a certain treatment of export restraints in CVD investigations, contrary to the United States'
obligations under the WTO.
1. The type of legislation that can be found as such to be inconsistent with WTO
obligations
8.4 There is a considerable body of dispute settlement practice under both GATT and WTO
standing for the principle that only legislation that mandates a violation of GATT/WTO obligations
can be found as such to be inconsistent with those obligations. This principle was recently noted and
applied by the Appellate Body in United States – Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 ("1916 Act"):
"[T]he concept of mandatory as distinguished from discretionary
legislation was developed by a number of GATT panels as a
threshold consideration in determining when legislation as such –
rather than a specific application of that legislation – was inconsistent
with a Contracting Party's GATT 1947 obligations."
107

"[P]anels developed the concept that mandatory and discretionary
legislation should be distinguished from each other, reasoning that
only legislation that mandates a violation of GATT obligations can
be found as such to be inconsistent with those obligations."
108
8.5 Prior to 1916 Act, the Panel in United States – Measures Affecting the Importation, Internal
Sale, and Use of Tobacco ("United States Tobacco") summed up the practice of GATT panels in the
area as follows:
"[P]anels had consistently ruled that legislation which mandated
action inconsistent with the General Agreement could be challenged
as such, whereas legislation which merely gave the discretion to the
executive authority of a contracting party to act inconsistently with
the General Agreement could not be challenged as such; only the
actual application of such legislation could be subject to
challenge."
109
8.6 In its request for preliminary rulings, the United States argues that the
mandatory/discretionary distinction – which we refer to hereafter as the "classical test" – should be
applied in this dispute. Canada does not challenge the continuing validity of the classical test (nor
does the European Communities as third party to th e dispute). That is, Canada does not argue that

107 1916 Act , Appellate Body Report, WT/DS136/AB/R-WT/DS162/AB/R, adopted
26 September 2000, para. 88.
108 Id., para. 60.
109 United States Tobacco, Panel Report, adopted 4 October 1994, BISD 41S/131, para. 118.

discretionary legislation can be found to be inconsistent with WTO obligations. To the contrary,
Canada states explicitly that no violation could be found in such cases:
"As Canada has set out in its submissions, Canada believes that the
measures it has identified taken together require the United States to
treat export restraints as financial contributions within the meaning of
Article 1 of the SCM Agreement. If, however, the measures merely
authorised the treatment of export restraints as financial
contributions in the sense that the measures in no sense committed
the United States to interpret Section 771(5)(B)(iii) in a manner that
treated export restraints as 'financial contributions', then the measures
at issue should not be found to be inconsistent with the United States'
WTO obligations".
110
8.7 Further, Canada's arguments are framed in accordance with the classical test. That is, Canada
argues that the measures identified by Canada (i. e., the US legislation) require a certain treatment of
export restraints in CVD investigations, which treatment in Canada's view violates the
SCM Agreement, thereby rendering the legislatio n inconsistent with the SCM Agreement and the
WTO Agreement.
8.8 Finally, Canada presents two arguments concerning the mandatory/discretionary distinction:
(i) that the statute "as interpreted by" the SAA and the Preamble is mandatory legislation that
requires the DOC to violate its obligations under the SCM Agreement; and (ii) that, although the
statute on its own is discretionary, in the sense that it would be possible to interpret it in a WTO-
consistent manner, the SAA and the Preamble "curtail the discretion" of the DOC to act WTO-
consistently. In response to our question whether these arguments represented two formulations of a
single argument, or two different or alternative arguments, Canada states: "There is no difference
between these arguments in that the result under either argument is that the US measures are not
'discretionary' within the meaning of the ma ndatory/discretionary distinction in GATT/WTO
jurisprudence, i. e., that the United States has not demonstrated that it has sufficient discretion to
conform with its WTO obligations"
111.
8.9 As noted, the classical test has longstanding historical support, and has quite recently been
employed by the Appellate Body, in 1916 Act. More importantly, the distinction between mandatory
and discretionary legislation has a rational objective in ensuring predictability of conditions for trade.
It allows parties to challenge measures that will necessarily result in action inconsistent with
GATT/WTO obligations, before such action is actually taken. Accordingly, we shall be applying the
classical test in this dispute, in order to determine whether the US law is of the type that can be found
as such to be inconsistent with WTO obligations, i. e., whether the law is mandatory in respect of the
treatment of export restraints in CVD investigations.112
2. Order in which the issues will be addressed
8.10 While Canada does not challenge the classical test, it considers that whether or in what degree
a challenged measure is discretionary with respect to an alleged violation of WTO rules is not

110 Response of Canada to question 5 from the Panel at the first meeting (emphasis in original).
111 Response of Canada to question 17 from the Panel following the second meeting.
112 We note that the Section 301 Panel found that even discretionary legislation may violate certain
WTO obligations ( See United States – Sections 301-310 of the Trade Act of 1974 , Report of the Panel,
WT/DS152/R, adopted 27 January 2000, para. 7.53). We recall that the Panel's analysis in that dispute focused
on the nature of the obligations imposed by Article 23.2(a) of the DSU. Neither party has suggested that similar
considerations apply in respect of the provisions of the SCM Agreement that Canada alleges were violated in
this dispute.

properly characterised as a general procedural or jurisdictional issue. Canada's view is that, rather, the
Appellate Body has confirmed, in 1916 Act, that this is an issue that may arise as part of a panel's
examination of the legal claims made in a particular case. The United States, on the other hand,
argues that any substantive ruling on the meaning of WTO provisions, where legislation is eventually
found to be discretionary, would constitute an inappropriate or impermissible "advisory opinion" 113.
It therefore contends that we must address whether the US law is mandatory or discretionary before
considering the meaning of Article 1.
8.11 We are not aware of any GATT/WTO precedent that would require a panel to consider
whether legislation is mandatory or discretionary before examining the substance of the provisions at
issue. To the contrary, we note that a number of panels, in disputes concerning the consistency of
legislation, have not considered the mandatory/discretionary question in the abstract and as a
necessarily threshold issue. Rather, the panels in those cases first resolved any controversy as to the
requirements of the GATT/WTO obligations at issue, and only then considered in light of those
findings whether the defending party had demonstrated adequately that it had sufficient discretion to
conform with those rules. That is, the mandatory/discretionary distinction was applied in a given
substantive context.
114
8.12 We consider such an approach to be appropriate in this case. In particular, identifying and
addressing the relevant WTO obligations first will facilitate our assessment of the manner in which
the legislation addresses those obligations, and whether any violation is involved. That is, it is after
we have considered both the substance of the claims in respect of WTO provisions and the relevant
provisions of the legislation at issue that we will be in the best position to determine whether the
legislation requires a treatment of export restraints that violates those provisions.
8.13 Finally, we note that, whether or not a panel sees the mandatory/discretionary question as a
necessarily threshold issue or, as suggested by Canada, as an issue that may arise as part of a panel's
examination of the legal claims, it remains true – at least under the classical test which we shall be
employing – that legislation as such cannot be found to be inconsistent with a Member's WTO
obligations unless it is mandatory in nature. Thus , in any event, the order in which the two issues –
the question of the type of legislation and the substance of the case – are addressed would not alter
any eventual finding of consistency or lack thereof.

113 Request for Preliminary Rulings by the United States, para. 55.
114 See, e. g., United States – Superfund: The scheme in question involved, inter alia, a discriminatory
penalty tax that would be imposed if required information was not submitted by the importer. The Panel first
found that such a penalty tax, if imposed, would viol ate Article III:2, then went on to find that the
Superfund Act did not in fact require imposition of the tax, as the law foresaw the possibility for the
United States to adopt regulations that would eliminate the need to impose it ( United States – Taxes on
Petroleum and Certain Imported Substances ("Superfund"), Report of the Panel, adopted 17 June 1987,
BISD 34S/136, para. 5.2.9); Thailand – Cigarettes : After finding that the discriminatory tax rates provided for
under the law would violate GATT rules, the Panel went on to find that the Thai authorities both had sufficient
regulatory discretion to implement the law consistent with the GATT, and had actually exercised that discretion
in that way (Thailand – Restrictions on Importation of and Internal Taxes on Cigarettes , Report of the Panel,
adopted 7 November 1990, BISD 37S/200, para. 84); United States – Tobacco : The US statute mandated that
the US Department of Agriculture assess "comparable" inspection fees for imported and domestic tobacco, and
the Panel first considered the meaning of the word "comparable" in light of the relevant GATT requirement that
such fees be "commensurate" with the cost of services rendered to imported tobacco. The Panel then concluded
that the United States had the discretion to interpret "c omparable" as "commensurate" (and in practice had done
so), i. e., that the legislation did not require a violation ( United States – Measures Affecting the Importation,
Internal Sale, and Use of Tobacco, Report of the Panel, adopted 4 October 1994, BISD 41S/131, para. 123).

8.14 For the foregoing reasons, we shall first consider whether the treatment of export restraints as
financial contributions is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement and then determine whether US law
requires such treatment.
3. Whether the treatment of export restraints as financial contributions is inconsistent with
the SCM Agreement
(a) Scope of rulings
8.15 It is important, before we consider whether the treatment of export restraints as financial
contributions is inconsistent with the SCM Agreem ent, to indicate what exactly we understand the
term "export restraint" to mean in this dispute. In other words, we must first consider the essential
defining characteristics of the measure described as an "export restraint", which is the subject of the
claims before us, as this measure determines the scope of both the claims before us and our rulings
thereon.
8.16 Canada states that "[a]n export restraint is a border measure that takes the form of a
government law or regulation which expressly limits the quantity of exports or places explicit
conditions on the circumstances under which exports are permitted. Such measures could also take
the form of a government-imposed fee or tax on exports of the product calculated to limit the quantity
of exports".115 The United States, for its part, indicates that "the ordinary meaning of 'restraint' is 'the
action or an act of restraining something or someone'. 'Restrain', in turn, is defined as 'hold back or
prevent from some course of action'. Thus, an 'export restraint' would be an action or an act that holds
back or prevents exports".
116 We note that Canada and the United States do not have the same view as
to the essential elements that make up an export restraint, although both seem to envisage the
possibility that export restraints could take various forms (quantitative restrictions, taxes, etc.). In
particular, the definition proposed by the United States' is broader, and arguably would encompass
any action which results in the limiting of exports. The definition proposed by Canada, on the other
hand, sets out additional elements and is therefore narrower in scope.
8.17 We agree entirely with the United States that "[i]t is neither practicable nor desirable for the
Panel to attempt to define, in the abstract, a term that does not appear in the SCM Agreement"
117. On
the other hand, it is necessary to delineate clearly the scope of the issues before us. We note that, as
in any dispute, the scope of the claims is determined by the complainant. We shall therefore apply the
provisions of the SCM Agreement to the particular fact pattern cited by Canada, i. e., a border
measure that takes the form of a government law or regulation which expressly limits the quantity of
exports or places explicit conditions on the circumstances under which exports are permitted, or that
takes the form of a government-imposed fee or tax on exports of the product calculated to limit the
quantity of exports. It is these essential characteristics – which we shall refer to hereafter for
convenience as an "export restraint" – that delineate the scope of Canada's claims and of our rulings
thereon.
(b) Rules of treaty interpretation
8.18 Article 3.2 of the DSU indicates that Members recognise that the di spute settlement system
serves to clarify the provisions of the covered agreements "in accordance with customary rules of
interpretation of public international law". In this regard, the Appellate Body, in United States –
Gasoline, refers to " a fundamental rule of treaty interpretation [which] has received its most

115 Response of Canada to question 1 from the Panel to both parties at the first meeting.
116 Response of the United States to question 1 from the Panel to both parties at the first meeting
(footnotes omitted, emphasis in original).
117 Id.

authoritative and succinct expression in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (' Vienna
Convention')"118, and cites Article 31.1 thereof119, which reads as follows:
ARTICLE 31
General rule of interpretation
1. A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with
the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their
context and in the light of its object and purpose.
The Appellate Body indicates that "[this] general rule of interpretation has attained the status of a rule of
customary or general international law. As such, it forms part of the 'customary rules of interpretation of
public international law'" 120. We shall therefore begin our analysis of Canada's claim under
SCM Article 1 on the basis of the text of that provision in its context and in light of the object and
purpose of the SCM Agreement.
(c) Definition of "financial contribution" in the SCM Agreement
8.19 Canada's claim under SCM Article 1 centres on whether an export restraint can constitute a
"financial contribution" in the sense of SCM Article 1.1(a)(1). Canada argues that under its CVD law,
the United States treats export restraints as financial contributions in the form of government-
entrusted or government-directed provision of goods by a private body as provided for in
SCM Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) and (iv), and that if export restraints confer benefits, the United States
treats them as countervailable subsidies. In Canada's view, such an interpretation of these provisions
of the SCM Agreement is not permissible. The United States argues that export restraints can (at least
in some factual circumstances) constitute government-entrusted or government-directed provision of
goods by a private body. Thus, at the heart of Canada's claim is the definition in Article 1.1(a)(1) of
"financial contribution", and in particular, the provisions of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) and (iv).
8.20 SCM Article 1.1 provides as follows:
1.1 For the purpose of this Agreement, a subsidy shall be deemed to exist if:
(a)(1) there is a financial contribution by a government or any public body within
the territory of a Member (referred to in this Agreement as "government"), i.e. where:
(i) a government practice involves a direct transfer of funds (e.g. grants, loans,
and equity infusion), potential direct transfers of funds or liabilities (e.g. loan
guarantees);
(ii) government revenue that is otherwise due is foregone or not collected (e.g.
fiscal incentives such as tax credits [footnote omitted];
(iii) a government provides goods or services other than general infrastructure,
or purchases goods;

118 United States – Standards for Reformulated and Conventional Gasoline (" United States -
Gasoline"), Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS2/AB/R, adopted 20 May 1996, p. 16.
119 (1969), 8 International Legal Materials 679.
120 United States – Gasoline , Report of the Appellate Body, footnote 118, supra, p. 17 (footnote
omitted).

