GD/204
United States - Imposition of Anti-dumping Duties on Imports of Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Sweden
Other titles
US Swedish Steel (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 | Jacques Bourgeois (Belgium) |
| Other members | Crawford Falconer (New Zealand), Didier Chambovey (Switzerland) |
| 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 | A first request for the establishment of a panel was made by Sweden at the Committee meeting of 24, 25 and 27 October 1988 (cf. ADP/M/24, document date: 9 Jan 1989). The United States did not agree to the establishment of the panel at that meeting. ADP/47 (20/08/1990) United States – Imposition of Anti-dumping Duties on Imports of Seamless Stainless Steel Hollow Products from Sweden – Report of the Panel: This dispute concerned the imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on 3 December 1987 by the United States on imports of certain seamless stainless steel hollow products from Sweden. Sweden requested the Panel to find that the decision to open this investigation and the determinations of dumping and injury made during the course of this investigation were not in conformity with the provisions of the Agreement. Sweden contested the consistency with Article 5:1 of the Agreement of the decision by the Department of Commerce to initiate this investigation on the grounds that the Department had failed to verify whether the written request in question had been filed on behalf of the domestic industry in the United States producing the like product. The Panel observed that under the Agreement the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation is subject to the requirements in Article 5:1, which provides that: "An investigation to determine the existence, degree and effect of any alleged dumping shall normally be initiated upon a written request by or on behalf of the industry affected." The Panel concluded that "a written request ... on behalf of the industry affected" implies that such a request must have the authorization or approval of the industry affected before the initiation of an investigation. The Panel further concluded that Article 5:1 must be interpreted to require investigating authorities, before opening an investigation, to satisfy themselves that a written request is made on behalf of a domestic industry, defined in accordance with Article 4. The Panel concluded that the arguments and information provided to it in the course of its proceedings did not permit it to conclude that the Department of Commerce had, prior to the initiation of the investigation, taken steps which could reasonably be considered to be sufficient to ensure that the initiation of this investigation was consistent with the obligation of the Department to satisfy itself that the written request for the initiation of an investigation had been filed on behalf of the domestic industry affected. It followed from Article 1 of the Agreement that any anti-dumping duty imposed as a result of an investigation initiated in a manner inconsistent with Article 5:1 was thereby also inconsistent with Article 1. The United States was therefore obliged under Article 15 of the Agreement to revoke the anti-dumping duties in question and, in accordance with past GATT practice, to reimburse the anti-dumping duties paid. The Panel concluded that the initiation by the United States of an anti-dumping investigation of imports of stainless steel hollow products from Sweden was inconsistent with the obligations of the United States under the first sentence of Article 5:1 of the Agreement. As a consequence, the imposition of anti-dumping duties by the United States on imports of seamless stainless steel hollow products from Sweden was not in conformity with Article 1 of the Agreement and had resulted in prima facie nullification or impairment of benefits accruing to Sweden under the Agreement. The Panel suggested that the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices request that the United States revoke the anti-dumping duties imposed on seamless stainless steel hollow products from Sweden and reimburse the anti-dumping duties paid. ADP/M/46 (17/02/1995) Minutes of the AD Committee Meeting (24/10/1994 and 28/10/1994) "The Chairman said this was the eleventh meeting at which the Panel Report had been before the Committee [the first time was ADP/M/29], but the Report had not yet been adopted. He said that this was regrettable". US: "concerns regarding the adoption of the Panel Report were fundamental and still maintained." Sweden "The present meeting of the Committee might be the last before the new era of the WTO (...) desirable for the Committee's record to adopt outstanding panel reports (...)" |