INTERIM REPORTWT/DS336/R
Strictly confidentialPage 1
Organization
WT/DS336/R
13 July 2007
(07-2924)
Original: English
JAPAN – countervailing duties on
dynamic random access
memories from korea
Report of the Panel
WT/DS336/R
Page1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I.introduction......
II.FACTUAL ASPECTS......
III.parties' requests for findings and recommendations......
A.Korea......
B.Japan......
IV.ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES......
A.First Written Submission of Korea......
1.Japan's Imposition of Countervailing Duties Was Based on a Fundamentally Flawed Assumption
2.Japan's Investigation Was Procedurally Flawed and Legally Invalid......
(a)Failure to Promulgate Benefit Calculation Methods
(b)Improper Burden of Proof
(c)Improper Identification of "Interested Parties"
3.Japan's Findings of Subsidies to Hynix Were Inconsistent with the Requirements of the SCMAgreement
(a)Improper Finding that Hynix Received Financial Contributions
(i)Improper Classification of Transactions that Did Not Involve Any Transfer of Funds as "Direct Transfers of Funds"
(ii)Lack of Factual Findings for a Determination that Revenue Otherwise Due Had Been Foregone
(iii)Improper Finding of "Entrustment or Direction" of Hynix's Private Creditors......
(b)Improper Finding that Hynix Received a Benefit from the Alleged Financial Contributions...
(c)Improper Finding that the Alleged Subsidies Were Specific to Hynix......
4.Japan Improperly Imposed Countervailing Duties on Imports that Were Not Subsidized
(a)Failure to Consider the Impact of Changes in the Ownership of Hynix
(b)Improper Imposition of Duties on Imports after the Benefit of the Alleged Subsidies Had Expired
5.Japan's Finding that the Subsidized Imports Were Causing Injury Was Inconsistent with the Requirements of the SCMAgreement
6.Request for Ruling and Recommendation......
B.First Written Submission of Japan......
1.The Panel's Terms Of Reference......
2.Evidentiary and Procedural Issues......
(a)Korea Failed to Meet Its Burden of Proof in This Dispute
(b)The Standard of Review of the Panel
3.The JIA's Factual Findings on The Subsidization of Hynix......
4.Korea's Claims of Errors......
(a)The JIA Correctly Based the Final Determination on an Objective Assessment of the Evidence on the Record and Provided Reasoned and Adequate Explanations Based on Probative and Compelling Evidence
(b)Korea Misinterprets the Evidentiary Standard for an Investigation
(c)The JIA Properly Found Financial Contributions to Hynix
(i)The JIA's Finding of a Transfer of Funds Was Consistent with Article 1.1(a)(1)(i) of the SCMAgreement
(ii)The JIA Properly Found the Government of Korea's Entrustment or Direction to Private Creditors
(d)The JIA Properly Found Benefit
(e)The JIA Properly Found Specificity
(f)Korea's Change-in-Ownership Argument Is Irrelevant to the JIA's Subsidies Determination
(g)The JIA Properly Imposed a Countervailing Duty on Imports Found to Have Been Subsidized during the Period of Investigation
(h)Japan's Guidelines Sufficiently Set Forth the Benefit Calculation Methods
(i)The JIA's Designation of Certain Financial Institutions as "Interested Parties" Is Consistent with the SCM Agreement
(j)The JIA Correctly Considered the Effects of Subsidies to Injury
(k)Korea's Claim under Article 32.1 of the SCMAgreement is without Merit
(l)Korea's Suggestion to the Panel to Specify a Particular Way to Implement a Recommendation (If Any) is Unnecessary
5.The Non-Record Evidence And Argument Presented By Korea Are Not Appropriately Before The Panel
(a)Korea's Submission of Non-Record Evidence Should Be Rejected
(b)Korea's Claims Based on Evidence and Arguments, Which the Government of Korea and Other Interested Parties Chose Not to Submit in the Investigation, Should Be Rejected
C.First Oral Statements of Korea......
1.Opening Statement of Korea at the First Meeting of the Panel......
(a)Procedural Flaws In The JIA's Determination......
(i)Use of Improper Benefit Calculation Methods
(ii)Improper Burden of Proof......
