GD/247
United States - Anti-dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden
Other titles
US Swedish Steel Plate (Source: GATT Analytical Index)
Products at Issue
| Products at issue |
Steel products
|
| Type of product |
Non-agricultural
|
| Product sub-type |
Steel products
|
Related disputes
| GATT | |
| WTO |
Key legal aspects
| Legal basis |
|
| Claims raised |
|
| Defences raised |
|
Adjudicators
| Type | Panel |
| Chairperson | Friedrich Klein (Germany, Fed. Rep.) |
| Other members | Peter Palécka (Czechoslovakia), David Walker (New Zealand) |
| Type | Panel |
| Legal basis at issue |
|
| Claims at issue |
|
| Defences at issue |
|
| No of Pages (total / legal reasoning) | 107 (and 24 annex) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
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/117 (04/02/1994) Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices - United States - Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Stainless Steel Plate from Sweden - Report from the Panel: The Panel was of the view that where, as in that case, a complaint had been raised regarding the alleged failure of a Party to undertake a factual analysis of whether the continued imposition of an anti-dumping duty remained necessary within the meaning of Article 9:1 of the Agreement on implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the Agreement), such a complaint needed to be examined in the first place under the provisions of Article 9:2 of the Agreement. The Panel concluded that whether the United States acted inconsistently with Article 9 by continuing to apply anti-dumping duties on imports of stainless steel plate from Sweden without having conducted an analysis of the need for the continued imposition of those duties was an issue to be examined in the first instance in light of the requirements in Article 9:2 regarding the review of anti-dumping duties. The Panel considered that it could not make findings on Sweden's claim regarding the United States' alleged failure to self-initiate a review, in so far as the factors presented by Sweden in support of this claim were identical to, and covered the same period of time as, the factors presented by Sweden in support of its claim that the United States had violated Article 9:2 by denying the Swedish exporter's requests for initiation of a review. Nevertheless, in view of this relationship between Articles 9:2 and 9:1, the Panel observed that where during a considerable length of time a Party did not undertake a review on its own initiative, this could raise serious questions as to whether that Party did not exceed the limits of the discretion afforded by Article 9:2, notwithstanding the lack of time-limits for the initiation of reviews under that provision. The Panel concluded that the United States had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 9:2 by dismissing the request made in 1987 by the Swedish exporter for the initiation of a review to revoke the dumping finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden, as a result of: (i) the factual insufficiency and inadequate explanation of the USITC's determination that the information on the purchase in 1976 of a US steel mill by a predecessor of the Swedish exporter had not substantiated the need for the initiation of a review, and (ii) the inadequate explanation of the USITC's determination that the information on the changed structure of the Swedish stainless steel plate industry and on the free-trade agreements between Sweden and the EC had not substantiated the need for the initiation of a review. The Panel further found that the United States had not acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 9:2 by dismissing the request made in 1987 by the Swedish exporter for the initiation of a review to modify the 1973 dumping finding on imports of stainless steel plate from Sweden; and had acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article 9:2 by dismissing the request made in 1985 by the Swedish exporter for the initiation of a review to revoke the 1973 dumping finding on stainless steel plate from Sweden, because the USITC had concluded based on factually incorrect data that the information on the purchase in 1976 of a steel mill in New Castle, Indiana by a predecessor of the Swedish exporter had not substantiated the need for the initiation of a review. ADP/M/44 (05/09/1994) Minutes of AD Committee(26-27/04/1994) Sweden requested the adoption of the Panel Report. US needed to examine the Report to reach a decision on the adoption of the Panel Report |