(iv) a government makes payments to a funding mechanism, or entrusts or
directs a private body to carry out one or more of the type of functions illustrated in
(i) to (iii) above which would normally be vested in the government and the
practice, in no real sense, differs from practices normally followed by governments;
or
(a)(2) there is any form of income or price support in the sense of Article XVI of
GATT 1994;
and
(b) a benefit is thereby conferred.
Thus, Article 1.1 makes clear that the definition of a subsidy has two distinct elements (i) a financial
contribution (or income or price support), (ii) which confers a benefit. The Appellate Body
emphasised this point in Brazil – Aircraft, stating that financial contribution and benefit are "separate
legal elements in Article 1.1 . . . which together determine whether a 'subsidy' exists"
121, which the
panel in that case had erroneously blended together by importing the concept of benefit into the
definition of financial contribution.
8.21 The issue under Article 1 as presented to us by the parties is limited to the definition of
financial contribution. There is no issue in respect of benefit, inter alia, because the parties agree that
an export restraint could confer a benefit.122 Thus, our analysis under SCM Article 1.1(a)(1) is limited
to the question of whether an export restraint could constitute a "financial contribution" in the sense of
that provision.
8.22 On this point, the view of the United States is that an export restraint can constitute a financial
contribution in the form of government-entrusted or government-directed provision of goods in the
sense of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) and (iv), in that a limitation or outright prohibition of exports of the
product in question is different only semantically from an affirmative direction to a private entity to
provide goods (to a greater degree than before or exclusively) to domestic producers. In other words,

121 Brazil – Aircraft , Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999,
para. 157 (emphasis in original).
122 The United States argues, "[D]omestic purchasers of a restrained product may be able to purchase
that product at a lower price than would otherwise be th e case if the market for that product was not artificially
limited by the government. In such a case, domestic purchasers of the restrained product would receive a
benefit in the form of lower costs for their inputs" (First Written Submission of the United States, para. 55). The
United States further argues, referring to Canada's request for establishment, "Canada does not allege that an
export restraint is incapable of providing a 'benefit' within the meaning of the SCM Agreement" (Response of
the United States to question 1 from the Panel at the first meeting, citation omitted). Canada submits, in its
request for the establishment of a panel, "[U]nder US [CVD] law, an export restraint is considered to satisfy the
'financial contribution' element of the definition of 'subsidy' in Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement. This means
that an export restraint that has a price effect beneficial to users of the restricted product in the restricted market
will be subject to countervailing duties if the other re quirements of US law are met (notably specificity and
material injury)" (WT/DS194/2, emphasis added). Canada also argues, "[T]he US claim that an export restraint
on pineapples is the 'functional equivalent' of ordering the growers to sell to the juice industry at 'less than
adequate remuneration' is nothing less than a claim that if there is a price effect, an export restraint may be
presumed to be a financial contribution. Put differently, this is an assertion that a benefit can 'confer' a financial
contribution" (Oral Statement of Canada at the first meeting, para. 30, emphasis added).

the United States argues, an export restraint is "functionally equivalent" to an entrustment of or
direction to a private body to provide goods domestically.123
8.23 In the view of Canada, by contrast, in light of the plain meaning of the words "entrust" and
"direct", for government entrustment or direction of the provision of goods to exist, the government
must explicitly and affirmatively instruct the private entity to provide the goods. For Canada, the US
argument that the difference is only semantic is unpersuasive because, in the US scenario, the
producers of the goods in question would, when faced with an export restraint, have only one option,
namely to sell to domestic purchasers, while in Canada's view this would never be the case. Rather, a
producer faced with an export restraint would have multiple options, which might include selling to
domestic purchasers, but might also include, for example, vertically integrating or switching to
another business altogether.
8.24 Thus, the specific issue before us is whether an export restraint could constitute a financial
contribution in the form of government-entrusted or government-directed provision of goods in the
sense of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) and (iv). It is to a detailed analysis of the text of these provisions that
we now turn.
(d) Text and context of the elements of the definition of "financial contribution" in the
SCM Agreement
8.25 The definition of financial contribution in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv)contains five requirements:
(i) a government "entrusts or directs"
(ii) "a private body"
(iii) "to carry out one or more of the type of functions illustrated in"
subparagraphs (i)-(iii) of Article 1.1(a)(1) (in this case the provision
of goods)
(iv) "which would normally be vested in the government" and
(v) "the practice, in no real sense, differs from practices normally
followed by governments"
According to Canada, in the case of treating export restraints as financial contributions, these required
conditions are not fulfilled. For the United States, it is possible for an export restraint to meet all of
the definitional elements set forth in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv), and therefore Canada's "extraordinary
request for an authoritative interpretation by the Panel of the SCM Agreement must fail as a matter of
substance."
124
(i) A government "entrusts or directs"
8.26 The United States argues that export restraints can fall within the Article 1.1(a)(1) definition
of "financial contribution" on the basis that export restraints constitute (or can constitute) government
"entrustment" or "direction" to a private body in the sense of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) (to "provide goods"

123 The United States argues, for example, that an export restraint and an affirmative direction to
provide goods domestically "are functionally equivalent – where a producer is faced with two options, a
prohibition on one option is an affirmative direction to perform the other. An export ban clearly directs
producers not to export, thereby directing them to seek the only other purchasers available to them for the sale
of their goods" (First Written Submission of the United States, para. 38).
124 First Written Submission of the United States, para. 5.

in the sense of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii)), because the United States sees no substantive difference, but
only a semantic one, between a restriction on exporting a product and an instruction to sell that
product domestically. For the United States, the two are "functionally equivalent". Canada takes
issue with this interpretation of the concept of "entrusts or directs". According to Canada, the plain
meaning of "entrusts or directs" is active, i.e., to order or commission someone to do something. For
Canada, this ordinary meaning is reinforced by th e terms that immediately follow the words "entrusts
or directs" in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv), namely "to carry out". In Canada's view, the term "entrusts or
directs . . . to carry out" suggests the communication of a particular duty or instruction that is to be
discharged or executed. Canada argues that an export restraint does not fit this definition, as it does
not commission or charge or authoritatively instruct producers of the restrained good to do anything;
to the contrary, it limits their ability to export.
8.27 The United States refers to a number of dictionary definitions of the words "entrust" and
"direct" (some of which are broader than those used by Canada), including, "give responsibility to";
"cause to move in or take a specified direction"; "regulate the course of"; "guide (someone or
something)"; "instruct (someone or something) with authority", "give authoritative instructions to; to
ordain, order (a person) to do (a thing) to be done; order the performance of". For the United States, it
cannot be said that no export restraint is capable of satisfying any of these definitions. At a
minimum, according to the United States, an export restraint can "regulate the activities of" or "cause"
a private body to carry out one of the enumerated functions of subparagraphs (i)-(iii) and thus provide
a financial contribution. The United States submits that "[a]n export restraint is a direction to provide
goods to domestic purchasers if it can be shown, as a factual matter, that there is a proximate causal
relationship between the export restraint and the behaviour of the producers of the restrained product.
Of course, whether such a causal relationship exists can only be assessed on a case-by-case basis". 125
In particular, the United States argues, if the restraint results in the producer having no practical or
commercial choice but to sell (or to increase its sales) in the domestic market, the restraint is the same
as a direction to sell in the domestic market. The United States further elaborates on this point, stating
that "there would need to be a demonstrated causal relationship" 126 between an export restraint and a
private body's action (e. g., the provision of a good) in order for there to be a financial contribution.
8.28 In our view, the requirement of "entrustment" or "direction" in subparagraph (iv) refers to the
situation in which the government executes a particular policy by operating through a private body.
The question in this dispute relates to the conditions under which the government can be considered to
be operating through a private body as foreseen by subparagraph (iv). The dictionary meaning of the
word "entrust" is, inter alia, to "give (a person, etc.) the responsibility for a task . . . Commit the . . .
execution of (a task) to a person . . . ". 127 The word "direct" is defined, inter alia , as to "[g]ive
authoritative instructions to; order (a person) to do . . . order the performance of".128 In this regard, we
consider significant the fact that, for "direct" when followed by "to" plus an infinitive (i. e., a verb),
the dictionary gives as a meaning to "give a formal order or command to" 129, as this is precisely the
construction used in subparagraph (iv) (". . . entrusts or directs a private body to carry out . . .").
8.29 It follows from the ordinary meanings of the tw o words "entrust" and "direct" that the action
of the government must contain a notion of delegation (in the case of entrustment) or command (in the
case of direction). To our minds, both the act of entrusting and that of directing therefore necessarily
carry with them the following three elements: (i) an explicit and affirmative action, be it delegation or
command; (ii) addressed to a particular party; and (iii) the object of which action is a particular task or

125 Comment of the United States on question 9 from the Panel to Canada following the first meeting
(italic emphasis in original, underline emphasis added).
126 Comment of the United States on question 11 from the Panel to Canada following the first meeting.
127 The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, Volume 1, 1993, Clarendon Press, Oxford.
128 Id.
129The Concise Oxford Dictionary, Ninth Edition, 1995, Clarendon Press, Oxford.

duty. In other words, the ordinary meanings of the verbs "entrust" and "direct" comprise these
elements – something is necessarily delegated, and it is necessarily delegated to someone; and, by the
same token, someone is necessarily commanded, and he is necessarily commanded to do something .
We therefore do not believe that either entrustment or direction could be said to have occurred until
all of these three elements are present.
8.30 Having said that, it is clearly the first element – an explicit and affirmative action of
delegation or command – that is determinative. The second and third elements – addressed to a
particular party and of a particular task – are aspects of the first. Any assessment of whether
delegation or command has occurred would necessarily be in reference to that which has been
delegated or commanded and in reference to the one to whom it has been delegated or commanded.
As aspects of and flowing from the first element of the definition, the second and third elements
provide further support for our view that the action must be an explicit and affirmative act of
delegation or command. We note, in this regard, that the "entrusts or directs" language in
subparagraph (iv) is followed by the language "a private body to carry out . . . ", which is similar to
that which we have used to describe the second and third elements of the definition of entrustment or
direction. Thus, the subsequent language in subparagraph (iv) confirms our view of the requirement
of an explicit and affirmative action.
8.31 Government entrustment or direction is thus very different from the situation in which the
government intervenes in the market in some way, which may or may not have a particular result
simply based on the given factual circumstances and the exercise of free choice by the actors in that
market. Indeed, governments intervene in markets in various ways, and with various policy or profit
objectives, and these interventions might have various results, including results that are not intended
by, or that are even undesirable for, the government. We do not see how a scenario of this type would
comprise the three elements that we consider to be germane to the definition of entrustment or
direction. That is, the fact that two different government actions might happen to have the same result
in a given situation does not transform the nature of the actions, i. e., it does not mean that the two
actions are effectively one and the same. Otherwise put, the distinction that we make between
entrustment or direction and a government intervention which might or might not have a particular
effect in a particular market at a particular time is not merely semantic.
8.32 The phrase "entrusts or directs" in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) is immediately preceded by the phrase
"a government makes payments to a funding mechanism or". We consider that these two phrases are
aimed at capturing equivalent government actions. Both are government actions that substitute an
intermediary (whether a funding mechanism or a private body) to make a financial contribution that
otherwise would be made directly by the governme nt. In other words, the action of a government
making payments to a funding mechanism and that of it entrusting or directing a private body to carry
out the functions listed in subparagraphs (i)-(iii) are equivalent government actions. This is further
contextual support for our view that entrustment or direction constitutes an explicit and affirmative
action, comparable to the making of payments to a funding mechanism.
8.33 Our understanding of the United States' view is that, where the effect of an export restraint is
to induce domestic producers to sell their product (in greater quantities or exclusively) to the domestic
purchasers/users of that product, this is the same as if the government had explicitly and affirmatively
ordered the domestic producers to do so, and that thus there is a financial contribution in the form of
government-entrusted or government-directed provis ion of goods. In forwarding this argument of
"functional equivalence" or "conceptual equivalence", the United States focuses primarily on the
effects or the results of a government action, rather than on the nature of the action, in order to
determine whether that action constitutes a financial contribution. Thus, according to the
US approach, the existence of a financial contribution in the case of an export restraint depends
entirely on the reaction thereto of the producers of the restrained good, and specifically on the extent
to which they increase their domestic sales of the restrained product because of the restraint. Under

the US approach, the existence of a financial contribution in the case of an export restraint therefore
actually cannot be determined from the nature of that action (the export restraint) as such.
8.34 We consider that it cannot be the case that the nature of a Member government's measure
under the SCM Agreement is to be determined solely on the basis of the reaction to that measure by
those it affects. Rather, the existence of a financial contribution by a government must be proven by
reference to the action of the government. To determine whether a financial contribution exists under
subparagraph (iv) solely by reference to the reaction of affected entities would mean in practice that a
different standard would apply under that provision as compared to the standard under
subparagraphs (i)-(iii), which involves consideration of the action of the government first. Similarly,
we do not see how the reaction of private entities to a given governmental measure can be the basis on
which the Member's compliance with its treaty obligations under the WTO is established.
8.35 Moreover, applying the "effects" approach to the question of whether a financial contribution
exists would have far-reaching implications. In particular, it would seem to imply that any
government measure that creates market conditions favourable to or resulting in the increased supply
of a product in the domestic market would constitute a government-entrusted or government-directed
provision of goods, and hence a financial contribution. While the United States does not appear to
argue that this is the result it seeks, it points to no legal basis on which export restraints could be
distinguished from other measures causing the same sorts of market effects. In response to a question
as to what such a legal basis would be under the US approach, the United States submits:
"First, under the ordinary meaning of 'direct', there would have to be
the requisite causal connection between the government measure and
the behaviour of private actors in order for a financial contribution to
exist . . . Thus, the legal basis is found in subparagraph (iv) itself.
Second . . . it would be short-sighted to focus solely on the financial
contribution element of an actionable subsidy . . . One must take into
account the fact that the application of the concepts of 'benefit' and
'specificity' will weed out government measures that might arguably
satisfy the definition of 'financial contribution'."
130
8.36 Thus, the only "legal basis" cited by the United States is the "causal connection between the
government measure and the behaviour of private actors". Given that such a causal connection could
exist in respect of a wide variety of government measures, by this argument the United States seems
implicitly to acknowledge that, under its approach, any government measure that caused an increase
in the domestic supply of a good would, for that reason alone, constitute government-entrusted or
government-directed provision of goods and hence a financial contribution.
8.37 A hypothetical example better illustrates the difficulties of the US "effects" approach. Let us
assume that a government imposes extremely high tariffs on imports of coal. It follows that the price
of imported coal in the domestic market would increase and the supply thereof would perhaps
decrease. Domestic downstream users of coal, such as steel producers, would probably find it more
economical to purchase coal from domestic producers, who would thus see an increase in their sales
volumes and would be likely to secure better terms of sale as well. A government action – the
imposition of high tariffs on coal – would have benefited producers of coal by causing downstream
users of coal to make a greater proportion of purchases from domestic producers vis-à-vis foreign
producers as compared to the situation prior to the imposition of such tariffs. Surely this cannot be
considered to be a situation where a government "entrusts or directs" a private body (users of coal) to
purchase goods within the meaning of subparagraph (iii) – or "entrusts or directs" a private body
(producers of coal) to provide goods within the meaning of subparagraph (iii) – and hence to