(b)Determination of Financial Contribution
(i)Direct Transfer of Funds and Forgone Revenue......
(ii)Entrustment or Direction......
(c)Benefit
(d)Allocation Period and Imposition Period......
(e)Injury Causation......
2.Closing Statement of Korea at the First Meeting of the Panel......
D.First Oral Statements of Japan
1.Opening Statement of Japan at the First meeting of the Panel......
(a)Standard of Review and Evidentiary Standard
(i)The Requirements under the WTO Agreements......
(ii)The Actual Investigation and Determination by the JIA......
-Hynix's Financial Situation: On the Verge of Collapse
-The Policy and Actions of The Government of Korea to Save Hynix Since the "Big Deal"
(iii)The Facts Found in the Investigation and the Evidentiary Standard for Entrustment or Direction
(iv)Non-Record Evidence and Arguments......
(v)Conclusion......
(b)Other Errors In Korea' s Claims
(i)Benefit......
(ii)Determination of the Amount of Subsidy......
2.Closing Statement of Japan at the First Meeting of the Panel......
E.Second Written Submission of Korea......
1.Japan's Imposition of Countervailing Duties was based on a Fundamentally Flawed Assumption
2.Japan's Investigation Was Procedurally Flawed and Legally Invalid......
(a)Failure to Promulgate Benefit Calculation Methods
(b)Improper Reliance on Assumptions and Reversal of Burden of Proof
(c)Improper Identification of "Interested Parties"
3.Improper Finding that Hynix Received Financial Contributions......
(a)Improper Classification of Transactions that Did Not Involve Any Transfer of Funds as "Direct Transfers of Funds"
(b)Improper Finding of "Entrustment or Direction" of Hynix's Private Creditors
4.Improper Finding that Hynix Received a Benefit from the Alleged Financial Contributions
5.Improper Finding that the Alleged Subsidies Were Specific to Hynix......
6.Improperly Failure to Consider the Impact of Changes in the Ownership of Hynix.....
7.Improper Imposition of Duties on Imports after the Benefit of the Alleged Subsidies had Expired
8.Japan's Finding that the Subsidized Imports Were Causing Injury Was Inconsistent with the Requirements of the SCMAgreement
9.Failure to Comply with the Substantive and Procedural Requirements of the SCMAgreement
F.Second Written Submission of Japan......
1.Standard of Review and Burden of Proof......
(a)Standard of Review......
(b)Burden of Proof......
2.Korea's Claims of Error......
(a)Japan's Guidelines......
(i)The Limited Scope of Korea's Claim......
(ii)The JIA's Benefit Calculation Methodology Was Provided for in Japan's Law......
(b)The Record Evidence......
(c)Designation of Certain Financial Institution as "Interested Parties"......
(d)Financial Contribution......
(i)The JIA Correctly Found a Transfer of "Funds"......
(ii)The JIA Correctly Determined that the Private Creditors Were Entrusted or Directed......
-The Government of Korea's intent......
-Lack of investors and the lack of sufficient analysis by participating banks......
-Korea's Specific Arguments on the JIA's Assessment of the Lack of Investors Willing to Participate in the Bailout Programs
-Korea's Specific Arguments concerning the Lack of Analysis by Participating Banks......
(e)The Determination of Benefit......
(i)Introduction and Overview of Japan's Argument......
(ii)Rebuttal to Korea's Arguments......
(f)Imposition of a Countervailing Duty on Imports Found to Have Been Subsidized during the Period of Investigation
(i)The Limited Nature of Korea's Claim......
(ii)The Determination was Fully Consistent with Article 19.4......
(iii)The Determination was Fully Consistent with Article 21.1......
(iv)Article VI of the GATT 1994, and the Provisions of the SCMAgreement Provide Incontrovertible Textual Support for Japan's Position
(v)Korea Wrongly Assumes that the Investigating Authority "Fully Allocated" the Subsidies to the 2001-2005 Period
(vi)Korea's Claim Disregards Relevant Findings by the Appellate Body......
(g)Effects of Subsidies in Injury Determination......
(i)Causal Link between the Subsidized Imports and Injury......
