[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 109 (Tuesday, June 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35970-35971]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-14208]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/DS-184]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding United States--
Antidumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products From Japan

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice; request for comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Office of the United States Trade Representative 
(``USTR'') is providing notice of the establishment of a dispute 
settlement panel under the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World 
Trade Organization (``WTO''), requested by the Government of Japan. The 
Government of Japan has asked the panel to review the determinations of 
the U.S. Department of Commerce (``DOC'') and the U.S. International 
Trade Commission (``ITC'') that led to the issuance of an antidumping 
duty order covering imports of certain hot-rolled steel products from 
Japan (64 FR 34778, June 29, 1999). Specifically, DOC published a 
preliminary determination of critical circumstances on November 30, 
1998 (63 FR 65750), and preliminary and final determinations of sales 
at less than fair value on February 19, 1999 (64 FR 8291) and May 6, 
1999 (64 FR 24329), respectively. The ITC published preliminary and 
final determinations of injury on November 25, 1998 (63 FR 65221) and 
June 23, 1999 (64 FR 33514), respectively.

DATES: Although USTR will accept any comments received during the 
course of the dispute settlement proceedings, comments should be 
submitted by July 3, 2000, to be assured of timely consideration by 
USTR in preparing its first written submission to the panel.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted to Sandy McKinzy, Litigation 
Assistant, Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, Room 122, Attn: Hot-
Rolled Steel Products from Japan, Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: L. Daniel Mullaney, Assistant General 
Counsel, at (202) 395-3581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 127(b) of the Uruguay 
Round Agreements Act (URAA) (19 U.S.C. 3537(b)(1)), USTR is providing 
notice that the Government of Japan submitted a request for the 
establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel to examine the 
imposition of antidumping duties on certain hot-rolled steel products 
from Japan. At its meeting on March 20, 2000, the WTO Dispute 
Settlement Body (``DSB'') established the panel, and the panel was 
composed on May 19, 2000. Pursuant to Article 8.7 of the WTO Dispute 
Settlement Understanding, the WTO Director-General appointed the 
following persons to serve as panelists in this dispute: Mr. Harsha V. 
Singh, Chairman; Mr. Yanyong Phuangrach, Member; and Ms. Lidia di Vico, 
Member. Under normal circumstances, the panel, which will hold its 
meetings in Geneva, Switzerland, is expected to issue a report 
detailing its findings and recommendations within six to nine months 
after it is established.

Major Issues Raised and Legal Basis of the Complaint

    In its request for the establishment of a panel, the Government of 
Japan challenges the issuance of an antidumping duty order concerning 
certain hot-rolled carbon steel products from Japan (64 FR 34778 (June 
29, 1999)), and the underlying determinations of DOC and the ITC. The 
Government of Japan alleges that these determinations, as well as the 
applicable law, regulations, policies and procedures, were not in 
accordance with several provisions of the Marrakesh Agreement, the 
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``GATT 1994'') and the 
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (``Antidumping 
Agreement'').
    Specific allegations with respect to DOC's dumping margin 
calculations and critical circumstances findings include:
    1. DOC's exclusion of certain home market sales to affiliated 
companies from the calculation of normal value, based on their price 
levels, was inconsistent with Articles 2.2.1 and 2.4 of the Antidumping 
Agreement;
    2. DOC's application of facts available to Kawasaki Steel 
Corporation was inconsistent with the standards of Articles 2.3 and 6.8 
and Annex II of the Antidumping Agreement; and the application of facts 
available to Nippon Steel Corporation and NKK Corporation was 
inconsistent with the standards of Article 2.4 and 6, in particular 
6.1, 6.2, 6.6, 6.7, 6.8, 6.13, and Annexes I and II of the Antidumping 
Agreement;
    3. DOC's calculation of the ``all others'' rate of dumping 
applicable to companies not investigated, which was based on the 
average of the rates of the investigated companies, was inconsistent 
with Article 9.4 of the Antidumping Agreement; and the law on which 
this calculation was based--section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended--is itself inconsistent with this article;
    4. DOC's calculation of dumping margins, due to the above alleged 
inconsistencies, is excessive and thus inconsistent with Article 9.3 of 
the Antidumping Agreement;
    5. DOC's findings of critical circumstances, potentially subjecting 
to antidumping duties imports made up to 90 days prior to the 
preliminary determination of dumping, were inconsistent with Articles 
10.1, 10.2, 10.4, 10.6, and 10.7 of the Antidumping Agreement; and the 
law under which DOC made these findings--sections 733(e) and 735(a)(3) 
of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, is itself inconsistent with 
these articles.
    Specific allegations with respect to the injury determination by 
ITC include:
    6. ITC's examination of the causal relationship between dumped 
imports and injury to the domestic industry, which the Government of 
Japan claims was not objective and not based on an examination of all 
of the evidence, was inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.4, and 3.5 of 
the Antidumping Agreement;
    7. ITC's application of the ``captive production'' provision of 
U.S. law, which, under certain circumstances, causes the ITC to focus 
primarily on the merchant market for the subject merchandise, was 
inconsistent with Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, 3.5, 3.6, and 4.1 of the 
Antidumping Agreement, because the ITC, due to its application of this 
provision, did not properly evaluate all relevant economic factors and 
indices bearing on the state of the U.S. industry, assess injury and 
causation in relation to the domestic production of the like