130 Response of the United States to question 36(a) from the Panel following the first meeting.

constitute a financial contribution, although that is precisely the result that applying the US "effects"
approach would yield. Were that to be the case, tariffs would constitute financial contributions and,
given that they would necessarily confer a bene fit on some actors in the market, tariffs would
constitute subsidies within the meaning of Article 1 of the SCM Agreement.
8.38 In the above example of imposition of tariffs, there may well be a question as to consistency
with Article II of the GATT 1994, which deals with Members' schedules of concessions. It is,
however, doubtful that the concept of financial contribution contained in Article 1.1(a) of the
SCM Agreement seeks to bring such government action within the ambit of the SCM Agreement. To
the contrary, by introducing the notion of financial contribution, the drafters foreclosed the possibility
of the treatment of any government action that resulted in a benefit as a subsidy
131. Indeed, this is
arguably the principal significance of the concept of financial contribution, which can be
characterised as one of the "gateways" to the SCM Agreement, along with the concepts of benefit and
specificity. To hold that the concept of financia l contribution is about the effects, rather than the
nature, of a government action would be effectively to write it out of the Agreement, leaving the
concepts of benefit and specificity as the sole determinants of the scope of the Agreement.
8.39 We note in this context that in the Uruguay Round the United States took the position that
benefit was the key factor in the determination of the type of measure that constituted a subsidy. 132
Similarly, in this dispute, the United States submits, in response to questions from the Panel
concerning the determination of "entrusts or directs", and the legal significance, if any, of the concepts
of "benefit" and "specificity" for interpretation of the term "financial contribution", that:
"[U]nder the ordinary meaning of 'direct', there would have to be the
requisite causal connection between the government measure and the
behaviour of private actors in order for a financial contribution to
exist . . . ";
133
and that:
"The requirements of 'benefit' and 'specificity' are relevant [to the
question of legal interpretation of the concept of 'financial
contribution'] because Canada and the European Communities [] are
attempting to induce the Panel to adopt an unwarrantedly narrow
interpretation of subparagraph (iv) based on unsubstantiated
allegations of a 'parade of horribles' that supposedly would occur if
their narrow interpretation is not accepted. However, the fact is that
the 'benefit' and specificity' elements will operate so as to render
many alleged indirect subsidies non-actionable and, thus, non-
countervailable."
134
We understand the United States' response to our question of legal interpretation to be primarily that
the practical consequences of a broad interpretation of the concept of financial contribution would be
limited because in practice such an interpretation will not convert enormous numbers of government
regulatory measures into subsidies, in view of the probable absence in many cases of benefit and
specificity.

131 See paras. 8.66-8.69, infra, on negotiating history.
132 Submission by the United States, MTN. GNG/NG10/W/29, 22 Novemb er 1989, para. II.1(a)
(Exhibit CAN-34).
133 Response of the United States to Question 36(a) from the Panel following the first meeting.
134 Response of the United States to question 36(b) from the Panel following the first meeting.

8.40 But this response is not satisfactory; the requirements of "benefit" and "specificity" are
separate legal questions from, and are not relevant to, the legal interpretation of the term "financial
contribution"135. The US effects-based approach implies that the "financial contribution" element is
not a meaningful legal requirement and thus not a limiting factor in itself in respect of the
determination of the type of measure that falls within the scope of the SCM Agreement, and that the
only limiting factors are "benefit" and "specificity". This of course cannot be correct. Indeed, as
noted above, the Appellate Body stated in Brazil – Aircraft that "the issues – and the respective
definitions – of a 'financial contribution' and a 'benefit' are two separate legal elements in Article 1.1
of the SCM Agreement, which together determine whether a 'subsidy' exists".
136 We believe therefore
that the US approach would effectively, and impermissibly, eliminate financial contribution as a
"separate legal element".
8.41 We find further support in the reasoning of the A ppellate Body in the appeal of the original
Panel ruling in Canada – Aircraft for our view that the United States' "effects" approach
(i. e., increase as a matter of fact in the domestic supply of the restrained good as a result of an export
restraint) is an impermissible basis for determining the existence of a financial contribution under
subparagraph (iv). In the Canada – Aircraft appeal, the specific definitional question under the
SCM Agreement was the meaning of de facto export contingency in the sense of SCM Article 3.1(a)
and footnote 4. The underlying principle was, however, similar. In particular, Canada argued in that
case that, for a subsidy to be de facto contingent on export performance, it " must cause the recipient
to prefer exports to domestic sales".137
8.42 The Appellate Body rejected this argument and essentially agreed with Brazil and the United
States that the focus of the SCM Agreement's obligations is on the granting government 138. The
Appellate Body stated that "[i]t does not suffice to demonstrate solely that a government granting a
subsidy anticipated that exports would result"139, and elaborated that, while "[a] subsidy may well be
granted in the knowledge, or with the anticipation, that exports will result . . . that alone is not
sufficient, because that alone is not proof that the granting of the subsidy is tied to the anticipation of
exportation"140. In other words, the Appellate Body found that a cause and effect relationship
between the subsidy and actual or anticipated trends in exports was not sufficient to satisfy the "tied
to" standard of conditionality for export contingency to exist. 141 Similarly, in the case before us, for
the "entrusts or directs" standard to be met, i.e., for there to be a financial contribution in the sense of
subparagraph (iv), the government's action must be the focus, rather than the possible effects of the
action on, or the reactions to it by, those affected, even if those effects or reactions are expected.
8.43 Nor are we persuaded by the parallel that the United States seeks to draw, in support of its
cause-and-effect argument, between a certain statement in the Canada – Dairy Panel's findings in

135 We believe, in particular, that the appropriate way to conceive of "financial contribution" is purely
as a transfer of economic resources by a government to private entities in the market, without regard to the terms
of that transfer. Such a transfer can be effected eith er by a government directly (subparagraphs (i)-(iii)) or
indirectly through private bodies (subparagraph (iv)). The question of the terms on which the transfer is made
does not have to do with the existence of a financial contribution but rather goes to the separate issue of benefit,
as Article 14 makes clear, by providing that to determine whether a benefit exists, the terms of the financial
contribution need to be compared with the market terms.
136 Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft , Appellate Body Report, WT/DS46/AB/R,
adopted 20 August 1999, para. 157 (emphasis in original).
137 Canada – Measures Affecting th e Export of Civilian Aircraft , Report of the Appellate Body,
WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20 August 1999, para. 20.
138 Id., para. 170.
139 Id., para. 170.
140 Id., para. 171.
141 Id., paras. 171-172.

respect of item (d) of the Illustrative List of Export Subsidies 142 (which findings in any event were
rendered moot by the Appellate Body), and the "entrusts or directs" standard of
SCM Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv)143. In particular, the panel statement cited by the United States is that it was
not necessary "that the federal or provincial governments specifically direct a certain outcome or
course of action to be achieved or taken" for the milk pooling system at issue to constitute provision
of goods by a government "through government-mandated schemes" in the sense of item (d) of the
Illustrative List. In fact, this statement by the Canada – Dairy Panel, when seen in its full context,
leads to the opposite conclusion from that advanced by the United States. First, the general context
for the statement was the Panel's finding that it was the government (and not marketing boards or
other entities acting on their own) that decided which milk should be sold to which customers at
which prices, and that enforced these decisions through a system of permits and other measures.
Second, the immediate context for the cited statement of the Panel was that, even to the extent that the
marketing boards and other entities had some disc retion to make certain marketing decisions, that
discretion had been explicitly delegated to them by the government and thus the exercise of that
discretion (i. e., the situation where the government did not "specifically direct a certain outcome or
course of action") did not alter the conclusion that milk was being provided through "government-
mandated schemes". This is neither the same as nor analogous to the US approach and thus provides
no support for the US argument that an increase in the domestic supply of a good which happens to
result, as a matter of fact, from the application of some government intervention in the market for that
good constitutes government-entrusted or government-directed provision of the good.
144 T o t h e
contrary, the Panel made this statement in reference to a market every aspect of the operation of
which was explicitly and tightly controlled and managed by the government.
8.44 In sum, we consider that the ordinary meanings of the words "entrusts" and "directs" require
an explicit and affirmative action of delegation or command. Moreover, we find that the "effects" test
(i. e., a proximate causal relationship) 145 advanced by the United States as the definition of "entrusts
or directs" has implications which in our view would be contrary to the intended scope and coverage
of the SCM Agreement, in that it would effectively read out of the text of Article 1 the financial
contribution requirement. Thus, we find that an export restraint in the sense that the term is used in
this dispute cannot satisfy the "entrusts or directs" standard of subparagraph (iv).
(ii) "Private body"
8.45 In its initial submissions in this dispute, Canada takes issue with the idea that the individual
producers of a good subject to export restraints could be considered to be a "private body". The
essence of Canada's argument on this point is that the term "private body" connotes a
"collectivity" which a disparate group of producers does not have. For Canada, a "private body" is an
organised private group or collective entity that has a separate and independent existence. The fact
that a given group of individuals can be described by a common characteristic (e. g., gold miners),
would not transform the universe of such individuals into a "private body".
8.46 However, in its later submissions in this disput e, Canada seems to indicate that an explicit
government direction or entrustment to a given producer or group of producers, whether individually

142 SCM Agreement, Annex I.
143 First Written Submission of the United States, paras. 62, 65-66.
144 We note that the United States premises this argument on its view that item (d) of the Illustrative
List, and the Canada – Dairy Panel's reasoning in respect thereof, constitute relevant context for the concept of
government-entrusted or government-directed provisio n of goods in the sense of SCM Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii)
and (iv), on the grounds that "indirect subsidies falling under item (d) must involve financial contributions
within the meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv)". Given that the passage from Canada – Dairy cited by the
United States does not stand for the proposition asserted by the United States, we do not believe that it is
necessary to consider, as such, the relationship between SCM Article 1 and the Illustrative List in SCM Annex I.
145 See para. 8.26, supra.

or collectively, and no matter how identified or defined, would itself transform those producers into a
"private body" in the sense of subparagraph (iv). According to Canada:
"In order for a government to entrust or direct someone to do
something, there must be some sort of government communication
with the person or group so entrusted. This could occur in a variety
of ways . . . Whatever device is available or chosen would identify
the person(s) to whom the entrustment or direction was given and
would impose the obligation on that person(s) to carry out a specific
financial contribution . . . "
146
According to Canada, the term "private body" is thus given meaning by the surrounding text in
subparagraph (iv), which includes the function of government entrustment or direction.147
8.47 The United States essentially submits that Canada's (original) argument would suggest that,
even if the government in question were to command each of the many private producers of a given
product to act in a certain way, these producers nevertheless could not be deemed to be "private
bodies" in the sense of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv), because they were not organised into a collective entity of
some sort. In other words, for the United States, Canada seems to indicate that only an organised
body or collective entity with a separate existence can in Canada's view be a "private body". The
United States argues that nothing in the text imp lies such a limitation of the term "private body". In
the US view, any private entity is a private body, whether or not organised as a "collectivity". Rather,
any common characteristic in respect of a given group of individuals does transform the universe of
such individuals into a "private body". For instance, in the case of an export restraint, producers of
the good subject to the export restraint would co nstitute a "private body". Moreover, for the
United States, as long as there is some entity that could constitute a private body, Canada has not
discharged its burden of proof in respect of this element.
8.48 We note that the original argument by Canada is essentially supplanted by its argument as to
the nature (i. e., explicitness) of a government action that is necessary for that action to constitute
government "entrustment or direction" of a private body to do something. Canada thus appears
effectively to have dropped its "organised" entity approach. To our minds, the difference of opinion
between the parties on the definition of "private body" therefore hinges on the difference of opinion
between them on the definition of "entrusts or directs". In other words, under the approach advanced
by both parties, it is the nature of entrustment or direction that would define the composition of the
relevant "private body", and the latter could only be identified as a function of the former.
8.49 We believe that the term "private body" is used in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) as a counterpoint to
"government" or "any public body" as the actor. That is, any entity that is neither a government nor a
public body would be a private body. Under this re ading of the term "private body", there is no room
for circumvention in subparagraph (iv)
148. As it is a government or a public body that would have to
entrust or direct under subparagraph (iv), any entity other than a government or a public body could
receive the entrustment or direction and could constitu te a "private body". This is entirely logical.
We do not consider that there is any need for a further definition of "private body", be it in reference
to the nature of entrustment or direction or a common characteristic or some other factor. To the
contrary, if there were such a further narrowing of the term "private body" in the Agreement, this
would effectively exclude from any subsidy disciplines actions by some entities even if the entities in
question had been explicitly and affirmatively ordered to take those actions by a government. For

