[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15517-15518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-6752]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

[Docket No. WTO/D-162]


WTO Dispute Settlement Proceeding Regarding Antidumping Act of 
1916

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 date by which the United States 
is to respond to the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute 
Settlement Body (``DSB'') of the World Trade Organization (``WTO'') in 
United States--Antidumping Act of 1916. The Antidumping Act of 1916 was 
the subject of separate disputes brought by the European Communities 
(the ``EC''), and Japan. In both cases, Japan and the EC alleged that 
this statute is inconsistent with obligations of the United States 
under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (``GATT 1994'') 
and the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 (``the 
Antidumping Agreement''). In both cases, the panels determined that the 
1916 Act is inconsistent with Article VI of GATT and certain provisions 
of the Antidumping Agreement; the WTO Appellate Body affirmed the 
panel's findings in both cases. In October 2000, the United States 
confirmed to the DSB its commitment to implement the recommendations 
and rulings of the DSB in a manner which respects U.S. WTO obligations. 
As a result of arbitral proceedings the United States has a period of 
ten months from the date of adoption of the panel report--i.e., until 
July 26, 2001--to implement the recommendations and rulings of the DSB. 
The USTR invites written comments from the public concerning the manner 
in which it should respond.

DATES: Comments should be submitted by April 16, 2001, to be assured of 
timely consideration by the USTR in developing a response to the DSB 
recommendations and rulings.

ADDRESSES: Comments are to be submitted to Sandy McKinzy, Litigation 
Assistant, Office of Monitoring and Enforcement, Room 122, Attn: U.S.--
Antidumping Act of 1916 dispute, Office of the United States Trade 
Representative, 600 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC, 20508.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rhonda K. Schnare, Associate General 
Counsel, (202) 395-3582.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 11, 1999, the EC submitted a

[[Page 15518]]

request for the establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel to 
examine the Antidumping Act of 1916. The DSB established a panel for 
this purpose on February 1, 2000, and the panel was composed on April 
1, 1999. On March 31, 2000, after full briefing and hearings, the panel 
issued recommendations and rulings.
    Separately, on June 3, 1999, Japan also submitted a request for the 
establishment of a WTO dispute settlement panel to examine the same 
matter. The DSB established a panel for this purpose on July 26, 1999, 
and the panel was composed on August 11, 1999. On May 29, 2000, after 
full briefing and hearings, the panel issued its recommendations and 
rulings.
    Thereafter, the United States appealed both panel reports to the 
WTO Appellate Body. After further briefing and a hearing, the Appellate 
Body issued a report affirming the panel reports on August 28, 2000. 
The Appellate Body's recommendations and rulings were adopted by the 
DSB on September 26, 2000.
    In October 2000 the United States affirmed that it would implement 
the DSB's recommendations and rulings. On November 17, 2000, the EC and 
Japan requested arbitration on the reasonable period of time for the 
United States to implement the DSB's recommendations and rulings. The 
arbitrator issued a report on February 28, 2001, granting the United 
States a period of ten months, or until July 26, 2001, to implement the 
DSB's recommendations and rulings.

Major Issues Raised and Legal Basis of the Complaint

    The EC and Japan both alleged that the 1916 Act is inconsistent 
with Articles III and VI of GATT 1994 and various provisions of the 
Antidumping Agreement. Specifically, in addition to Article III of GATT 
1994, the EC alleged that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with Articles 
VI:2 and VI:1 of GATT 1994 and Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 of the 
Antidumpting Agreement.
    Japan alleged that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with article VI:2 
of GATT and 18.1 of the Antidumping Agreement, which Japan asserted 
permits the imposition of antidumping duties as the only possible 
remedy for dumping. Japan also alleged that the 1916 Act is 
inconsistent with Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11 of the Antidumping 
Agreement and Article XI of GATT 1994.
    Finally, both the EC and Japan asserted that the United States 
failed to comply with Article XVI:4 of the Marakesh Agreement 
establishing the WTO which requires that Members bring their laws into 
compliance with their obligations under the WTO agreements.
    In the EC dispute, the panel found that the 1916 Act is 
inconsistent with Article VI:1 and VI:2 of the GATT 1994; Articles 1, 
4, and 5.5 of the Antidumping Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the WTO 
Agreement. Specifically, the panel found that 1916 Act violates Article 
VI because it does not provide exclusively for the material injury test 
set forth under Article VI, and that by providing for the imposition of 
treble damages, fines or imprisonment instead of antidumping duties, 
the 1916 Act violates Article VI:2. The panel also found that by not 
requiring that cases be filed by or behalf of a domestic industry, the 
Act violates the Antidumping Agreement's standing provision in Article 
4: and that the Act fails to provide the notice required by Article 5 
of the Antidumping Agreement.
    Similarly, in the Japan dispute, the panel found that the 1916 Act 
violates Article VI:1 and VI:2 of GATT 1994. The panel also found that 
the Act is inconsistent with the procedural requirements in Articles 1, 
4.1, 5.1, 5.2, 5.4 of the Antidumping Agreement, and Articles 18.1 and 
18.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement by virtue of the other procedural 
violations. Article 5.1 requires that a request for initiation of an 
anti-dumping investigation be made by or on behalf of the domestic 
industry. Article 4.1 defines ``domestic industruy'' for the purpose of 
the AntiDumping Agreement. Article 5.4 requires the investigating 
authorities to determine hat an application is supported by those 
producers whose collective output constitutes more than 50 per cent of 
the total production of the like product of those producers supporting 
or opposing the application, and Article 5.2 requires that the 
application include evidence of dumping, injury and causation.
    In both cases, the panel declined to reach the GATT Article III 
claim and found that the United States is in violation of Article XVI:4 
of the WTO Agreement only to the extent that it is in violation of 
other WTO provisions. In the Japan case, the panel also declined to 
rule upon the GATT Article XI claim.
    The disputes were combined for purposes of briefing and hearings 
before the WTO Appellate Body, which affirmed the panel's findings in 
both cases.

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 the 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)), the 
USTR maintains 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 all non-confidential comments 
received by the USTR from the public in response to this request. An 
appointment to review the public file (Docket WTO/D-162, United 
States--Anti-dumping Act of 1916) may be made by calling Brenda Webb, 
(202) 395-6186. The USTR 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. 01-6752 Filed 3-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3190-01-M