GD/237
United States - Anti-dumping Duties on Grey Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Mexico
Other titles
US Cement (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Cement
|
| Type of product |
Non-agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Mineral products
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Peter J. Williams (United Kingdom) |
| Other members | Jorge A. Ruiz (Argentina), Miles Jordana (Australia) |
| Type | Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
|
| Claims at issue |
|
| Defences at issue |
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 82 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Timeline
| Request for consultations | |
| Request for conciliation | |
| Conciliation meeting | |
| Request for establishment | |
| Establishment | |
| Composition | |
| Report |
Outcome
| Outcome of the proceedings |
Report issued
|
| Additional Info | ADP/82 (09/07/1992) Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices - United States - Anti-Dumping Duties on Gray Portland Cement and Cement Clinker from Mexico - Report of the Panel: With respect to Article 5:1 of the of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the Agreement), the Panel found that the term "on behalf of" involved a notion of agency or representation, and that a petition had to have the authorization or approval of the industry affected, the term "industry" being defined in Article 4. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the producers in a regional market in respect of whom injury had to be found, namely "the producers of all or almost all of the production within such market", were the producers by or on behalf of which the request for initiating an anti-dumping investigation in a regional market had to be made under Article 5:1. In order to meet this requirement, the investigating authorities had to satisfy themselves, prior to initiating the investigation, that the petition was made with the authorization or approval of producers of all or almost all of the production within such market. The Panel found that United States' initiation of the anti-dumping investigation was inconsistent with Article 5:1 because the United States' authorities had not satisfied themselves prior to initiation that the petition was on behalf of producers of all or almost all of the production in the regional market. In view of this inconsistency, the Panel further concluded that the imposition of the anti-dumping duty order was inconsistent with Article 1. The Panel considered that a failure to observe the requirements in Article 5 could not be remedied by action subsequent to the initiation of the investigation because the very purpose of these requirements was to ensure that certain conditions be met before the initiation was decide upon. The Panel was therefore of the view that the United States could not bring itself into conformity with the requirements of Article 5:1 of the Agreement through a re-examination of the case; a re-examination could only take place in the context of a new initiation meeting the requirements of the Agreement. In light of these considerations, the Panel concluded that it was appropriate to recommend that the Committee request the United States to revoke the anti-dumping duty order on imports of gray portland cement and cement clinker from Mexico. In view of this conclusion, the Panel also considered that it was not necessary for it to make findings on the other issues raised by Mexico. Finally, the Panel concluded that the United States had the responsibility to reimburse the anti-dumping duties on gray portland cement and cement clinker from Mexico. The adoption of the Panel Report was requested, but not adopted, at these meetings: ADP/M/39 (22/01/1993) Minutes of the Meeting of the AD Committee (26-27/10/1992 and 30/10/1992) ADP/M/40 (15/09/1993) Minutes of the Meeting of the AD Committee (26-27/04/1993) US: "parties were seeking mutually satisfactory resolution of this dispute". ADP/M/41 (21/03/1994) Minutes of the Meeting of the AD Committee (25-26/10/1993) "The Chairman said he would hold informal consultations with the parties to the dispute in an effort to seek a mutually satisfactory solution to the matter." ADP/M/44 (05/09/1994) Minutes of the Meeting of the AD Committee (26-27/04/1994) US: "consultations [with Mexico] were helpful. (...) presently reflecting on the content of these consultations and expected (...) further consultations. (...) [N]ot in a position to take a position on the adoption of the Report (...)" ADP/M/45 (17/10/1994) Minutes of the Meeting of the AD Committee (28/07/1994) C/190 (31/10/1994) Status of Work in Panels and Implementation of Panel Reports - Report by the Director-General to the Council (10/11/1994) Dispute reported at the panel stage. |