(ii)The JIA Correctly Found that Hynix's Exports Were through the Effects of Subsidies Causing Injury to the Domestic Industry
G.Second Oral Statements of Korea......
1.Opening Statement of Korea at the Second Meeting of the Panel......
(a)Introduction......
(b)The Panel's Task in this Proceeding......
(i)The Interpretation of the Relevant Agreements......
(ii)The Requirement of a Prima Facie Case......
(iii)Evidentiary Requirements under the SCMAgreement......
(c)The Benefit Determination......
(i)The Appropriate Benchmark......
(ii)The Evidence Concerning Hynix's Going-Concern and Liquidation Values......
(iii)Participation of Non-Entrusted or-Directed Creditors......
(d)Imposition of Duties Beyond the Amortization Period......
(e)Causation of Injury "Through the Effects of Subsidies"......
(f)Conclusion
2.Closing Statement of Korea at the Second Meeting of the Panel......
H.Second Oral Statements By Japan......
1.Opening Statement of Japan at the Second Meeting of the Panel......
(a)Korea's Economic Theories Arguments are Irrelevant
(b)Japan's Provision of Methods is Consistent with Article 14......
(c)The "Assumptions" Alleged by Korea......
(i)The First Category of an "Assumption" Alleged by Korea is Based on an Incorrect Understanding of the JIA's Determination
(ii)The Second Category of an "Assumption" Alleged by Korea Is in Fact a Factual Finding Based on the Evidence on the Record
(iii)The Third Category of an "Assumption" Alleged by Korea is Based on an Incorrect Understanding of the JIA's Findings and the Evidence
(iv)The Fourth Category of an "Assumption" Alleged by Korea Is in Fact a Factual Finding Based on the Evidence on the Record
(d)Positive Evidence and Standard of Review......
(i)Korea's Erroneous Application of a "Positive Evidence" Standard......
(ii)Non-Record Evidence Should Not Be Examined......
(e)Interested Parties......
(i)Korea's Argument on the Scope of Interested Parties Is Without Merit......
(ii)Korea's "Adverse Facts Available" Argument Is Without Merit......
(f)Revenue Foregone/Transfer of Funds......
(i)Korea's Interpretation of "Transfer of Funds" Is Erroneous......
(ii)The Extension of Maturity of Loans and Debt-to-Equity Swap......
(g)Financial Contribution......
(i)The "Syllogism" Korea Asserts Is an Erroneous Understanding......
(ii)The Decisions of Woori Bank and Chohung Bank......
(iii)The JIA's Finding on Government Intent Was Reasonable......
(iv)Prime Minister's Decree No. 408 Does Not Prohibit Government Intervention......
(h)Benefit
(i)Korea's Argument that Hynix's Debts Were Worthless Is Without Merit......
(ii)Korea's Going-Concern Value Argument Is Without Merit......
(i)Specificity
(j)Change in Ownership......
(k)Allocation of Subsidies......
(l)Injury Determination......
2.Closing Statement of Japan at the Second Meeting of the Panel......
(a)Introduction......
(b)Korea's Erroneous Understanding of its own Obligation to Establish a Prima Facie Case....
(c)Submission of an "Argument" in a Panel......
(d)Korea's Argument on the Interpretation of the Extension of the Maturity of Loans and the Debt-To-Equity Swap has no Merit
(e)Korea's Argument on Individual Banks' Analysis was based on an Isolated Portion of Evidence and Failed to Address other Relevant Evidence
(f)Korea Now Admits that Deutsche Bank Prepared the Report in its Capacity as Financial Advisor to Hynix
(g)The Deutsche Bank Report is not Immune from Review......
(h)Korea's Alleged Scope of Entrustment or Direction Based on its own Economic Theory is Contrary to the Scope under the SCMAgreement
(i)The JIA's Investigation Sufficiently Covered Hynix's Representative Financial Institutions...
(j)Korea's Interpretation of EC Regulations is Incorrect; EC's Regulations in fact Support Japan's View
(k)Korea's Interpretation of "Found to Exist" is out of Context of the SCMAgreement
(l)Conclusion......
V.ARGUMENTS OF THE THIRD PARTIES......
