Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- A note on the American Law Institute
- List of reporters
- 1 Introduction
- 2 United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (WTO Doc. WT/DS22/R of 15 July 2002): Beating Around (The) Bush
- 3 United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” Recourse to Arbitration by the United States Under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS106/ARB): A Comment
- 4 United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany (WTO Doc. WT/DS213/AB/R): The Sounds of Silence
- 5 United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WTO Doc. WT/DS212/AB/R): Recurring Misunderstanding of Non-Recurring Subsidies
- 6 Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft (WT/DS222/R): A Comment
- 7 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea
- 8 Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products
- 9 India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
- 10 United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 (WT/DS176/AB/R): A Comment
- 11 United States – Preliminary Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada: What is a Subsidy?
- 12 European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines: Textualism and its Discontent
- Index
- References
4 - United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany (WTO Doc. WT/DS213/AB/R): The Sounds of Silence
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 July 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Foreword
- A note on the American Law Institute
- List of reporters
- 1 Introduction
- 2 United States – Section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (WTO Doc. WT/DS22/R of 15 July 2002): Beating Around (The) Bush
- 3 United States – Tax Treatment for “Foreign Sales Corporations” Recourse to Arbitration by the United States Under Article 22.6 of the DSU and Article 4.11 of the SCM Agreement (WT/DS106/ARB): A Comment
- 4 United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany (WTO Doc. WT/DS213/AB/R): The Sounds of Silence
- 5 United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities (WTO Doc. WT/DS212/AB/R): Recurring Misunderstanding of Non-Recurring Subsidies
- 6 Canada – Export Credits and Loan Guarantees for Regional Aircraft (WT/DS222/R): A Comment
- 7 United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Circular Welded Carbon Quality Line Pipe From Korea
- 8 Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products
- 9 India – Measures Affecting the Automotive Sector
- 10 United States – Section 211 Omnibus Appropriations Act of 1998 (WT/DS176/AB/R): A Comment
- 11 United States – Preliminary Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada: What is a Subsidy?
- 12 European Communities – Trade Description of Sardines: Textualism and its Discontent
- Index
- References
Summary
Facts of the Case
On August 17, 1993, the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) imposed definitive countervailing duties (CVDs) on carbon steel originating in Germany. The imposition of these duties was based on an investigation by USDOC in which it was determined that certain German producers had benefited from five countervailable subsidy programs at a total ad valorem rate of 0.60 percent.
On September 1, 1999, the USDOC gave notice of the automatic initiation of a sunset review of these duties, in accordance with Article 21.3 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (the SCM Agreement). The United States found, in the course of its review, that withdrawal of CVDs would have led to a recurrence of subsidization and injury. The USDOC calculated the amount of countervailable subsidy to be 0.54% ad valorem, inasmuch as two of the original five subsidy programs had been terminated between the time of the original investigation and that of the administrative review.
Issues raised before the Panel
The European Communities complained that the US review was inconsistent with US obligations under the SCM Agreement. In the view of the European Communities, the United States should have withdrawn the CVDs when they found that the amount of countervailable subsidy to be 0.54% ad valorem. The European Communities argued that Article 11.9 of the SCM Agreement provided support for its argument in this respect; Article 11.9 obliges WTO Members to terminate original subsidy investigations when the amount of subsidy is calculated to fall below a de minimis standard of 1% ad valorem.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The WTO Case Law of 2002The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies, pp. 64 - 77Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005