WTO CASE REVIEW 2003* Raj Bhala** & David A. Gantz*** Table
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Vol 21, No. 2 2004 317 WTO CASE REVIEW 2003* Raj Bhala** & David A. Gantz*** Table of Contents Page PART ONE: INTRODUCTION I. Developments in the Appellate Body.………….......................................…….325 II. Compliance Problems…………………..…….......................…..........…….....326 III. Greater Controversy for the Appellate Body in 2004?………….………....330 * This WTO Case Review is the fourth in an annual series on the substantive international trade adjudications rendered by the World Trade Organization’s Appellate Body. Each Review explains and comments on the Appellate Body reports adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body during the preceding calendar year (Jan. 1 – Dec. 31), excluding decisions on compliance with recommendations contained in previously adopted reports. See Raj Bhala & David Gantz, WTO Case Review 2000, 18 ARIZ. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 1 (2001); Raj Bhala & David A. Gantz, WTO Case Review 2001, 19 ARIZ. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 466 (2002); Raj Bhala & David A. Gantz, WTO Case Review 2002, 20 ARIZ. J. INT’L & COMP. L. 143 (2003). We are very grateful to the Editors and Staff of the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law for their excellent editorial assistance and continuing support of our work. Specifically, we would like to thank Vanessa Deans, Scott Jones, Sara Wallace, and Melissa Lin for their long hours spent editing this article. The WTO reports we discuss are available on the web site of the WTO, www.wto.org. The texts of the WTO agreements we discuss are available on this web site, and published in a variety of sources, including RAJ BHALA, INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW HANDBOOK (2nd ed. 2001) [hereinafter “Handbook”]. We endeavor to minimize footnotes and, toward that end, provide citations to indicate sources from which various portions of our discussion are drawn. ** Rice Distinguished Professor, The University of Kansas, School of Law, Green Hall, 1535 West 15th Street, Lawrence, KS 66045-7577 U.S.A. Tel: 785-864-9224; fax. 785-864- 5054; email: [email protected]. Professor Bhala is thankful to his Research Assistant, Luis Fernando Gomar, University of Kansas School of Law J.D. Class of 2005, B.B.A., University of Texas at El Paso, 2002, for his indispensable help on this work. *** Professor of Law and Director of Graduate Studies, the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, 1201 E. Speedway Blvd., Tucson, AZ 85721-0176; Visiting Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School, 2003 - 2004. Tel: 520-621- 1801; fax: 520 621-9836; email: [email protected]. 318 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Vol 21, No. 2 2004 PART TWO: DISCUSSION OF THE 2003 CASE LAW I. Trade Remedies A. Antidumping, Countervailing Duties and the Byrd Amendment…………..................................................................…..332 Citation.....................................................................................................332 United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R, WT/DS234/AB/R (issued January 16, 2003, adopted January 27, 2003) (joint complaint by Australia, Brazil, Chile, European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Thailand, and joint complaint by Canada and Mexico). Facts..……….........................................................................................…332 Major Substantive Issues on Appeal..………....................................…...337 Holdings and Rationale..……….............................................................338 (1) The Overall Result.................................................…..338 (2) “Specific” Measure? – The Constituent Elements Test…………………………………………….…......339 (3) “Against” Dumping or Subsidization?: The Adverse Bearing Test..........…......................…...341 Commentary.............................................................................................345 Why Litigate This Case?..…..................................…..345 B. Antidumping Duties and Brazil........………………………....…....347 Citation....................................................................................................347 European Communities – Anti-Dumping Duties on Malleable Cast Iron Tube or Pipe Fittings from Brazil, WT/DS219/AB/R (issued July 22, WTO Case Review 2003 319 2003, adopted August 18, 2003) (complaint by Brazil). Facts...............................................................................………............347 Major Substantive Issues on Appeal..………....................................….348 Holdings and Rationale..………..........................................................