A.Third Party Written Submission Of China......
1.Introduction......
2.Effects of Past Subsidies over the Primary Market Benchmark......
3.Imposition Period v.s. Allocation Period......
4.Conclusion......
B.third party oral statement of china......
1.Effects Of Past Subsidies Over The Primary Market Benchmark......
2.Imposition Period v.s. Allocation Period......
C.third party written submission of the European communities......
1.Article 6.2 of the DSU......
2.Burden of Proof and Standard of Review......
3.Interested Parties......
4.Financial Contribution......
5.Benefit......
6.Specificity......
7.Imposition of countervailing duties......
8.Causation......
D.Third Party Oral Statement Of The European Communities......
1.Article 6.2 of the DSU......
2.The market benchmark for determining the existence and amount of a benefit is the market of the granting member, provided that it has not itself been distorted by government subsidies
3.The market benchmark for determining the existence and amount of benefit is that of an outside not an inside investor
4.Distinction between the existence of a subsidy and the grant of a subsidy......
5.Point at which a subsidy may be deemed to exist within the meaning of Article1.1 of the SCMAgreement
6.The relevance of the change of ownership case law does not depend on privatisation....
E.Third Party Written Submission of the United States......
1.Procedural Issues......
2.Burden of Proof, Standard of Review, and Evidence......
3.Subsidy Determination......
4.Injury Determination......
F.Third Party Oral Statement of the United States......
1.Preliminary Ruling Requests......
2.Burden of Proof, Standard of Review, and Evidentiary Standards......
3.Rejection of Private Benchmarks......
4.The Chapeau of Article 14......
5.Injury Determination......
VI.interim review......
A.comments by korea......
B.comments by japan......
VII.FINDINGS......
A.Requests for Preliminary Rulings......
1.Japan's 5 September Request......
(a)Item 9......
(b)Item 10......
(c)Item 15......
2.Japan's Additional Request......
(a)Items 3, 4 and 9......
(b)Item 5......
(c)Item 6......
(d)Item 7......
(e)Item 12......
(f)Item 13......
3.Conclusion......
B.General Issues......
1.Standard of Review......
2.Burden of Proof......
3.Treaty Interpretation......
C.Alleged Reversal of the Burden of Proof
D.The JIA's Determination of Entrustment or Direction of Certain Private Bodies
1.Introduction......
2.The Claim......
3.Applicable Provisions......
4.The JIA's Determination......
5.Main Arguments of Korea......
6.Main Arguments of Japan......
7.Evaluation by the Panel......
(a)Legal, Interpretational, and Evidentiary Issues......
(i)General Considerations......
(ii)In the Creditors' Own Interests......
(iii)Direct / Circumstantial Evidence......
(iv)Probative and Compelling Evidence......
(v)Positive Evidence......
(b)The Alleged Presumption That No Rational Creditor Would Have Entered Into The Restructuring Transactions, In View Of Hynix's Poor, And Deteriorating, Financial Condition
(i)Arguments of Korea......
(ii)Arguments of Japan......
(iii)Evaluation by the Panel......
(c)The Government of Korea's Alleged Intent To "Keep Hynix Alive"......
(i)The JIA's findings......
(ii)Arguments of Korea......
(iii)Arguments of Japan......
(iv)Evaluation of the Panel......
(d)Commercial reasonableness: the JIA's analysis of the internal examinations of the restructurings by the Four Creditors
(i)Main Arguments of Korea......
(ii)Main Arguments of Japan......
(iii)Evaluation by the Panel......
(e)The Participation of Other Creditors In The Same Transactions And On the Same Terms....
(i)Main Arguments of Korea......
(ii)Main Arguments of Japan......
(iii)Evaluation by the Panel......
(f)Conclusion......
E.the jia's determination of benefit......
1.Introduction......
2.Applicable provisions......
3.Main Arguments of Korea......
4.The relevance of the evidence relied on by the JIA......
(a)Arguments of Korea......
(b)Arguments of Japan......
(c)Evaluation by the Panel......
5.Commercial Reasonableness: Whether The Restructurings Made Hynix "Better Off"..
(a)Arguments of Korea......
