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 Article 21.3 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.

Countries: Canada ; United States

Article metrics loading...

  • Published online: 15 Jul 2002
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error