146 Response of Canada to question 26 from the Panel following the second meeting.
147 Id.
148 See paragraph 8.53 , infra.

these reasons, we conclude that the companies or other entities affected by or reacting to an export
restraint would be "private bodies" in the sense of subparagraph (iv).
(iii) "To carry out one or more of the type of functions illustrated in (i) to (iii) above"
8.50 We note that, although there is disagreement between the parties as to the meaning of the
phrase "one or more of the type of functions illustrated in (i)-(iii) above", this disagreement is not
about whether the physical action at issue would or would not be provision of goods, a function
explicitly identified in subparagraph (iii). Both parties recognise, as we also do, that an export
restraint could result in a private body or bodies "provid[ing] goods". In this sense, an export restraint
could satisfy this element of subparagraph (iv).
8.51 Instead, the parties' disagreement as to the meaning of this phrase has to do with whether the
word "type" in this phrase means, as the United States argues, that subparagraph (iv) encompasses a
"wide spectrum of potentially actionable government mechanisms", inter alia, export restraints. In
particular, the United States argues that the word "type" means "the general form, structure, or
character distinguishing a particular group or class of thing", and on this basis argues that the
inclusion of this word suggests that functions of the same general form, structure, or character as
those illustrated in subparagraphs (i)-(iii) would likewise constitute the indirect provision of a
financial contribution. Canada considers that the phrase "one or more of the type of functions
illustrated in (i) to (iii)" refers only to any one of the functions listed in subparagraphs (i)-(iii), and
that an export restraint, a direction not to export, is not the same "type" of function as an affirmative
direction to provide goods domestically.
8.52 The argument of the United States concerning the word "type" is unclear. As noted above,
there is no disagreement between the parties, nor do we disagree, that the physical function at issue in
the context of an export restraint would be provision of goods. The word "type" does not need to be
interpreted broadly to arrive at this conclusion. On the other hand, if what the United States is
arguing here is that an export restraint, itse lf a government function, can be seen pursuant to
subparagraph (iv) as the same "type of function" as one of the government functions identified in
subparagraphs (i)-(iii), we do not see how such an argument would fit within the framework of
subparagraph (iv). That is, subparagraph (iv) has to do with the entrustment or direction by a
government to a private body of one of the government "functions" identified in subparagraphs (i)-
(iii). We do not see how the use of the word "type" before the word "function" in subparagraph (iv)
would transform the meaning and operation of that subparagraph such that it would encompass
functions performed by a government other than those identified in subparagraphs (i)-(iii).
8.53 Thus, we find no support in the text of the Agreement for the US reading of the word "type".
Rather, in our view, the phrase "type of functions" refers to the physical functions identified in
subparagraphs (i)-(iii). In this regard, we believe that the intention of subparagraph (iv) is to avoid
circumvention of subparagraphs (i)-(iii) by a gove rnment simply by acting through a private body.
Thus, ultimately, the scope of the actions (the physical functions) covered by subparagraph (iv) must
be the same as those covered by subparagraphs (i)-(iii). That is, the difference between
subparagraphs (i)-(iii) on the one hand, and subparagraph (iv) on the other, has to do with the identity
of the actor, and not with the nature of the action. The phrase "type of functions" ensures that this is
the case, that is, that Article 1 covers the types of functions identified in subparagraphs (i)-(iii)
whether those functions are performed by the government itself or are delegated to a private body by
the government.
8.54 As for the specific word "type", we se e this as referring to the fact that each of
subparagraphs (i)-(iii) constitutes by itself a general "type of functions" that encompasses one or more
categories of behaviour. The subsequent phrase "illustrated in (i) to (iii) above" confirms this. In
particular, subparagraphs (i)-(iii) each refer to multiple government actions and provide examples

thereof. Subparagraph (i), for instance, refers to three general categories (direct transfers of funds;
potential direct transfers of funds; and potential direct transfers of liabilities) of the "type of function"
of transfers of funds and liabilities.
8.55 We therefore find that the phrase "type of functions" refers to the physical functions
encompassed by subparagraphs (i)-(iii), and does not expand the scope of subparagraph (iv) beyond
these, to encompass other kinds of "government mechanisms".
(iv) "Which would normally be vested in the government" and "the practice, in no real sense,
differs from practices normally followed by governments"
8.56 Canada argues that an export restraint, because it does not constitute government-entrusted or
government-directed provision of goods, also woul d not fulfill the "normally vested" and "in no real
sense differs" language in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv). For Canada, this language also establishes legal
requirements that must be met for there to be a financial contribution under this provision. That is,
according to Canada, in the case where the government entrusts or directs a private body to carry out
one of the functions listed in subparagraphs (i)-(iii), the function must be one that would normally be
vested in the government, and must not differ in any real sense from practices normally followed by
governments. In Canada's view, the drafting of this text indicates that these conditions are
requirements, specifically of a habitual practice by a government of engaging in one of the functions
enumerated. Canada observes that the limiting effect of these conditions is consistent with the
purpose of subparagraph (iv) to ensure that a government cannot avoid otherwise applicable subsidy
disciplines by using a private sector surrogate to make financial contributions that the government
normally would have made directly. Thus, Canada's argument suggests that the scope of the actions
covered by subparagraph (iv) is narrower than the scope of the actions covered by subparagraphs (i)-
(iii).
8.57 We note that the United States, for its part, argues that the functions identified in
subparagraphs (i)-(iii) are "normal" government functions in the context of government provision of
subsidies.
149 The United States submits that the "normally vested" and "in no real sense differs"
language originated in the 1960 report of the Panel on Review Pursuant to Article XVI:5 , in which
similar language was used in respect of producer-funded levies that were deemed not to differ, in any
real sense, from government practices of taxation and subsidisation (That Panel referred to the
government taking part "either by making payments into a common fund or entrusting to a private
body the functions of taxation and subsidisation with the result that the practice would in no real sense
differ from those normally followed by governments"
150). Thus, for the United States, these last
elements of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) mean that the functions in question are those where the government
would be engaged in taxation and/or subsidisation, which in the US view could include the instituting
of an export restraint.
8.58 We view the US argument as suggesting that the scope of the actions covered by
subparagraph (iv) is broader than the scope of the actions covered by subparagraphs (i)-(iii). In
particular, by arguing that for the "normally vested" and "in no real sense differs" language to be
satisfied, the government must be engaging in "subsidisation", the United States' reasoning seems to
be circular, in that it appears to import the concept of benefit into the concept of financial
contribution.
151 We believe that, under such an approach, any government market intervention that

149 Comment of the United States on question 12(a) from the Panel to Canada following the first
meeting.
150 Review Pursuant to Article XVI:5 , Report of the Panel, L/1160, adopted 24 May 1960
(BISD 9S/188), para. 12.
151 The United States indicates that "in stating that 'normal' government functions refer to government
action in the context of providing subsidies, [it] was using the term 'subsidies' in the non-technical, vernacular

involved a reallocation of resources which created a benefit would be viewed as involving
"subsidisation" in the broad sense used by the United States, and thus as satisfying the financial
contribution requirement. In other words, under this approach, subparagraph (iv) would treat as
financial contributions government actions that created "benefits" even when those actions were not
among the functions encompassed by subparagraphs (i)-(iii).
8.59 While we have serious doubts regarding both of the parties' arguments as to the implications
for the scope of subparagraph (iv) of the "normally vested" and "in no real sense differs", we do not
consider that making a finding regarding the precise meaning of this language is necessary to resolve
this dispute. In particular, these arguments do not directly address the basic question raised by
Canada's argument that an export restraint, because it does not constitute government entrustment or
direction of the provision of goods, for that reason would not satisfy the "normally vested" and "in no
real sense differs" language. We note that for an export restraint never to be able to satisfy these
textual elements, logically it would have to be the case that no government ever provided goods in the
sense of subparagraph (iii) (something that Canada clearly does not argue), as only then could it be
said that provision of goods would never be "normally vested" in a government. Thus, we do not see
how Canada's argument, that the "normally vested" and "in no real sense differs" language narrows
the circumstances in which there would be government entrustment or direction of the provision of
goods, would rule out the possibility that an export restraint could potentially constitute such a
provision of goods.
(e) Object and purpose
8.60 We recall that, under Article 31 of the Vienna Convention, the terms of a treaty must be read
in light of the treaty's object and purpose.
8.61 The United States cites the statement of the panel in Brazil – Aircraft that "the object and
purpose of the SCM Agreement is to impose multilateral disciplines on subsidies which distort
international trade". It further cites the statement of the panel in Canada – Aircraft that "the object
and purpose of the SCM Agreement could more appropriately be summarised as the establishment of
multilateral disciplines 'on the premise that some forms of government intervention distort
international trade, [or] have the potential to distort [international trade]'".
152 The United States
argues that "[b]y emphasising the need to address government interventions that distort international
trade – regardless of whether or not a government has incurred a cost – the panel [in Canada –
Aircraft] confirmed that the curtailment of market-distorting government interventions is the central
purpose of the SCM Agreement". The United States further submits that "the object and purpose of
the SCM Agreement must inform the interpretation of the textual provisions at issue . . . [T]he
meaning of these provisions should not be improperly narrowed to exclude measures commonly
understood to be subsidies that distort trade, where the text would not exclude them and where doing
so would frustrate the object and purpose of the Agreement".
153
8.62 We agree with the statements both of the Panel in Brazil – Aircraft and of that in Canada –
Aircraft as to the object and purpose of the SCM Agreement in disciplining certain forms of
government action. It does not follow from those statements, however, that every government
intervention that might in economic theory be deemed a subsidy with the potential to distort trade is a
subsidy within the meaning of the SCM Agreement. Such an approach would mean that the
"financial contribution" requirement would effectively be replaced by a requirement that the

sense, similar to the manner in which it was used in Review Pursuant to Article XVI:5" (Response to question 25
from the Panel following the first meeting, citation omitted). We are not convinced, however, that this
explanation eliminates the circularity of the US argument.
152 First Written Submission of the United States, paras. 14, 16.
153 Response of the United States to question 18 from the Panel following the first meeting.

government action in question be commonly understood to be a subsidy that distorts trade. The legal
meaning of the term "subsidy" must, however, be derived from an analysis of the text and context of
Article 1 of the SCM Agreement.
8.63 Moreover, we do not see any contradiction between the said object and purpose of the
SCM Agreement and the fact that certain measures that might be commonly understood to be
subsidies that distort trade might in fact be excluded from the scope of the Agreement. Indeed, while
the object and purpose of the Agreement clearly is to discipline subsidies that distort trade, this object
and purpose can only be in respect of "subsidies" as defined in the Agreement. This definition, which
incorporates the notions of "financial contribution", "benefit", and "specificity", was drafted with the
express purpose of ensuring that not every government intervention in the market would fall within
the coverage of the Agreement (See Section VIII.B.3(f) on negotiating history, infra).
(f) Negotiating History
8.64 The Appellate Body states, in Japan – Alcoholic Beverages, that "[t]here can be no doubt that
Article 32 of the Vienna Convention, dealing with the role of supplementary means of interpretation,
has also attained the same status [as Article 31, of a rule of customary or general international
law]"
154. Article 32 of the Vienna Convention reads as follows:
ARTICLE 32
Supplementary means of interpretation
Recourse may be had to supplementary means of interpretation,
including the preparatory work of the treaty and the circumstances of
its conclusion, in order to confirm the meaning resulting from the
application of article 31, or to determine the meaning when the
interpretation according to article 31:
(a) Leaves the meaning ambiguous or obscure; or
(b) Leads to a result which is manifestly absurd or unreasonable.
Pursuant to Article 32 of the Vienna Convention , negotiating history can thus be invoked as a
supplementary means of interpretation, to confirm a conclusion reached on the basis of a textual and
contextual analysis of a treaty. We therefore consider it useful to review the negotiating history of
SCM Article 1 generally and its "financial contribution" requirement in particular.
(i) Negotiating history of the inclusion of the "financial contribution" requirement
8.65 The negotiating history of Article 1 confirms our interpretation of the term "financial
contribution". This negotiating history demonstrates, in the first place, that the requirement of a
financial contribution from the outset was intended by its proponents precisely to ensure that not all
government measures that conferred benefits could be deemed to be subsidies. This point was
extensively discussed during the negotiations, with many participants consistently maintaining that
only government actions constituting financial contributions should be subject to the multilateral rules
on subsidies and countervailing measures.
155

154 Japan – Taxes on Alcoholic Beverages (" Japan – Alcoholic Beverages "), Report of the Appellate
Body, WT/DS8/AB/R-WT/DS10/AB/R-WT/DS11/AB/R, adopted 1 November 1996, p. 10.
155 See, e. g., Canada: "A basic condition for countervailability of a given measure should be the
existence of a financial contribution by a government" (MTN.GNG/NG10/W/25); the European Communities:

