Press Release: August 18, 2003 DSB

The following are statements by Ambassador Linnet Deily, U.S. Representative to the WTO, at the August 18, 2003 meeting of the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB).

The topics covered include the US responses to Mexico's requests for panels on anti-dumping measures on cement, anti-dumping measures on oil country tubular goods, and countervailing duties on steel plate, as well as US comments on the panel report on the EC's anti-dumping duties on malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings from Brazil.

Item 1. UNITED STATES - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON CEMENT FROM MEXICO

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY MEXICO (WT/DS281/2)

o Mr. Chairman, we are disappointed that Mexico has chosen to pursue this matter further by requesting the establishment of a panel. We are confident that U.S. law - as such and as applied in the anti-dumping determinations and in the sunset review concerning Gray Portland Cement and Clinker from Mexico - will be found to be consistent with U.S. WTO obligations.

o Unfortunately, there are some claims the nature of which we cannot discern from Mexico's panel request. We note that we have similar concerns over another of Mexico's panel requests, which we will discuss under agenda item 2. Because the Appellate Body has suggested that a Member should raise its concerns over deficiencies in a panel request when the DSB considers that request, the United States will at this time comment in some detail on the deficiencies it has identified in Mexico's panel request.

o Mexico claims that several measures are inconsistent with the WTO obligations of the United States, but some of the measures complained of are not measures at all, while others are identified so generally that it is impossible to know precisely what is being challenged.

o Among the "measures" alleged to be inconsistent with WTO obligations, Mexico lists the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), as well as a Sunset Policy Bulletin that was issued by the Department of Commerce in 1998. Neither document has the status of a "measure," and thus all claims pertaining to these documents should be rejected.

o Although in most instances Mexico has adequately identified the measure in question and the particular subparagraphs of articles that allegedly have been violated by the measure, several of the claims articulated in sections A through H of Mexico's request are insufficiently specific to present clearly the legal problem that is alleged to be at issue. These claims involve Antidumping Agreement articles containing multiple and discrete obligations.

o Section A alleges a violation of Articles 4 and 5 of the Antidumping Agreement, in their entirety. Such a claim seems implausible, and the lack of precision seems unjustified given that elsewhere Mexico was able to identify the particular paragraphs of Articles which it considered to have been violated.

$ Several other sections make similarly sweeping allegations that are equally implausible, including Section C.3, which alleges three violations of Article 2 and 6, and Section F, which alleges violations of Article 10 of the Antidumping Agreement.

o The net result is that with respect to a large portion of Mexico's panel request, the United States simply cannot discern the legal basis of Mexico's complaint, and we believe that a panel will agree with us if a panel is established on the basis of the current panel request.

o Accordingly, an appropriate course of action would be for Mexico to withdraw its current panel request and submit a new request which enables the United States and all other Members to adequately discern the legal basis of Mexico's complaint.

o In summary, Mr. Chairman, Mexico's panel request is deficient because it is not sufficient to present the problems clearly, and because it purports to challenge things that are not "measures." Therefore, the United States cannot go along with the establishment of a panel.

Item 2. UNITED STATES - ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON OIL COUNTRY TUBULAR GOODS (OCTG) FROM MEXICO

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY MEXICO (WT/DS282/2)

$ Mr. Chairman, the United States cannot agree to the establishment of a panel at this time.

$ Mexico's panel request sets forth numerous claims concerning the U.S. Department of Commerce and the U.S. International Trade Commission's sunset determinations, as well as Commerce's final determination in the 4th administrative review involving OCTG from Mexico.

$ Unfortunately, as was the case with the previous agenda item, the specifics of each of these claims are difficult to discern because of the lack of details provided in Mexico's panel request

o Once again, Mexico claims that several measures are inconsistent with the WTO obligations of the United States, but some of the measures complained of are not measures at all, while others are identified so generally that it is impossible to know precisely what is being challenged.

o And, once again, among the "measures" alleged to be inconsistent with WTO obligations, Mexico lists the Statement of Administrative Action that accompanied the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA), as well as a Sunset Policy Bulletin that was issued by the Department of Commerce in 1998. Neither document has the status of a "measure," and thus all claims pertaining to these documents should be rejected.

o Mexico alleges breaches of a number of articles of the Antidumping Agreement, the GATT 1994, and the WTO Agreement, most of which contain multiple and discrete obligations. This, despite that fact that many of the measures complained of are too vaguely defined to identify precisely, while some are not, in fact, measures at all.

$ For example, Section A.2 alleges a violation of Article 2 in its entirety. As we said on the previous agenda item, such a claim seems implausible, and the lack of precision seems unjustified given that elsewhere Mexico was able to identify the particular paragraphs of Articles which it considered to have been violated.

o The net result is that the United States simply cannot discern the legal basis of Mexico's complaint, and we believe that a panel will agree with us if a panel is established on the basis of the current panel request.

o Once again, we wish to say that an appropriate course of action would be for Mexico to withdraw its current panel request and submit a new request which enables the United States and all other Members to adequately discern the legal basis of Mexico's complaint.

Item 3. UNITED STATES - COUNTERVAILING DUTIES ON STEEL PLATE FROM MEXICO

A. REQUEST FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A PANEL BY MEXICO (WT/DS280/2)

$ The United States is disappointed that Mexico has chosen to pursue a panel with respect to a measure which is in most respects no longer in effect.

$ Liquidation instructions were issued last year for countervailing duties in connection with the 1998 administrative review which Mexico is challenging, and liquidation should now be complete. Further, a new administrative review is already underway, and when that review has been completed, no later than February 26, 2004, the cash deposit rate for new entries established in the 1998 administrative review will also change. At that point, the 1998 review will cease to have any effect.

$ Given this situation, it seems to the United States that the resources of all involved, including those of the parties, the Secretariat, and any panel which might be established, would be better served if Mexico were to assess the results of the soon-to-be completed administrative review, and determine at that time whether it wishes to pursue WTO dispute settlement proceedings.

$ We cannot accept establishment of a panel at this meeting, and hope that Mexico will reassess its decision to pursue panel proceedings.

Item 5. EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES - ANTI-DUMPING DUTIES ON MALLEABLE CAST IRON TUBE OR PIPE FITTINGS FROM BRAZIL

A. REPORT OF THE APPELLATE BODY (WT/DS219/AB/R) AND REPORT OF THE PANEL (WT/DS219/R)

$ The United States welcomes the opportunity to comment on what it considers a generally well-reasoned report. In particular, the United States commends the careful textual analysis by the Appellate Body, as well as the Panel, of Article 3 of the Antidumping Agreement concerning the application of the cumulation provision.

$ The United States is also pleased that the Appellate Body recognized that the Agreement does not prescribe any particular manner by which investigating authorities are to evaluate injury and causation. Given the absence of specific methodologies in Articles 3.4 and 3.5 of the Antidumping Agreement, the Appellate Body properly found that the Agreement does not as a rule impose a requirement to conduct an examination of the collective effects of other known causal factors in addition to examining the factors' individual effects.