[[Page 35971]]

product, or undertake an objective examination of all relevant 
evidence; further, the Government of Japan alleges that the captive 
production provision itself, section 771(7)(c)(iv) of the Tariff Act of 
1930, as amended, is inconsistent with these articles of the 
Antidumping Agreement.
    Other allegations include:
    8. The United States' allegedly biased approach to the 
investigation, including with respect to the critical circumstances 
determination, the application of ``facts available,'' and the 
determination of injury, was inconsistent with Article X:3 of GATT 
1994;
    9. The above laws, regulations, and rulings are not in conformity 
with obligations under the WTO agreements, and so are inconsistent with 
Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement and Article 18.4 of the 
Antidumping Agreement.

Public Comment: Requirements for Submissions

    Interested persons are invited to submit written comments 
concerning the issues raised in this dispute. Comments must be in 
English and provided in fifteen copies to Sandy McKinzy at the address 
provided above. A person requesting that information contained in a 
comment submitted by that person be treated as confidential business 
information must certify that such information is business confidential 
and would not customarily be released to the public by the submitting 
person. Confidential business information must be clearly marked 
``BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL'' in a contrasting color ink at the top of each 
page of each copy.
    Information or advice contained in a comment submitted, other than 
business confidential information, may be determined by USTR to be 
confidential in accordance with section 135(g)(2) of the Trade Act of 
1974 (19 U.S.C. 2155(g)(2)). If the submitting person believes that 
information or advice may qualify as such, the submitting person--
    (1) Must so designate the information or advice;
    (2) Must clearly mark the material as ``SUBMITTED IN CONFIDENCE'' 
in a contrasting color ink at the top of each page of each copy; and
    (3) Is encouraged to provide a non-confidential summary of the 
information or advice. Pursuant to section 127(e) of the URAA (19 
U.S.C. 3537(e)), USTR will maintain a file on this dispute settlement 
proceeding, accessible to the public, in the USTR Reading Room: Room 
101, Office of the United States Trade Representative, 600 17th Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20508. The public file will include a listing of 
any comments received by USTR from the public with respect to the 
proceeding, the U.S. submissions to the panel in the proceeding, the 
submissions, or non-confidential summaries of submissions, to the panel 
received from other parties in the dispute, as well as the report of 
the dispute settlement panel, and, if applicable, the report of the 
Appellate Body. An appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/
DS-184, ``Hot-Rolled Steel Products--Japan'') may be made by calling 
Brenda Webb, (202) 395-6186. The Reading Room is open to the public 
from 9:30 a.m. to 12 noon and 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

A. Jane Bradley,
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Monitoring and Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 00-14208 Filed 6-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M