8.66 Prior to the Uruguay Round, the multilateral subsidy and countervailing measures disciplines
were contained in Article XVI and VI, respectively, of GATT 1947, and the Tokyo Round Subsidies
Code. None of these provisions contained a definitio n of "subsidy". Rather, they simply referred to
the term "subsidy". In spite of the existence of multilateral disciplines on the provision of subsidies,
there was in practice very little GATT dispute settlement pursuant to these disciplines, and little
attention in that context to the meaning of the term "subsidy". There was, by contrast, relatively
frequent recourse to countervailing measures by a certain group of countries (including the United
States), with each country that used such measures implementing its own definition of subsidy under
its domestic procedures.
8.67 The United States in particular developed a definition which treated as countervailable
subsidies "formal, enforceable" government measures "which directly led to a discernible benefit
being provided"
156. In other words, the United States' pre-WTO approach was to define as
countervailable subsidies benefits arising from government action, regardless of the nature of that
action.157 This approach was controversial with other GATT contracting parties, who considered that
not every sort of government measure that conferred a benefit could be considered to be a potential
subsidy.158 During the Uruguay Round, numerous participants in the Negotiating Group on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures ("the Negotiating Group") stressed the need to develop a definition of
the term "subsidy", because of the problems caused by the lack of a uniform definition, particularly in
the context of countervailing actions.
159 This point of view was expressed from the outset, as is
evident from the first (September 1987) version of a checklist of issues for negotiations which was
compiled by the Secretariat from submissions of the participants, an example of which was the
following statement: "There is a need to review the Code with a view to adopting criteria for the
determination of countervailable subsidies (government's expenses, grantee's benefits, or specificity).
This revision would also aim at defining the difference between subsidies and various trade distorting
measures."
160

"Subsidies in international trade exist only when a financial charge has been incurred by a government or
administrative authority on behalf of a beneficiary" (MTN.GNG/NG10/W/7); Egypt: "Only 'measures which
constitute a charge on the public account or government budget such as grants, concessional loans, loan
guarantees' constitute a subsidy" (MTN.GNG/NG10/W/14); India: "A financial contribution is a necessary
prerequisite" (MTN.GNG/NG10/W/16); Japan: "A financial contribution by a government [should] be
considered as an essential criterion for determining the existence of a subsidy" (GNG.NG10/W/8); the Nordic
countries: "Countervailing action . . . [should] be made conditional upon a government practice which involves
a net transfer of funds from public sources to th e recipient" (GNG.NG10/W/30); Switzerland: "Actionable
subsidies are all measures which result directly or indirectly in a net transfer of funds . . . from public sources to
the recipient" (MTN.GNG/NG10/W/26).
156 SAA, p. 926.
157 See, e.g., the US DOC determination in the 1982 steel cases, set forth in SCM/36, 27 October 1982.
There, it is noted that the DOC, to determine whether respondents had received subsidies within the meaning of
the US CVD law, sought to determine "whether or not respondents have received directly or indirectly an
economic benefit".
158 For example, the European Communities, commenting on the quoted statement from the 1982 steel
cases, stated in a paper to the Tokyo Round SCM Committee (G/SCM/35, item A.2), that "[w]hile [a] benefit is
necessary for a determination of the existence of subsidy, it is not, however, the measure of the subsidy".
Rather, in the view of the European Communities, for a su bsidy to exist, there needed to be a charge on the
public account, from which a benefit flowed to an industry.
159 E. g., the European Communities: "The key issue upon which the resolution of all other open
questions is predicated is the definition of a subsidy" (MTN.GNG/NG10/W/7); Canada: Unilateral
interpretations due to lack of agreement on the co ncept of a subsidy "have caused uncertainty and trade
conflicts" (MTN.GNG/NG10/W/22); Egypt: "Serious problems have arisen . . . as inter alia [] there is no clear
definition of what constitutes subsidies" (MTN.GNG/NG10/W14).
160 MTN.GNG/NG10/W/9, 7 September 1987, Section III.1 (emphasis added).

8.68 During the discussions in the Negotiating Group which led to the definition of "subsidy" that
was eventually included in the text of Article 1, the basic difference between defining subsidy solely
on the basis of the existence of a "benefit" conferred by any government action (the position taken by
the United States161), on the one hand, and requiring a "government financial contribution" as a means
of limiting the universe of government actions that could be considered a subsidy (the position taken
by essentially all other participants), on the other, was articulated with some precision. Canada, for
example, stated that "while virtually any govern ment action could be construed as having possible
effects on production and trade, there need to be some outside limits on the scope of government
activity that can be considered to be a subsidy and subject to countervail"
162. Canada further stated
that:
"GATT practice and disciplines on subsidies reflect a general view
that subsidies exist where the price mechanism is affected by the
exercise of government authority to impose tax and to expend
revenue, whether directly or through delegation of authority. Current
rules apply to practices which involve a direct transfer of funds,
potential direct transfers or liabilities, and foregone revenue.

Accordingly, building upon current rules, a basic condition for
countervailability of a given measure should be the existence of a
financial contribution by government."
163
8.69 Obviously, Article 1 as ultimately adopted incorporates the requirement of a financial
contribution by a government or other public body as a necessary element of a subsidy. The
submissions by participants to the negotiations suggest that the proponents' purpose behind including
this element was to limit the kinds of government actions that could fall within the scope of the
subsidy and countervailing measure rules. In other words, the definition ultimately agreed in the
negotiations definitively rejected the approach espoused by the United States of defining subsidies as
benefits resulting from any government action, by introducing the requirement that the government
action in question constitute a "financial contribution" as set forth in an exhaustive list.
164
(ii) Negotiating history of the definition of "financial contribution"
8.70 The negotiating history also confirms our understanding of the meaning of the term "financial
contribution" as set forth in subparagraphs (i)-(iv). The participants advocating the introduction of a

161 The United States proposed during the negotiations that "subsidy" be defined as "any government
action or combination of actions which confers a benefit on the recipient firm(s)". MTN.GNG/NG10/W/29,
"Elements of the Framework for Negotiations – Submission by the United States", 22 November 1989,
Section II.2(a).
162 MTN.GNG/NG10/W/22, Statement made by Canada at the Negotiating Group meeting of 28-
29 June 1988 (emphasis added).
163 MTN.GNG/NG10/W/25, Submission by Canada, 28 June 1989 (emphasis added).
164 The United States itself, as evidenced by its various submissions on "targeting", seems to have
recognised that the requirement of financial contribution would exclude some forms of government measures
that might provide benefits. In particular, the United States, in a June 1988 submission stated that "most
targeting practices fall outside even the most expansive international definitions of a 'subsidy' and, as a result,
Article VI and XVI rights and remedies do not cover industrial targeting per se ", and proposed that the
Negotiating Group examine the targeting issue "with a view to determining whether some forms of government
industrial policies aimed at promoting export-oriented industries have effects analogous to those of a subsidy
and result in economic damage to the legitimate interests of other trading nations" (MTN.GNG/NG10/W20,
emphasis added).

"financial contribution" requirement expressed a range of views during the negotiations concerning
the precise meaning of the term "financial contribution", from limiting it to a "charge on the public
account" or a "cost to government" to encompassing government transfers including those effected
through non-governmental agents.165
8.71 The broader proposed definition closely reflects a view expressed, prior to the
commencement of the Uruguay Round negotiations, by the Group of Experts on the Calculation of the
Amount of a Subsidy (a body operating under the Tokyo Round Committee on Subsidies and
Countervailing Measures). This view was quoted at length in one of the first papers prepared by the
Secretariat at the request of the Negotiating Group – a summary of, inter alia, the existing status of
the discussion of the GATT rules on countervailing measures and subsidies. The paper quotes the
Group of Experts as follows:
"It is suggested that there can be no subsid y in the absence of a financial contribution
by government, or in other words that a subsidy presupposes such a contribution.
Such an approach would seem to be useful to the extent that it underlines that there is
a necessary link between a subsidy and the taxation function of government, exercised
either directly or delegated to other, private bodies as suggested by a panel report
based on a review of Article XVI, set out in BISD 9
th Supplement. Paragraph 12 of
the report examines the issue of subsidies by a non-government levy. While the panel
felt that no hard and fast rule could be set down in view of the many forms action of
this kind could take, it nonetheless clearly stated that 'there was no doubt that there
was an obligation to notify all schemes of levy/subsidy affecting imports or exports in
which the government took a part either by making payments into a common fund or
by entrusting to a private body the functions of taxation and subsidisation with the
result that the practice would be in no real sense different from those normally
followed by governments'. There may be similar situations in which a government
chooses to direct a private body to carry out certain functions related to the sovereign
right of governments to collect revenues and expend them. An examination of the
possible subsidy practices enumerated in Article 11.3 of the Code further illustrates
the various forms government financial contributions can take. There are practices
which involve a direct transfer of funds (e. g., grants and loans); those involving
potential direct transfers, or liabilities (e. g., loan guarantees); and those involving
revenue foregone or not collected (fiscal incentives such as investment tax credits to
specified industries). Such practices would seem to be simply specific examples of the
general principle suggested by the Panel report in BISD, 9
th Supplement, that
subsidies exist where the government exercises its authority to impose tax and expend
revenue, whether directly or through delegation of its taxing and [sic] authority."166

165 These positions were summarised in a note by th e Secretariat concerning the Negotiating Group's
meeting of 26-27 September 1989:
"Another important criterion [for the definition of an actionable subsidy] for
[certain] participants was that of the charge on the public account in the
sense of a financial contribution by a government (or revenue foregone). A
view was expressed that this concept should cover not only direct but also
indirect transfers of funds (e. g. transfer from a government through non-
governmental agents) in orde r to prevent any circumvention . . ."
(MTN.GNG/NG10/13, emphasis added).
166 MTN.GNG/NG10/W/4, "Subsidies and Countervai ling Measures – Note by the Secretariat",
28 April 1987, Section 4.1.A (footnote omitted, emphasis added).

8.72 We find particularly significant in the statement of the Group of Experts how nearly identical
its characterisation of the "forms" of government financial contribution is to the text of
SCM Article 1.1(a)(i)-(iii). We also find very sign ificant the Group of Experts' interpretation that the
1960 Panel's reference to "practice . . . in no real sense different from those normally followed by
governments" was a general reference to the delegation to private parties of the particular government
functions of taxation and expenditure of revenue, and not a reference to government market
interventions in the general sense, or the effects thereof. Our interpretation, discussed at length above,
of the meaning of subparagraphs (i)-(iv) is fully consistent with, and thus is confirmed by, their
negotiating history.
(iii) Summary
8.73 In short, the negotiating history confirms that the introduction of the two-part definition of
subsidy, consisting of "financial contribution" and "benefit", was intended specifically to prevent the
countervailing of benefits from any sort of (formal, enforceable) government measures, by restricting
to a finite list the kinds of government measures that would, if they conferred benefits, constitute
subsidies. The negotiating history confirms that items (i)-(iii) of that list limit these kinds of measures
to the transfer of economic resources from a government to a private entity. Under subparagraphs (i)-
(iii), the government acting on its own behalf is effecting that transfer by directly providing something
of value – either money, goods, or services – to a private entity. 167 Subparagraph (iv) ensures that the
same kinds of government transfers of economic resources, when undertaken through explicit
delegation of those functions to a private entity, do not thereby escape disciplines.
8.74 We recall our conclusion that subparagraph (iv), to fulfil this clearly-intended function as an
anti-circumvention mechanism, cannot change (and in particular cannot expand beyond those actions
identified in subparagraphs (i)-(iii)) the nature of the kinds of actions that can be considered financial
contributions. If it did so, by allowing to be treated as financial contributions, on the basis of their
effects on private entities, government measures such as export restraints that do not constitute
government-entrusted or government-directed transfers of economic resources, the door would be
reopened to the countervailing of benefits regardless of the nature of the government action that gave
rise to them. This would effectively render the "f inancial contribution" requirement meaningless, a
result that would be at odds not only with the princi ples of effective treaty interpretation as discussed
at length in the preceding sections, but also with the negotiating history of this requirement.
(g) Conclusion
8.75 For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that an export restraint as defined in this dispute
cannot constitute government-entrusted or government-directed provision of goods in the sense of
subparagraph (iv) and hence does not constitute a financial contribution in the sense of Article 1.1(a)
of the SCM Agreement. In other words, we reject the US approach that, because, or to the extent that,
an export restraint causes an increased domestic supply of the restrained good, it is the same as if a
government had expressly entrusted or directed a private body to provide the good domestically. The
remaining textual elements of subparagraph (iv) support this conclusion. This conclusion is also
confirmed by the negotiating history of the term "financial contribution". Accordingly, we find that
the treatment of export restraints as financial cont ributions is inconsistent with Article 1.1(a) of the
SCM Agreement.

167 As we have emphasised elsewhere, the question of the terms on which this is done is irrelevant to
the existence of a financial contribution, and constitutes instead the separate question of "benefit". Nor, of
course, do we mean to imply that a government transfer of economic resources, to be a financial contribution,
would have to involve a cost to the government or a charge on the public account. This is clear from the text of
the SCM Agreement as well as the relevant negotiating history cited above, and has been confirmed as well in
past disputes (notably Canada – Aircraft).

