WTO panel rejects U.S. appeal in steel case

GENEVA, JULY 25. Rejecting a U.S. appeal, a World trade organisation panel upheld a ruling that the U.S. had acted illegally in increasing duties on Japanese steel imports.

Even as the appeal panel's report was released, two other complaints - from India, the European Union and other countries - about united states "antidumping" procedures for steel Came before the WTO.

In the Japanese case, the appeals panel agreed with almost all the findings of an earlier decision by WTO experts. That ruling, issued in February, held that the U.S. Department of Commerce was wrong in refusing to consider information from three Japanese steel companies because their submissions had arrived late.

The increased duties were put in place in June 1999 after U.S. steel companies and steelworkers associations complained that Japanese hot-rolled steel was being "dumped" at below-market prices, making it impossible for U.S. producers to compete.

Panel to take up Indian complaint

Meanwhile, the WTO today agreed to appoint a panel to look into antidumping measures on steel plate from India imposed in February 2000.

India said that, among other things, the Department of Commerce had not considered information submitted by the Indian company involved, Steel Authority of India Ltd., and had failed to take into account the special situation of developing countries.

The panel will have six months to make its ruling.

The U.S. now is obligated to reach an agreement with Japan on a reasonable period of time to change its measures to conform with WTO rules.

In the third case before the WTO today, the U.S. used its right temporarily to block an investigation into a law that pays fines collected in antidumping cases to the U.S. companies that brought the case.

But the WTO will almost certainly appoint a panel when the issue is considered again in September, as Washington can only block once. The complaint was brought by the European Union and eight other countries - the largest number of complainants in a WTO case.

The law known as the Byrd amendment was written with the steel industry in mind, and almost half the cases covered by it are in the steel industry.

The EU and the other complainants - Australia, Brazil, Chile, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea and Thailand - claim that the law punishes exporters to the U.S. twice because first they are fined and then those fines are handed to their competitors.

- AP

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Business
Previous : Bullion rates
Next     : IOC's investment plans