INTRODUCTION

Mexico appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations in the Panel Report, Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States (the “Panel Report”). The Panel considered, pursuant to Article 21.5 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), the complaint brought by the United States with respect to the consistency with the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”) of a measure taken by Mexico to comply with the recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) in Mexico - Anti-Dumping Investigation of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) from the United States (“Mexico - High Fructose Corn Syrup”).

In Mexico - High Fructose Corn Syrup, the original panel concluded that Mexico's imposition of definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of high fructose corn syrup from the United States was inconsistent with certain of Mexico's obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The original panel report was not appealed to the Appellate Body and, on 24 February 2000, the DSB adopted the original panel report, including its recommendation that Mexico bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

On 20 September 2000, with a view to complying with the findings and conclusions set forth in the original panel report, Mexico published a final resolution (the “redetermination”) which revised the original final resolution imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of high fructose corn syrup from the United States. In the redetermination, Mexico's Secretariat of Commerce and Industrial Development (“SECOFI”) “ratified its conclusion that during the period under investigation, there was a threat of injury to the domestic sugar industry as a consequence of imports of high fructose corn syrup under price discriminatory conditions originating from the United States of America”. SECOFI, thus, found “that it is appropriate to maintain the final offsetting duties established during the [original] anti-dumping investigation”. The factual aspects of this dispute are set out in greater detail in the Panel Report.

The United States considered that the redetermination was not consistent with Mexico's obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and, therefore, requested that the matter be referred to the original panel pursuant to Article 21.5 of the DSU.