8.76 We reiterate that we have interpreted the provisions of the SCM Agreement as they relate to
an export restraint as defined by Canada for the purposes of this dispute, i. e., a border measure that
takes the form of a government law or regulation which expressly limits the quantity of exports or
places explicit conditions on the circumstances under which exports are permitted, or that takes the
form of a government-imposed fee or tax on exports of the product calculated to limit the quantity of
exports. It is these essential characteristics – which we refer to as an "export restraint" – that delineate
the scope of our rulings on Canada's claims. We do not make any judgement as to the WTO-
consistency of any other measures that Members might label export restraints or that fall outside the
bounds of the definition put forward by Canada. (See Section VIII.B.3(a), supra.)
4. Whether US law requires the treatment of export restraints as financial contributions
(a) Application of the mandatory vs. discretionary distinction
8.77 We turn now to the question of the treatment under US CVD law of export restraints. In
particular, we recall our statement that in consider ing this treatment, we will apply the classical test.
That is, having found that the treatment of export restraints as financial contributions is inconsistent
with Article 1 of the SCM Agreement, we now consider whether US law requires such treatment of
export restraints. Should US law require the treatment of export restraints as financial contributions,
whether in some or all cases, given our finding that such treatment would constitute a violation of the
SCM Agreement, the United States would be in violation of its WTO obligations.
8.78 We note that the same principle was applied by the Appellate Body in Argentina – Textiles
and Apparel. In that case, the Appellate Body agreed with the Panel (and the United States) that the
imposition of a specific rate of duty violated an ad valorem duty binding even though in some
circumstances the specific rate of duty would be at or below the level of ad valorem binding. In the
view of the Appellate Body, where the specific rate of duty exceeded the ad valorem binding, the law
was in violation of Article II.
168 In other words, it was found that a measure is inconsistent with WTO
rules if that measure mandates action inconsistent with WTO rules in particular circumstances, even if
in other circumstances the action might not be inconsistent with WTO rules. Therefore, given our
finding that treating export restraints (as defined by Canada) as financial contributions would in all
cases violate the SCM Agreement, we must examine what, if anything, the US legislation requires in
respect of the treatment of export restraints in CVD investigations.
8.79 We recall that the Appellate Body confirmed in 1916 Act that "the relevant discretion, for
purposes of distinguishing between mandatory and discretionary legislation, is a discretion vested in
the executive branch of government"169. We shall therefore examine whether the measures identified
by Canada require the US DOC to treat export restraints as financial contributions in CVD
investigations.
(b) The measures
8.80 We consider it unnecessary for the purposes of this case to accept the invitation of the United
States, in its Request for Preliminary Rulings, to define what "measures" are susceptible to review
under WTO dispute settlement. As the Appellate Body noted in Guatemala – Cement, in the practice
established under the GATT 1947, a measure may be any act of a Member, or an omission or a failure

168 Argentina – Measures Affecti ng Imports of Footwear, Textile s, Apparel, and Other Items
("Argentina – Textiles and Apparel "), Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS56/AB/R, adopted 22 April 1998,
paras. 62-63.
169 1916 Act, Appellate Body Report, supra, footnote 107, para. 89 (emphasis in original).

to act on the part of a Member. 170 In this context, the Appellate Body recalled the finding of the
Panel in Japan – Semiconductors that measures could consist of both binding and non-binding acts,
including non-binding administrative guidance by a government. 171 We agree, and in particular find
no reason or basis to rule in the abstract that a given type of instrument or action cannot be the subject
of claims in WTO dispute settlement.
8.81 This of course does not mean, however, that all measures are capable by themselves of giving
rise to violations of WTO obligations. It is this latter question, as it pertains to the measures at issue
in this case, to which we now turn.
(c) The measures "separately" and "taken together"
8.82 Canada argues that each of the elements that it cites (the statute, the SAA, the Preamble, and
US practice) individually constitutes a measure that is susceptible to dispute settlement, and that,
"taken together" as well, these elements constitute a measure. Further, in the view of Canada, these
measures individually and collectively require a particular treatment of export restraints. Canada's
identification of the measures that it considers to be at issue therefore comprises two notions – that the
cited elements are measures both individually and taken together, and that they operate both
individually and taken together to require a particular treatment of export restraints.
8.83 The United States strongly disagrees. In addition to the preliminary objections it raises in
respect of the status of the SAA, the Preamble, and US "practice" as "measures" ( See Section IV.A,
supra), the United States considers that "it is dangerou s for the Panel to seek to analyse an ill-defined
'measure' as a 'package'". The United States argues:
"It is not clear why, under the reasoning of either Canada or the
United States – Section 301 panel report, the documents in this
dispute 'must' be analysed together. Canada contends that one or
more of the documents in question, alone or together, somehow
require the DOC to treat export restra ints as subsidies. However, the
proper analysis of such a claim cannot be undertaken based upon
abstract notions of whether documents cited by a complaining party
'must be analysed together', but on the status of the cited documents,
and how they relate to each other, under the responding Member's
domestic law."
172
8.84 In making our assessment of whether US law requires the DOC to treat export restraints as
financial contributions in CVD investigations, we recall that Canada has alleged that each of the
measures that it has identified (the statute, the SAA, the Preamble, and US practice) operates
individually to require such treatment, as well as that these measures "taken together" require the
same treatment. We will first analyse them separately, both in respect of the status and the effect of
each under US domestic law, and in respect of whatever each says concerning export restraints.
8.85 In considering whether any or all of the measures individually can give rise to a violation of
WTO obligations, the central question that must be answered is whether each measure operates in
some concrete way in its own right. By this we mean that each measure would have to constitute an
instrument with a functional life of its own, i. e., that it would have to do something concrete,
independently of any other instruments, for it to be able to give rise independently to a violation of

170 Guatemala – Anti-Dumping Investigation Regarding Portland Cement from Mexico , Report of the
Appellate Body, WT/DS60/AB/R, adopted 25 November 1998, footnote 47.
171 Id.
172 Comment of the United States on question 4 from the Panel to Canada at the first meeting.

WTO obligations. To determine whether each measure is operational on its own, we consider the
status of each under US law.
8.86 We also examine how, if at all, the measures operate "taken together". Canada's argument on
this point is that:
"Section 771(5)(B)(iii) can be considered 'discretionary', in the
limited sense that [the DOC], as the investigating authority, has to
determine whether an export restraint, or any other practice subject to
a [CVD] investigation, is a financial contribution. However,
Section 771(5)(B)(iii) does not exist in isolation. Consistent with the
reasoning of the Panel in United States – Section 301 ,
Section 771(5)(B)(iii) is 'inseparable' from the SAA, Preamble, and
US practice and, therefore, cannot be considered in isolation. Thus,
the mandatory or discretionary nature of the measures at issue in this
dispute must be considered in terms of all of the elements of US
[CVD] law that bear on the treatment of export restraints."
173
8.87 Given this statement, it appears to us that the primary focus of Canada's argument relates to
considering the measures together, at least inso far as the allegedly mandatory nature of these
measures is concerned. In particular, given Canada's statement that the statute itself can be considered
"discretionary" at least in a limited sense, Canada appears to argue that it is only when the statute is
looked at in conjunction with the other measures that are the subject of this dispute that the alleged
mandatory treatment of export restraints is evident.
(i) The Statute
8.88 Under pre-WTO US law, as under the Tokyo Round Subsidies Code, there was no definition
of "subsidy" as such; rather, US law contained an illustrative list of countervailable subsidies. The
illustrative list made no reference to the concept of "financial contribution" (this concept did not exist
under the Tokyo Round Subsidies Code), but rather described certain types of measures provided on
advantageous terms. Under this legislation, the United States in several instances countervailed
export restraints on the basis that they provided an advantage beyond what would be available in the
market (i. e., a benefit).
8.89 Following the Uruguay Round, the United States undertook to implement the WTO
Agreement in the URAA and, in particular, to implement the definition of "subsidy" in Article 1.1 of
the SCM Agreement by amending Section 771(5) of the Tariff Act. The term "subsidy" is defined in
Section 771(5)(B) as follows:
"A subsidy is described in this paragraph in the case in which an authority –
(i) provides a financial contribution,
(ii) provides any form of income or pric e support, within the meaning of Article XVI
of the GATT 1994, or
(iii) makes a payment to a funding mechanism to provide a financial contribution, or
entrusts or directs a private entity to make a financial contribution, if providing the
contribution would normally be vested in the government and the practice does not
differ in substance from practices normally followed by governments,

173 Second Written Submission of Canada, para. 10.

to a person and a benefit is thereby conferred. For purposes of this paragraph and
paragraphs (5A) and (5B), the term 'authority' means a government of a country or
any public entity within the territory of a country."174
8.90 The term "financial contribution" in turn is defined in Section 771(5)(D) as:
"(i) the direct transfer of funds, such as grants, loans, and equity infusions, or the
potential direct transfer of funds or liabilities, such as loan guarantees,
(ii) foregoing or not collecting revenue that is otherwise due, such as granting tax
credits or deductions from taxable income,
(iii) providing goods or services, other than general infrastructure, or
(iv) purchasing goods."175
(a) Status in US domestic law
8.91 Section 771(5) is the provision of the basic US CVD statute that contains the definition of
"subsidy" for the purpose of US CVD actions, and there is no disagreement between the parties that it
thus is the basis for the DOC's identification of countervailable subsidies in CVD investigations. In
particular, it is to this part of the statute that the DOC must look in establishing the existence of the
definitional elements of a "subsidy" in order to assess whether a particular programme is
countervailable. The DOC is legally bound to ensure that the criteria set out in the statute are
satisfied. Given this, it is clear that the statute has an operational life in its own right. It is the
operational basis for the DOC's activities in respect of countervailing measures.
(b) Content in respect of export restraints
8.92 This being said, however, Sec tions 771(5)(B) and (D) of the Tariff Act essentially mirror the
language of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement, and do not explicitly address export restraints, or how
they would be treated if alleged in a CVD investigation. The statute read in isolation therefore reveals
nothing about the treatment of export restraints under US CVD law, and could not be said to require
any particular treatment of export restraints in a CVD investigation. Indeed, as noted above, Canada
itself acknowledges that "Section 771(5)(B)(iii) can be considered 'discretionary', in the limited sense
that [the DOC], as the investigating authority, has to determine whether an export restraint, or any
other practice subject to a CVD investigation, is a financial contribution".
176 Noting, however,
Canada's argument that the statute cannot be understood in isolation from the other measures at issue,
we turn next to an examination of those measures.
(ii) The Statement of Administrative Action
(a) Status in US domestic law
8.93 We now consider the operational status of the SAA in US domestic law. As the United States
explains, in general an SAA is typically required when the Executive Branch of the US Government
submits legislation implementing a trade agreement to the US Congress that will be considered under
so-called "fast-track" procedures. Because the URAA was submitted to Congress under "fast-track"
procedures, an SAA was required. Specifically, the SAA was a requirement of the Omnibus Trade

174 Tariff Act, Section 771(5), codified at 19 USC, Section 1677(5) (1994) (Annex A to First Written
Submission of Canada – Exhibit CAN-1).
175 Id.
176 Second Written Submission of Canada, para. 10.

and Competitiveness Act of 1988, in which Congress granted Uruguay Round and other trade
agreement negotiating authority to the President and provided for "fast-track" Congressional
implementation of trade agreements. In accordance with that legislation, the SAA was agreed
between the Administration and Congress in advance, and then submitted by the President to
Congress for approval with the proposed URAA legislation.
8.94 Congress approved the SAA in the URAA, and provided, in the URAA, that:
"The statement of administrative action approved by the
Congress . . . shall be regarded as an authoritative expression by the
United States concerning the interpretation and application of the
Uruguay Round Agreements and this Act in any judicial proceeding
in which a question arises concerning such interpretation or
application."177
8.95 The SAA in turn refers to itself as an authoritative expression of the Administration's views
regarding the interpretation of the Uruguay Round agreements and the United States' obligations in
implementing them, including under domestic law, as agreed between the Administration and
Congress:
"[T]his Statement represents an authoritative expression by the
Administration concerning its views regarding the interpretation and
application of the Uruguay Round agreements, both for purposes of
US international obligations and domestic law. Furthermore, the
Administration understands that it is the expectation of the Congress
that future Administrations will observe and apply the interpretations
and commitments set out in this Statement. Moreover, since this
Statement will be approved by the Congress at the time it implements
the Uruguay Round agreements, the interpretations of those
agreements included in this Statement carry particular authority."
178
8.96 Canada asserts that the statements in both the SAA itself and in the URAA make it clear that
the SAA has a controlling and determinative legal status in the interpretation of the URAA in the
United States. Canada's view, further, is that the SAA requires that export restraints be treated as
subsidies, and that this requirement is binding on the DOC due to the language of the SAA and the
URAA.
8.97 The United States acknowledges "the status of the SAA as an authoritative interpretive
tool".179 It refers to the SAA as "a type of legislative history . . . [which,] [i]n the United States, is
often considered for purposes of ascertaining the meaning of a statute . . . ". 180 While the United
States indicates that the SAA cannot change the meaning of, or override, the statute to which it
relates, "[a]s a general proposition, [] in terms of legislative history, the SAA ranks supreme". 181 The
United States indicates that "it is not objecting to a consideration of the SAA and the Preamble as
interpretive sources for ascertaining the meaning of Section 771(5) as a matter of US law . . . ". 182

177 URAA, Section 102, codified at 19 USC, Section 3512(d) (1994) (Exhibit CAN-7).
178 SAA, p. 656 (Annex B to First Written Submission of Canada – Exhibit CAN-2).
179 Response of the United States to question 6(a) from the Panel at the first meeting.
180 Request by the United States for Preliminary Rulings, para. 36.
181 Response of the United States to question 28 from the Panel following the first meeting.
182 Request by the United States for Preliminary Rulings, footnote 134.

