INTRODUCTION

The United States appeals certain issues of law and legal interpretations developed in the Panel Report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act 2000 (the “Panel Report”).

On 12 July 2001, Australia, Brazil, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand requested the establishment of a panel to examine the WTO-consistency of the United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the “CDSOA”). At its meeting of 23 August 2001, the Dispute Settlement Body (the “DSB”) established the Panel.

On 10 August 2001, Canada and Mexico separately requested the establishment of a panel with respect to the same matter. At its meeting of 10 September 2001, the DSB agreed to those requests and, pursuant to Article 9.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the “DSU”), referred the matter to the Panel established on 23 August 2001.

Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico and Thailand (the “Complaining Parties”) argued before the Panel that the CDSOA is inconsistent with Articles 18.1 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”), in conjunction with Article VI:2 of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the “GATT 1994”), and Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; Article 32.1 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the “SCM Agreement”), in conjunction with Article VI:3 of the GATT 1994 and Articles 4.10, 7.9 and 10 of the SCM Agreement; Article 5.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 11.4 of the SCM Agreement; and Article XVI:4 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (the “WTO Agreement”), Article 18.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement. In addition, with the exception of Australia, the Complaining Parties contended that the CDSOA is in violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994, Article 8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article 18 of the SCM Agreement. Furthermore, in a separate claim, Mexico argued that the CDSOA is in violation of Article 5(b) of the SCM Agreement, and India and Indonesia asserted that the CDSOA undermines Article 15 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.