On January 17, 2001, Canada requested the United States to consult section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) and the Declaration on Administrative Measures annexed to the URAA. According to Canada, U.S. law prohibits the United States, in a situation where the DSB has decided that the United States acted in an anti-dumping or countervailing proceeding in contravention of the United States` obligations under the AD or SCM agreements, from fully complying with the DSB judgment. Under U.S. law, the imposition of anti-dumping or countervailing duties after importation is examined. With respect to imports made prior to the date on which the United States orders compliance with DSB, the measures require the US authorities to ignore DSB on such findings, even if the decision to impose anti-dumping or countervailing duties is taken on the date set by the DSB. In these circumstances, the United States` findings to impose anti-dumping or countervailing duties would be contrary to its obligations under the AD or SCM Agreements. . Canada found these measures to be inconsistent with the United States` obligations under Article 21.3 of the USD with respect to Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.7 and 21.1 of the USD; Article VI of GATT 1994; Articles 10 and 36, 19.2, 19.4 and Notes 51, 21.1, 32.1, 32.2, 32.3 and 32.5 of the SCM Convention; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1, 18.1 to 4 and Footnote 12 of the AD Agreement; and Article XVI(4) of the WTO Agreement. . At Canada`s request, the DSB established a body at its meeting on 23 August 2001.
Chile, the EC, India and Japan reserved their rights as third parties. On 30 October 2001, the panel was constituted. On 30 April 24, 2002, the Presiding Officer informed the DSB that, pending the complexity of the case, the Proceedings would not be able to complete their work in six months and that it would have to submit its final report to the parties by the end of June 2002. On 15 July 2002, the panel distributed its report to members. The Panel concluded that Canada had not established 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 Convention; and Article XVI(4) of the WTO Agreement. Based on its findings, the panel did not make any recommendations to the DSD. Link to dispute resolution page: www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds221_e.htm On 30 August 1, 2002, the DSB adopted the panel report. .