Rather, the United States argues, "in determining what US law means, it would be appropriate for the
Panel to consider the SAA, just as a US court would"183.
8.98 It is clear to us that the URAA grants to the SAA unique legal status as an authoritative
interpretation of the URAA, which the US courts must take into account. The text of the SAA
confirms this by characterising itself as "an authoritative interpretation . . . both for purposes of US
international obligations and domestic law". The SAA went through an approval process in Congress,
and was in fact approved by Congress at the same time as the URAA. The United States itself
acknowledges that "there is no disagreement between the parties about the status of the SAA as an
authoritative interpretive tool". 184 Finally, it is clear that no other form of legislative history has
higher authority than the SAA with regard to the m eaning of the statute. The United States indicates
that "If, hypothetically, on a particular interpretive issue, the SAA said 'X' and some other document
of legislative history (e. g., a committee report) said 'Y', the interpretation should be 'X'".185
8.99 The unique legal status granted to the SAA is, however, in respect of its interpretive authority
in respect of the statute. The URAA indicates that "[t]he statement of administrative action approved
by the Congress . . . shall be regarded as an authoritative expression by the United States concerning
the interpretation and application of the Uruguay Round Agreements and this Act "186, which
implements the Agreements. We find no evidence, in the URAA, in the SAA, or anywhere else, that
the SAA has an operational life or status independent of the statute such that it could, on its own, give
rise to a violation of WTO rules. Independent of the statute, the SAA does not do anything; rather, it
interprets (i. e., informs the meaning of) the statute. In other words, a petitioner or an exporter could
not argue before a US court that the DOC had acted inconsistently with the provisions of the SAA, but
rather that it had acted inconsistently with the provisions of the statute read in light of the SAA.
8.100 Accordingly, we consider that the SAA consti tutes authoritative interpretive guidance in
respect of the statute. As such, given its unique authority as interpretive guidance, the SAA is of
fundamental importance in this dispute, in the sense that the statute cannot be properly interpreted
without reference to the SAA. In particular, to understand the treatment of export restraints under the
US CVD statute, anything that the SAA says about export restraints must be taken into account. Nor,
as indicated, do the parties suggest otherwise. Indeed, the United States itself emphasises that it does
not argue that the statute could or should be examined without some regard to the interpretation
reflected in the SAA
187. For the foregoing reasons, we shall look to the SAA as primary interpretive
guidance in respect of the statute.
(b) Content in respect of export restraints
8.101 The next question to which we turn is what, if anything, the SAA says concerning subsidies in
general, and export restraints in particular, in the context of CVD investigations. The issue we must
address is whether the SAA requires the DOC to interpret the statute such that export restraints are
treated as financial contributions in CVD investigations. If so, given that the SAA is authoritative
interpretation of the statute, and given our finding that the treatment of export restraints as financial
contributions is inconsistent with the SCM Agreement (See Section VIII.B.3, supra), it would follow,
pursuant to the classical test, that the legislation as such is inconsistent with the United States'
obligations under the SCM Agreement.

183 Response of the United States to question 1 from the Panel following the second meeting, citing as
well the Request by the United States for Preliminary Rulings, para. 124, footnote 134.
184 Response of the United States to question 6(a) from the Panel at the first meeting.
185 Response of the United States to question 28 from the Panel following the first meeting.
186 URAA, footnote 177, supra (emphasis added).
187 Response of the United States to question 1 from the Panel following the second meeting.

8.102 Dealing with the definition of subsidy in th e SCM Agreement, including as it pertains to
export restraints, the SAA states:
"In general, the Administration intends that the definition of 'subsidy'
will have the same meaning that administrative practice and courts
have ascribed to the term 'bounty or grant' and 'subsidy' under prior
versions of the statute, unless that practice or interpretation is
inconsistent with the definition contained in the bill. Absent such
inconsistency, and subject to other relevant changes enacted in the
implementing bill (e. g ., rules regarding non-countervailable
subsidies and de minimis countervailable subsidies), practices
countervailable under the current law will be countervailable under
the revised statute.
Basic Definition

One of the definitional elements of a subsidy under the Subsidies
Agreement is the provision by a government or any public body of a
'financial contribution' as defined by the Agreement, including the
provision of goods or services. Moreover, the Subsidies Agreement
specifically states that the term 'financial contribution' includes
situations where the government entrusts or directs a private body to
provide the subsidy. (It is the Administration's view that the term
'private body' is not necessarily limited to a single entity, but can
include a group of entities or persons.) Additionally, Article VI of
the GATT 1994 continues to refer to subsidies provided 'directly or
indirectly' by a government. Accordingly, the Administration intends
that the 'entrusts or directs' standard shall be interpreted broadly. The
Administration plans to continue its policy of not permitting the
indirect provision of a subsidy to become a loophole when unfairly
traded imports enter the United States and injure a US industry.
In the past, the [DOC] [] has countervailed a variety of programs
where the government has provided a benefit through private
parties (See, e. g., Certain Softwood Lu mber Products from Canada,
Leather from Argentina, Lamb from New Zealand, Oil Country
Tubular Goods from Korea, Carbon Steel Wire Rod from Spain, and
Certain Steel Products from Korea) . . . [The DOC] has found a
countervailable subsidy to exist where the government took or
imposed (through statutory, regulatory, or administrative action) a
formal, enforceable measure which directly led to a discernible
benefit being provided to the industry under investigation.
In cases where the government acts through a private party, such as
in Certain Softwood Lumber Products from Canada and Leather from
Argentina (which involved export restraints that led directly to a
discernible lowering of input costs), the Administration intends that
the law continue to be administered on a case-by-case basis
consistent with the preceding paragraph. It is the Administration's
view that Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the Subsidies Agreement and
Section 771(5)(B)(iii) encompass indirect subsidy practices like those

which [the DOC] has countervailed in the past, and that these types
of indirect subsidies will continue to be countervailable, provided
that [the DOC] is satisfied that the standard under
Section 771(5)(B)(iii) has been met."188
8.103 We recall that the text of the statute is silent on the question of export restraints as such. That
is clearly not the case with the SAA, but the qu estion is whether the comments regarding indirect
subsidies and export restraints contained therein are mandatory in nature, i. e., whether they amount to
a requirement that the DOC interpret the statute so as to treat export restraints as financial
contributions. For that to be the case, the SAA would have to create a binding obligation on the DOC
to interpret Section 771(5)(B)(iii) such that expor t restraints meet the standard thereunder (which
standard essentially mirrors the requirements in Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement).
8.104 On this point, the SAA appears to disclose a certain tension between two propositions or
themes. On the one hand, there are passages suggesting that the DOC's past practice of treating
export restraints as countervailable subsidies if they confer a benefit and are specific will continue. In
particular, the SAA expresses the Administration's view that Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the
SCM Agreement encompasses indirect subsidy practices like those which the DOC countervailed in
the past, particularly in Leather from Argentina ("Leather")
189 and Certain Softwood Lumber Products
from Canada ("Lumber")190. On the other hand, there are passages to the effect that this will be the
case only where the new condition is satisfied. Past practice will not be followed where this would be
"inconsistent with the definition contained in the bill". It will be followed only where the DOC is
satisfied that the standard under Section 771(5)(B)(iii) has been met. Since Section 771(5)(B)(iii)
prescribes a new condition, including entrustment or direction to a private entity to make a financial
contribution, it is clear that the practice followed in the past cannot continue without modification.
Post-WTO, the DOC must address a question that di d not previously arise: Is Section 771(5)(B)(iii)
satisfied? Only if that question is answered in the affirmative can a subsidy be found to exist.
8.105 We conclude that, on careful reading, the SAA correctly indicates that the Administration's
past practice will be pursued in future only to the extent that there is no inconsistency with the
definition of subsidy under the URAA . The phrase "absent such inconsistency" makes the
continuation of pre-WTO CVD practice expressly contingent on the consistency of such practice with
the new statute, and specifically with the definition of subsidy set out therein. The SAA indicates, in
respect of Leather and Lumber, that "these types of indirect subsidies will continue to be
countervailable, provided that [the DOC] is satisfied that the standard under Section 771(5)(B)(iii)
has been met". The language of this proviso further confirms that the DOC must apply the statute's
definition of subsidy.
8.106 For these reasons, we conclude that the SAA does not require the DOC to interpret the statute
such that export restraints are treated as financial contributions.

188 SAA, pp. 925-926 (Annex B to First Written Submission of Canada – Exhibit CAN-2).
189 Leather involved, inter alia, a government embargo on exports of cattle hides, which was found to
be a countervailable subsidy to leather producers on the basis that the embargo had a "direct and discernible
effect" on hide prices and thereby benefited leather producers (55 Federal Register No. 191, p. 40213 –
Exhibit CAN-13).
190 Lumber involved, inter alia , certain export restraints on logs, which were found to be
countervailable subsidies to lumber producers on the basis that the restraints had a "direct and discernible effect"
on log prices and thereby benefited lumber producers (57 Federal Register No. 103, pp. 22609-22610 –
Exhibit CAN-14).

(iii) The Preamble to the US Countervailing Duty Regulations
(a) Status in US domestic law
8.107 We next consider the operational status in US domestic law of the Preamble to the US CVD
Regulations. In particular, we consider whether the Preamble has an independent operational life of
its own and could independently give rise to the violations alleged by Canada.
8.108 The United States explains that, in 1995, following the enactment of the URAA, the DOC
commenced a rulemaking process with the objective of revising its anti-dumping and CVD
regulations so as to bring them into conformity with the URAA and, in some cases, to flesh out the
provisions of the statute. The DOC published its final CVD regulations some years later, in 1998,
following the receipt and analysis of comments submitted on the proposed regulations that had been
published in 1997. The Preamble to the Regulations sets out, inter alia, the DOC's response to those
comments, including on the subject of indirect subsidies in general and export restraints in particular.
Canada notes that the Regulations were issued in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act
("APA"), which governs US federal agency rulemaking and requires a notice and comment
rulemaking process, and which therefore requires that the final regulations include a preamble setting
forth the basis and purpose of the regulations and the agency's reasoned consideration of comments
received in response to its proposed regulations.
8.109 Canada submits that the Preamble "is an integral part of the Regulations and is recognised and
relied on as such by US courts" 191, citing to various US court decisions in this regard. In Canada's
view, the Preamble is binding, and it disagrees with the United States that a preamble to regulations
has lesser legal status than the regulations. According to Canada, this US argument ignores the
administrative framework under which US agencies promulgate regulations. Canada submits that the
APA specifically provides that "the agency shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general
statement of their basis and purpose", which is commonly called the Preamble. 192 Canada cites in
particular to a US Court of Appeals statement as follows:
"These regulations were expressly authorised by Congress, and, in
view of Congress' delegation, the [Department of Justice's]
regulations should be accorded 'controlling weight unless [they are]
'arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the statute''. The
same is true of the preamble or commentary accompanying the
regulations since both are part of the [Department of Justice's]
official interpretation of the legislation."
193
8.110 Finally, Canada considers that the DOC, in its CVD determinations, uniformly treats the
Preamble as an integral part of the Regulations and equivalent in legal authority to other sections of
the Regulations. Canada indicates that, when an issue is addressed by the Preamble, the DOC
routinely applies the Preamble provisions to resolve issues in CVD investigations or administrative
reviews.
8.111 The United States argues that only the Regula tions themselves, and not the Preamble thereto,
have the force of law, meaning that even if the Pr eamble stated that the DOC was required to treat
export restraints as subsidies, any such statement would not be binding on the DOC as a matter of
US law. The United States characterises the Preamble as "evidence of an agency's contemporaneous
understanding of its proposed rules" which "may be consulted to determine the proper interpretation

191 First Written Submission of Canada, para. 43.
192 Response of Canada to Request by the United States for Preliminary Rulings, para. 26.
193 Id., para. 27.

of an agency's regulation", also citing to various US court decisions in this regard. 194 The United
States submits that a US court has found that "language in the preamble of a regulation is not
controlling over the language of a regulation itself" and, in the US view, "certainly is not controlling
over a statute". 195 Further, the United States is of the view that, as the DOC did not promulgate a
regulation on the topic of indirect subsidies in general, or export restraints in particular, the Preamble
cannot even be used as an interpretive tool in the instant case, because there is no regulation to
interpret. According to the United States, the Preamble is "at most . . . a non-binding statement by the
DOC regarding its views at the time concerning the scope of Section 771(5)(B(iii)"
196 and
"expressions of [the DOC's] tentative thoughts"197. As to the DOC's references to the Preamble in its
determinations, the United States argues that "[t]here is a big difference between citing the Preamble
as a shorthand explanation of the reasons why the DOC is making a particular determination, and
citing the Preamble as binding authority"198.
8.112 We recall, as indicated by Canada itself, that the APA specifically provides that "the agency
shall incorporate in the rules adopted a concise general statement of their basis and purpose", which is
commonly called a Preamble. 199 We can certainly conceive of such a general statement as an
indication of the context in which particular regulations were prepared, as a reflection of the issuing
agency's views on the interpretations and methodologies set out in the regulations, and even as an
interpretive guide to the regulations. To the extent that a Preamble refers to an underlying statute in
addition to the regulations to which it is attached, we also can envision that it could provide
interpretive guidance in respect of the statute.
8.113 We fail to see, however, that a "general statement of the[] basis and purpose" of regulations
could have the same operational status as the regulations themselves, i. e., that the Preamble could
constitute rules that were separate from the regulations and that would have independent operational
effect on the agency in question. Only if that were the case could the general statement (the
Preamble) be able to give rise independently to WTO violations. Further, while we note the APA's
use of the words "incorporate in the rules", we consider that a "general statement of the[] basis and
purpose" of the rules, even when "incorporate[d]" therein, could by its very nature only inform the
reader of the rationale generally for the regulations, and for the interpretations and methodologies
contained therein. That is, we are not persuaded that the fact that a general statement of basis and
purpose is described as being "incorporate[d] in the rules" automatically confers on that statement the
same operational status and effect as the rules themselves. Nor was the Preamble subject to any
approval process comparable to that to which the SAA was subject, or to the notice and comment
process to which the Regulations themselves were subject. Indeed, the Preamble to a large extent
appears simply to be a written record of that latter process.
8.114 As for its description of that process, the Preamble states: (i) that the DOC has decided not to
issue a regulation in respect of "entrusts or directs"; and (ii) that instead the DOC believes that it
should follow the guidance provided in the SAA to examine indirect subsidies (under which rubric the
DOC would place export restraints) on a case-by-case basis
200 (See paragraph 8.115, infra). Thus, the
Preamble makes clear that no specific regulation has been adopted, and then incorporates by
reference, and defers to, the interpretive guidan ce contained in the SAA, in respect of export
restraints. We thus conclude that the Preamble has no operational life of its own – it does not do

194 Request by the United States for Preliminary Rulings, para. 81.
195 Id.
196 Id., para. 82.
197 Oral Statement of the United States at the first meeting of the Panel, para. 28.
198 Oral Statement of the United States at the second meeting of the Panel, para. 49.
199 Response of Canada to Request by the United States for Preliminary Rulings, para. 26.
200 Regulations, 63 Federal Register, p. 65349 (Annex C to First Written Submission of Canada –
Exhibit CAN-3).

anything. We however have no reason to, and do no t, exclude the Preamble from consideration as
possible interpretive guidance regarding the treatment of export restraints in US CVD investigations
pursuant to Section 771(5)(B)(iii).
(b) Content in respect of export restraints
8.115 We thus now turn to the language in the Preamble that is relevant to the treatment of export
restraints. We note, first, that the DOC indicates in the Preamble that it decided against adopting a
regulation concerning export restraints, or concerning "indirect subsidies" or the "entrusts or directs"
language more generally. The Preamble explains that this was in part because the DOC considered
this to be unnecessary, in that the SAA already contained examples of the kinds of "indirect subsidies"
that could be encompassed by the statutory language, and also that the SAA "directs" the DOC to
proceed on a case-by-case basis:
"In our 1997 Proposed Regulations, we did not address indirect
subsidies in detail. Instead, we note that the SAA directs the [DOC]
to proceed on a case-by-case basis . . .