(b)Arguments of Japan......
(c)Evaluation by the Panel......
6.The Use of Hynix's Non-Entrusted or Directed Creditors as Market Benchmarks......
(a)The "non-commercial nature" of the behaviour of the Other Creditors......
(b)Prior Subsidies......
(c)Conclusion......
7.Calculation of the Amount of Benefit......
(a)Main Arguments of Korea......
(b)Main Arguments of Japan......
(c)Evaluation by the Panel......
8.Conclusion
F.Article 14 Chapeau / Benefit Calculation Method......
1.Main Arguments of the Parties......
2.Is This an "As Such" Claim?......
3.Were the Methods Used by the JIA Provided For in Japan's Guidelines?......
G.Allocation / Continued Existence of Benefit......
1.Main Arguments of Korea......
2.Main Arguments of Japan......
3.Evaluation by the Panel......
4.Conclusion......
H.Specificity......
1.Main Arguments of Korea......
2.Main Arguments of Japan......
3.Findings of the JIA......
4.Evaluation by the Panel......
I.Interested parties......
1.Arguments......
(a)Korea......
(b)Japan......
2.Evaluation by the Panel
J.Causation of Injury......
1.Arguments......
(a)Korea......
(b)Japan......
2.Evaluation by the Panel......
K.Direct Transfer of Funds......
1.Arguments......
(a)Korea......
(b)Japan......
2.Evaluation by the Panel
L.Change in Ownership......
1.Claim......
2.Arguments
(a)Korea......
(b)Japan......
3.Evaluation by the Panel
M.Article 32.1
1.Claim......
2.Applicable provision......
3.Arguments......
(a)Korea......
(b)Japan......
4.Evaluation by the Panel
VIII.conclusions and recommendation......
WT/DS336/R
Page1
TABLE OF WTO CASES CITED IN THIS REPORT
Short Title / Full Case Title and CitationBrazil – Aircraft / Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Export Financing Programme for Aircraft, WT/DS46/AB/R, adopted 20August 1999, DSR1999:III, 1161
Brazil – Desiccated Coconut / Appellate Body Report, Brazil – Measures Affecting Desiccated Coconut, WT/DS22/AB/R, adopted 20March1997, DSR1997:I,167.
Canada – Aircraft / Appellate Body Report, Canada – Measures Affecting the Export of Civilian Aircraft, WT/DS70/AB/R, adopted 20August 1999, DSR1999:III, 1377
Canada – Autos / Appellate BodyReport, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Automotive Industry, WT/DS139/AB/R, WT/DS142/AB/R, adopted 19June 2000, DSR2000:VI, 2985
Canada – Wheat Exports and Grain Imports / Panel Report, Canada – Measures Relating to Exports of Wheat and Treatment of Imported Grain, WT/DS276/R, adopted 27September 2004, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS276/AB/R, DSR2004:VI, 2817
Chile – Price Band System / Appellate Body Report, Chile – Price Band System and Safeguard Measures Relating to Certain Agricultural Products, WT/DS207/AB/R, adopted 23October 2002, DSR2002:VIII, 3045
EC – Bed Linen / Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton-Type Bed Linen from India, WT/DS141/AB/R, adopted 12March 2001, DSR2001:V, 2049
EC – Countervailing Measures on DRAM Chips / Panel Report, European Communities – Countervailing Measures on Dynamic Random Access Memory Chips from Korea, WT/DS299/R, adopted 3 August 2005.
EC – Hormones / Appellate Body Report, EC Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/AB/R, WT/DS48/AB/R, adopted 13February 1998, DSR1998:I, 135
EC–Tube or Pipe Fittings / Panel Report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil, WT/DS219/R, adopted 18August2003, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS219/AB/R, DSR 2003:VII, 2701.
Egypt – Steel Rebar / Panel Report, Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey, WT/DS211/R, adopted 1October 2002, DSR2002:VII, 2667
Korea – Commercial Vessels / Panel Report, Korea – Measures Affecting Trade in Commercial Vessels, WT/DS273/R, adopted 11 April 2005.
Korea – Dairy / Appellate Body Report, Korea – Definitive Safeguard Measure on Imports of Certain Dairy Products, WT/DS98/AB/R, adopted 12January2000, DSR2000:I,3.
Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice / Appellate BodyReport, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice, WT/DS295/AB/R, adopted 20 December 2005.
Mexico – Anti-Dumping Measures on Rice / Panel Report, Mexico – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Beef and Rice, Complaint with Respect to Rice, WT/DS295/R, adopted 20 December 2005, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS295/AB/R.
Thailand – H-Beams / Appellate BodyReport, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/AB/R, adopted 5April2001, DSR 2001:VII, 2701.
Thailand – H-Beams / Panel Report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections
of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H-Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/R, adopted 5April 2001, as modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS122/AB/R, DSR2001:VII, 2741
US – Carbon Steel / Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duties on Certain Corrosion-Resistant Carbon Steel Flat Products from Germany, WT/DS213/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 19December2002, DSR 2002:IX, 3779.
US – Countervailing Duty Investigation on DRAMS / Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Duty Investigation on Dynamic Random Access Memory Semiconductors (DRAMS) from Korea, WT/DS296/AB/R, adopted 20 July 2005.
US – Countervailing Measures on Certain EC Products / Appellate Body Report, United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities, WT/DS212/AB/R, adopted 8 January 2003, DSR 2003:I, 5.
US – Export Restraints / Panel Report, United States – Measures Treating Exports Restraints as Subsidies, WT/DS194/R and Corr.2, adopted 23August2001, DSR 2001:XI, 5767.
US – FSC / Appellate BodyReport, United States – Tax Treatment for "Foreign Sales Corporations", WT/DS108/AB/R, adopted 20March 2000, DSR2000:III, 1619
US – Gambling / Appellate Body Report, United States – Measures Affecting the Cross-Border Supply of Gambling and Betting Services, WT/DS285/AB/R, adopted 20April 2005
US – Hot-Rolled Steel / Appellate Body Report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001, DSR 2001:X, 4697.
US – Lamb / Appellate Body Report, United States – Safeguard Measures on Imports of Fresh, Chilled or Frozen Lamb Meat from New Zealand and Australia, WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, adopted 16May 2001, DSR2001:IX, 4051
US – Lead and BismuthII / Panel Report, United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom, WT/DS138/R and Corr.2, adopted 7June2000, upheld by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS138/AB/R, DSR2000:VI,2623.
US – Norwegian SalmonCVD / GATT Panel Report, Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Imports of Fresh and Chilled Atlantic Salmon from Norway, SCM/153, adopted 28April1994, BISD41S/576.
US – Oil Country Tubular Goods Sunset Reviews / Appellate Body Report, United States – Sunset Reviews of Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods from Argentina, WT/DS268/AB/R, adopted 17 December 2004, DSR 2004:VII, 3257.
US – Softwood LumberIV / Appellate Body Report, United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS257/AB/R, adopted 17February 2004, DSR 2004:II, 571.
US – Softwood LumberVI / Panel Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS277/R, adopted 26 April 2004, DSR 2004:VI, 2485.
US – Softwood LumberVI (Article 21.5 – Canada) / Appellate Body Report, United States – Investigation of the International Trade Commission in Softwood Lumber from Canada, Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada, WT/DS277/AB/RW, adopted 9May2006.
US – Steel Safeguards / Appellate Body Report, United States – Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products, WT/DS248/AB/R, WT/DS249/AB/R, WT/DS251/AB/R, WT/DS252/AB/R, WT/DS253/AB/R, WT/DS254/AB/R, WT/DS258/AB/R, WT/DS259/AB/R, adopted 10 December 2003, DSR2003:VII, 3117.
US – Upland Cotton / Panel Report, United States – Subsidies on Upland Cotton, WT/DS267/R, and Corr.1, adopted 21 March 2005, modified by Appellate Body Report, WT/DS267/AB/R.
US – Wool Shirts and Blouses / Appellate Body Report, United States – Measure Affecting Imports of Woven Wool Shirts and Blouses from India, WT/DS33/AB/R and Corr.1, adopted 23 May 1997, DSR 1997:I, 323.
GATT DISPUTE SETTLEMENT AND WORKING PARTY