Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
|Short Title:||US — Section 129(c)(1) URAA|
|Link to Dispute Site:||http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds221_e.htm|
|Dispute Subject(s):||Anti-dumping Measures; Lumber;|
On 17 January 2001, Canada requested consultations with the US concerning Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (the "URAA") and the Statement of Administrative Action accompanying the URAA. In Canada's view, in a situation in which the DSB has ruled that the US has, in an anti-dumping or countervailing duty proceeding, acted inconsistently with US obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements, the US law prohibits the US from complying fully with the DSB ruling. Under US law, determinations whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties are made after the imports occur. With regard to imports that occurred prior to a date on which the US directs compliance with the DSB ruling, the measures require US authorities to disregard the DSB ruling in making such determinations, even where the determination whether to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties is made after the date fixed by the DSB for compliance. In such circumstances, determinations by the US to levy anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be inconsistent with its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements.
Canada considered that these measures are inconsistent with US obligations under Article21.3 of the DSU, in the context of Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the DSU; Article VI of the GATT 1994; Articles 10 and note 36, 19.2, 19.4 and note 51, 21.1, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3, and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1-4 and note 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.
Further to Canada's request, the DSB established a panel at its meeting of 23 August 2001. Chile, EC, India and Japan reserved their third-party rights. On 30 October 2001, the Panel was composed. On 30 April 2002, the Chairman of the Panel informed the DSB that the Panel would not be able to complete its work in six months due to the complexity of the matter and that the Panel expected to issue its final report to the parties by the end of June 2002. On 15 July 2002, the Panel circulated its report to Members. The Panel concluded that that Canada had failed to establish that section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act was inconsistent with Articles VI:2, VI:3 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement; Articles 10, 19.4, 21.1, 32.1 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement. In the light of its conclusion, the Panel made no recommendations to the DSB.
On 30 August 2002, the DSB adopted the Panel report.
|Brief Date||Brief Description|
|04/12/2002||Executive Summary of the Submissions of the United States (pdf)|
|04/10/2002||Comments of the United States on Canada's April 5, 2002 Response to the Panel's March 28, 2002 Questions (pdf)|
|04/05/2002||Answers of the United States to the Panel's March 28, 2002 Questions|
|03/26/2002||Oral Statement of the United States at the Second Meeting of the Panel (pdf)|
|03/08/2002||Second Submission of the United States (pdf)|
|02/18/2002||Oral Statement of the United States at the First Meeting of the Panel (pdf)|
|01/29/2002||First Submission of the United States (pdf)|