….351 (1) Textual Background.......……………………......…...351 (2) Impact of Currency Devaluation.....…………......…....354 (3) Calculating Constructed Value from Low-Volume Sales…………………………………………………..357 (4) Culmination without a Country-Specific Analysis.…..358 (5) Explicit Analysis of Injury Factors.........................…..361 (6) Causation, Known Factors, and Attribution...........…...362 Commentary.....................................................................................….....364 (1) Vitiating Article 2.2.2 (Second Sentence)?............…..364 (2) Skillful Arguments for Article 2.2.2....................….....366 (3) Knowledge and Secretary Rumsfeld.....................…....367 C. Countervailing Duties and Pre-Privatization Subsidies: The Certain Products Case..……….....………………………....…...368 Citation................................................................................................…...368 United States – Countervailing Measures Concerning Certain Products from the European Communities, WT/DS212/AB/R (issued December 9, 2002, adopted January 8, 2003) (complaint by the European Communities). Facts...............................................................................………........…...368 320 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Vol 21, No. 2 2004 Major Substantive Issues on Appeal..………................................…......379 Holdings and Rationale..……….......................................................…....381 (1) Extinction of Benefits through Privatization..….....…..381 (2) Legality of the Same Person Methodology........……...386 (3) Legality of the American CVD Statute………..……..390 Commentary.....................................................................................…......391 (1) Sophisticated, Interdisciplinary Argumentation...…...391 (2) Strike Two....…………………………...................….392 (3) Being Nice to the United States...……..................…...393 D. Safeguards, Injury and Causation: The Steel Safeguards Case..……….....………………………..….....393 Citation.................................................................................................…..393 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-2003-3 (issued November 10, 2003, adopted December 10, 2003) (complaints by the European Communities, Japan, Korea, China, Norway, Switzerland, New Zealand, and Brazil; with Canada, Cuba, Mexico, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, and Venezuela as Third Participants). Explanation..…………………......................................................….......394 (1) Introduction – Controversy, Threats, Turmoil, and Capitulation...………………………………….....…..394 (2) Domestic Safeguards Action Whose Time Had Come – and Gone?………………….……………….......…....397 WTO Case Review 2003 321 (3) Factual Background at the USITC…………….....…..399 (4) Unresolved Issues of the Unique Retaliation Provisions of the Safeguards Agreement……………..….…..…..400 (5) Principal Issues on Appeal………………….......…....401 (6) Unforeseen Developments and Article 3.1 of the Safeguards Agreement………………………...……...402 (7) Increased Imports………………………………...…..405 (a) CCFRS, Hot-Rolled Bar, and Stainless Steel Rod…………………………………...….….406 (b) Tin Mill Products and Stainless Steel Bar – Separate and Divergent Commissioner Rationales…………………………………..410 (8) Parallelism and the Treatment of Members of Free Trade Agreements………………………………..…………412 (9) Causation……………………………………………..415 (10) “Objective Assessment” and “Basic Rationale” Under Articles 11 and 12.7 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding…………………………..……………416 (11) Conditional Claims are Subject to Judicial Economy………………………………….…………417 Commentary....................................................................................….....417 (1) No Mercy on “Unforeseen Developments”….....…....417 (2) “Increased Imports” Means Increasing Throughout the Period of Investigation……………….................…...418 (3) The USITC Decision Making Process is Preserved.………………………………..…………..419 (4) Excluding Imports from FTA Partners is Fraught with Danger………………………………..………………419 322 Arizona Journal of International & Comparative Law Vol 21, No. 2 2004 PART THREE: OTHER WTO AGREEMENTS The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures: The Japan – Apples Case Citation....................................................................................................422 Japan – Measures Affecting the Importation of Apples, WT/DS245/AB/R, AB-2003-4 (issued November 26, 2003, adopted December 10, 2003) (complaint by the United States, with Australia, the European Communities and New Zealand as Third Participants). Introduction and Explanation..…….....................................................422 (1) Facts: “Fire Blight” and “Any Apples” Exported to Japan………………………………………………...422