[T]he phrase 'entrusts or directs' could encompass a broad range of
meanings. As such, we do not believe it is appropriate to develop a
precise definition of the phrase for purposes of these regulations.
Rather, we believe that we should follow the guidance provided in
the SAA to examine indirect subsidies on a case-by-case basis.

The SAA . . . lists a number of cases where the [DOC] has found
indirect subsidies in the past, and these cases serve to provide
examples of situations where we believe the statute would permit the
[DOC] to reach the same result."
 201
Thus, in this sense, as we noted above, the Preamble simply incorporates by reference and defers to
the SAA in respect of the interpretation of the definitional elements of a "subsidy", in particular the
meaning of "entrusts or directs".
8.116 Concerning export restraints specifically, the Preamble states in relevant part:
"With regard to export restraints, while they may be imposed to limit
parties' ability to export, they can also, in certain circumstances, lead
those parties to provide the restrained good to domestic purchasers
for less than adequate remunera tion . . . [I]f the [DOC] were to
investigate situations and facts similar to those examined in Lumber
and Leather in the future, the new statute would permit the [DOC] to
reach the same result."
202
The language "would permit" clearly does not connote a requirement. We thus see this statement as
reflecting the DOC's view or belief that it could, under the new statute, continue to treat export

201 Regulations, 63 Federal Register, pp. 65349-65350 (Annex C – Exhibit CAN-3).
202 Id., p. 65351.

restraints as countervailable subsidies, rather than reflecting the view or belief that it is required to do
so.
8.117 Certainly, the Preamble expresses the view that there are circumstances similar to those in
Leather and Lumber in which the DOC might find that an export restraint constitutes a financial
contribution. The rationale in Leather, which was also adopted in Lumber, was, however, that two
conditions had to be fulfilled for a subsidy to exist: specificity and benefit. 203 It was not necessary in
either of those cases, as it is necessary today, to consider separately whether there is a financial
contribution, this now being an essential element of a "subsidy" under Article 1.1 of the
SCM Agreement.
8.118 We attach importance, however, to the fact that the Preamble refers to the interpretive
guidance in the SAA concerning indirect subsidies and export restraints. For the reasons given in
paragraph 8.105, we have concluded that the SAA correctly indicates that primacy is to be given to
Section 771(5)(B)(iii), which contains the test of financial contribution. Accordingly, the Preamble,
like the SAA, ensures that the DOC is to apply the test of financial contribution.
8.119 Thus, far from casting doubt on our conclusion as to the interpretation of the statute, the
language in the Preamble is fully consistent with that conclusion, namely, that the DOC is not
required under US law to treat export restraints as financial contributions.
(iv) US "Practice"
8.120 Canada defines US "practice" as "an institutional commitment to follow declared
interpretations or methodologies that is reflected in cumulative determinations"
204. Canada considers
that there is an existing US administrative "practice" of treating export restraints as meeting the
"financial contribution" requirement of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iv) of the SCM Agreement, which "practice",
according to Canada, is defined in large part by the pre-WTO US practice of countervailing export
restraints where they "directly led to a discernible benefit". In this regard, Canada cites Leather and
Lumber. Canada submits that, while the practice in those cases should have become irrelevant after
the SCM Agreement came into force, the SAA expressl y provides that it is to continue under the
SCM Agreement and the revised US CVD law.
8.121 Canada further considers that the DOC 's determinations in the Korean Stainless Steel cases
and Live Cattle from Canada confirm the DOC's view that its Regulations, like the SAA, foreclose
any discretionary consideration of "financial contribution" in the case of "indirect subsidies". Canada
makes it clear, however, that while practice is related to precedent, the US "practice" of which it
complains is not individual determinations in CVD cases. Canada's arguments in respect of
US "practice" therefore seem to comprise essentially two elements – references to certain pre-WTO
US CVD cases in the SAA and the Preamble, and certain post-WTO US CVD cases – both of which
effectively make up the "institutional commitment" alleged by Canada.
8.122 While Canada acknowledges that "[a] 'practice' identified in a [DOC] determination differs
from 'legislation', because it is not statutory and has not been validly promulgated as a legislative
rule"
205, Canada seeks to persuade the Panel that US "practice" has an operational existence in and of

203 As the DOC observed in Lumber: "The rationale underlying that determination [ Leather] was that
(1) the embargo on raw hides 'applie[d] only to [raw] cattle hides, which are sold primarily, if not exclusively, to
leather tanners [and, therefore,] [was] limited to a specific industry', and (2) the export embargo 'caused hide
prices to be lower than they would have been absent the embargo' and, thereby, enabled the leather tanners to
sell the finished product, leather, at a lower price" (57 Federal Register No. 103, p. 22606 – Exhibit CAN-14).
204 Response of Canada to question 16(c) from the Panel following the first meeting.
205 Id.

itself by arguing that "[a]gencies, including [the DOC] normally follow the precedents of prior
determinations, and are required by US courts to do so absent a reasoned explanation"206.
8.123 We find Canada's notion of US "practice", however expressed, to be imprecise. Given that
Canada has not clearly identified what it refers to when it uses the term "practice" 207, we have great
difficulty in conceiving of "practice" as a measure in this dispute, in whichever formulation proffered
by Canada.
8.124 In respect of the references in the SAA and the Preamble to pre-WTO US CVD cases, we
note that Canada argues that "pre-WTO practice was brought forward into post-WTO law and practice
by virtue of the SAA and the Preamble" 208. We consider, however, that such references would not
constitute US "practice", but would simply be part of the SAA and the Preamble. That is, we do not
see how any past practice as incorporated in the SAA or the Preamble could constitute a separate
measure with an existence independent of that of the SAA and Preamble.
8.125 In respect of "practice" as embodied in post-WTO CVD cases, while Canada may well be
correct in principle that "an interpretation or methodology will often be developed in a single case or
group of cases, and becomes the 'practice' followed in subsequent cases" 209, this principle is not
directly relevant to the present dispute, as there has been no post-WTO case where the United States
has countervailed an export restraint. Further, even if there had been such cases, and even if the DOC
had set out the methodologies it "normally" applied in such cases, Canada itself admits that under
US law, the DOC could depart from those methodologi es as long as it explained its reasons for doing
so.
210
8.126 Thus, while Canada may be right that under US law, "practice must normally be followed,
and those affected by US [CVD] law . . . therefore have reason to expect that it will be" 211, past
practice can be departed from as long as a reasoned explanation, which prevents such practice from
achieving independent operational status in the sense of doing something or requiring some particular
action. The argument that expectations are created on the part of foreign governments, exporters,
consumers, and petitioners as a result of any pa rticular practice that the DOC "normally" follows
would not be sufficient to accord such a practice an independent operational existence. Nor do we see
how the DOC's references in its determinations to its practice gives "legal effect to that 'practice' as
determinative of the interpretations and methodologies it applies"
212. US "practice" therefore does not
appear to have independent operational status such that it could independently give rise to a WTO
violation as alleged by Canada.
8.127 Moreover, although there has been no post-WTO case in which the United States has
countervailed an export restraint, Canada further submits that there is nevertheless relevant post-WTO
practice in several concrete cases. Canada argues in particular that the initiation of the Live Cattle
case expressly relied on the pre-WTO decisions in Leather and Lumber, and that in the Korean
Stainless Steel cases, the DOC made it clear that it would apply the same standard to "indirect
subsidies" as was applied pre-WTO. In Canada's view, "[t]he decision to initiate the Live Cattle case
is of precedential value, because it reflects [the DOC's] decision that the standard that there be
'sufficient evidence' of all the elements of a coun tervailable subsidy, including financial contribution,
had been met. Thus, while a decision to initiate an investigation may not have the same precedential

206 Response of Canada to question 15 from the Panel following the second meeting.
207 We note here, as one example, Canada's statement that practice is "simply what the agency
systematically does" (Response of Canada to question 14 from the Panel following the second meeting).
208 Id.
209 Response of Canada to question 16(c) from the Panel following the first meeting.
210 Response of Canada to question 15 from the Panel following the second meeting.
211 Response of Canada to question 14 from the Panel following the second meeting.
212 Second Written Submission of Canada, para. 40.

value as a final determination because it applies a different standard, under both standards the same
legal elements are required to be present".213 We note, however, that, in Live Cattle, the DOC did not
even address the question of whether the export restraint at issue constituted a financial contribution,
as it found that there was no benefit. In the Stainless Steel cases, because the practice at issue was not
export restraints, but the direction of credit, we see little if any relevance in Stainless Steel for the
treatment of export restraints. These cases therefore cannot be considered as reflecting a post-WTO
US "practice" of treating export restraints as financial contributions.
8.128 Finally, we note that Canada submits that "practice" in the form of an "institutional
commitment" is "normally reflected in writing"
214. It does not, however, explain how that is the case
in the present dispute, except for the vague statement that "practice" is "reflected in DOC regulations
when those are issued". We therefore do not see what form of expression this "institutional
commitment" might take or where such an expression might be made.
8.129 For the foregoing reasons, we consider that there is before us no measure in the form of
US "practice" in the sense used by Canada that requires the treatment of export restraints as financial
contributions. Nor, given that Canada has not identified concretely what US "practice" is, can any US
"practice" provide interpretive guidance in this di spute. Therefore, practice in the sense used by
Canada cannot require any particular treatment of export restraints in US CVD investigations.
(v) Summary
8.130 We have found that, of the measures that are the subject of Canada's claims, only the statute
has an independent operational life of its own. We have nevertheless found that the statute must be
read in light of the SAA, and we have therefore looked to the SAA as the principal interpretive guide
thereto. We have concluded that the statute read in light of the SAA does not require the treatment of
export restraints as financial contributions in CVD investigations. We also recall that we have found
that the Preamble, while it could provide interpretive guidance to the statute, in fact contributes little
or no substance in this regard. Nevertheless, what it says in respect of the treatment of export
restraints is consistent with our conclusion in respect of the statute read in light of the SAA. Finally,
we recall that Canada has not concretely or clearly identified what it means by US "practice", nor in
what way any such practice either has an independent operational status, or can provide interpretive
guidance (binding or otherwise) concerning the treatment of export restraints in CVD investigations.
Thus, given that we are not persuaded that there is any "practice" in the sense used by Canada, such
practice cannot require any particular treatment of export restraints in US CVD investigations.
215
(d) Conclusion
8.131 In sum, therefore, we find that the statute – including as read in light of the SAA and the
Preamble – does not mandate the treatment of export restraints as financial contributions (which
treatment we have found, however, would violate the SCM Agreement). Accordingly, we find that

213 Response of Canada to question 15 from the Panel following the second meeting.
214 Response of Canada to question 14 from the Panel following the second meeting.
215 In light of our findings in this section, we need not, and thus do not, address the request by the
United States for preliminary rulings as follows: (i) that the SAA and the Preamble are not identified as
"measures" in the request for establishment, that in any event neither one is a measure, and that therefore the
claims concerning them are not within the Panel's terms of reference; (ii) that US "practice" (past, present, or
future) is not a measure properly before the Panel, and that any "practice" that might exist does not constitute
binding precedent; and (iii) that "practice" was neither identified in Canada's request for consultations, nor was
it the subject of consultations; nor did the request for es tablishment sufficiently identify the US "practice" in
question, in violation of Articles 4.7 and 6.2 of the DSU, which therefore means that "practice" is not properly
before the Panel.

Section 771(5)(B)(iii) of the Tariff Act as such does not violate the SCM Agreement, and we reject the
claims of Canada under SCM Article 1.
C. CLAIMS UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS
8.132 The claims of Canada under SCM Articles 10 (and SCM Articles 11, 17, and 19, as they
relate to SCM Article 10) and 32.1, on the one hand, and SCM Article 32.5 and WTO Article XVI:4,
on the other, are entirely dependent on the claim that the treatment of export restraints as financial
contributions is WTO-inconsistent and that US law requires such treatment contrary to
SCM Article 1. In light of our finding that, while such treatment of export restraints is WTO-
inconsistent, US law does not require such treatment and therefore is not WTO-inconsistent, we need
not, and thus do not, consider Canada's claims under these provisions.
IX. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 In light of the above findings, we conclude that:
- An export restraint as defined in this dispute cannot constitute government-entrusted or
government-directed provision of goods in the sense of subparagraph (iv) and hence does not
constitute a financial contribution in the sense of Article 1.1(a) of the SCM Agreement.
- Section 771(5)(B)(iii) read in light of the SAA and the Preamble to the US CVD
Regulations is not inconsistent with Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement by "requir[ing] the
imposition of countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning
of Article 1.1".
9.2 With respect to those of Canada's claims not addressed above, we have concluded that:
In light of considerations of judicial economy, it is neither necessary nor appropriate to make
findings thereon.
9.3 We therefore make no recommendations with respect to the United States' obligations under
the SCM and WTO Agreements.