10 January 1992

1.1 On 7 August 1990, Brazil requested consultations under Article XXIII:1 with the United States concerning an alleged denial by the United States of most-favoured-nation treatment under Article I in the implementation of its Article VI obligations with respect to a countervailing duty order on non-rubber footwear from Brazil. ¹ These consultations were held on 30 October 1990, but no mutually satisfactory solution to the matter was reached. On 28 February 1991 Brazil requested the CONTRACTING PARTIES to establish a panel under Article XXIII:2 to examine the matter. ² At its meeting on 24 April 1991 the Council agreed to establish the Panel and authorized the Council Chairman to designate the chairman and members of the Panel in consultation with the parties concerned. ³ The Council further agreed that the Panel would have the following terms of reference unless, as provided for in the Decision of 12 April 1989, ⁴ the parties agreed on other terms of reference within the following twenty days:

Chile, Colombia and India reserved their rights to be heard by the Panel and to make written submissions to the Panel. ⁵

1.2 On 3 June 1991, the Council Chairman announced that the Panel would have the following composition:

He further announced that, as the parties had not agreed on other terms of reference, the above standard terms of reference would apply. ⁶

1.3 The Panel held meetings with the parties to the dispute on 17 and 18 September and 29 October 1991. India made an oral presentation to the Panel on 18 September 1991 and also submitted its views in writing on that date. The Panel submitted its conclusions to the parties to the dispute on 13 December 1991.

2.1 In 1988-89, a related dispute between Brazil and the United States involving the same countervailing duty order on non-rubber footwear from Brazil was submitted to a panel under the Agreement on Interpretation and Application of Articles VI, XVI and XXIII of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the "Subsidies Agreement"). ⁷ Before that panel Brazil argued that the Subsidies Agreement required that countervailing duties on non-rubber footwear from Brazil could not be levied, without a determination of injury, after the date on which the obligation to provide an injury determination came into force for the United States. Brazil also argued that the United States discriminated against Brazil by implementing its Article VI obligation only from the date of Brazil's request for an injury review, rather than from the date when the Article VI obligation to provide an injury test arose. The United States argued that its action with respect to backdating the effect of its injury determination to the date of Brazil's request was consistent with United States' obligations under the Subsidies Agreement.

2.2 The Subsidies Agreement panel concluded that the Subsidies Agreement did not require that the injury determination become effective prior to the date of request for an injury determination so long as the request could be made as of the date that the Article VI obligation entered into force. The panel found that the procedures under Section 104 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 were an acceptable method of implementing United States obligations in this regard. Specifically, the panel stated:

In reaching its decision, the Subsidies Agreement panel did not specifically address Brazil's allegation that the procedure applied by the United States to non-rubber footwear from Brazil discriminated against Brazil. The report of this panel has been discussed repeatedly in the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, but has so far not been adopted.

2.3 During the debate in the Council prior to the establishment of the present Panel, Brazil indicated that it did not intend to relitigate the issues considered by the Subsidies Agreement panel.

2.4 There are three different countervailing duty laws of the United States of concern in this proceeding: (1) Section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930; (2) Section 331 of the Trade Act of 1974; and (3) Sections 701 and 104 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

2.5 Section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930 ⁹ was enacted to provide for the imposition of countervailing duties on imports of dutiable products found to be subsidized. It does not provide for a determination of injury prior to the levy of countervailing duties on subsidized imports. The law provides, in relevant part:

2.6 This legislation, in effect at the time the United States acceded to the GATT in 1947, was inconsistent with Article VI:6(a), which proscribes the levy of countervailing duties without a determination of injury. However, Section 303 was covered by the "existing legislation" clause of paragraph 1(b) of the Protocol of Provisional Application of the General Agreement (the "PPA"). Paragraph 1(b) of the PPA states that GATT contracting parties shall apply Part II of the General Agreement (which includes Article VI) "to the fullest extent not inconsistent with existing legislation". Section 303 remains in effect today and applies to dutiable imports from all countries that are not signatories to the Subsidies Agreement.

2.7 It was under Section 303 that the countervailing duty order on non-rubber footwear from Brazil was imposed in 1974, without the benefit of an injury test.

2.8 In 1974, the United States enacted Section 331 of the Trade Act of 1974, ¹⁰ amending its countervailing duty law to apply also to imports of duty-free products. The United States acknowledged that this provision was not in existence in 1947 and, therefore, was not sheltered by the PPA. Accordingly, the United States law provided that, with respect to imports of duty-free products from a GATT contracting party, the United States would provide an injury test before the imposition of countervailing duties.

2.9 Section 331 of the Trade Act of 1974 provides, in relevant part:

2.10 Section 331 of the 1974 Act applies to duty-free imports from all countries that are GATT contracting parties, but are not signatories to the Subsidies Agreement.

2.11 In 1979, the United States enacted Section 701 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, ¹¹ which provides for an injury test prior to the imposition of countervailing duties on both dutiable and duty-free products imported from signatory countries of the Subsidies Agreement. Section 104 of the 1979 Act ¹² provides a special transitional procedure for an injury review for all countervailing duty orders issued before 1 January 1980 which, pursuant to Section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930, were imposed without the benefit of an injury test. It was under this statute that the United States reviewed the pre-existing countervailing duty order on non-rubber footwear from Brazil.

2.12 Section 701 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 provides, in relevant part:

2.13 Section 104 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 provides, in relevant part:

2.14 On 1 January 1980, the Subsidies Agreement entered into force for both Brazil and the United States. Under the Subsidies Agreement, the United States was obliged to provide an injury determination with respect to both new countervailing duty determinations and pre-existing countervailing duty orders, including the pre-existing countervailing duty order on non-rubber footwear from Brazil.

2.15 In a letter dated 23 October 1981, Brazil requested an injury review of the 1974 countervailing duty order on non-rubber footwear pursuant to Section 104(b) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. On 28 October 1981 the United States International Trade Commission ("USITC") notified the United States Department of Commerce ("DOC") of the request. No suspension of liquidation was ordered at that time because the United States had already ordered the suspension of liquidation on all entries of non-rubber footwear from Brazil on 4 January 1980. ¹⁴ This earlier suspension remained in effect. As subsequently explained in the notice of revocation, "it was not necessary for the [DOC], upon notification by the USITC, to suspend liquidation of entries of the merchandise pursuant to [section 104(b) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1974], since previous suspensions remained in effect". ¹⁵

2.16 The injury review was concluded by the USITC in May 1983. On 24 May 1983 the USITC reached a negative injury determination. ¹⁶ As a result, the DOC revoked, by decision published 21 June 1983, ¹⁷ this countervailing duty order with respect to all merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 29 October 1981, the date the DOC had received notification of the request for an injury determination. The DOC also instructed customs officers to refund any estimated countervailing duties collected with respect to these entries. The USITC's decision and the DOC revocation did not affect shipments of the merchandise entered on or before 28 October 1981.

2.17 In the same time frame as the injury review of non-rubber footwear from Brazil, the United States also conducted injury reviews pursuant to Section 104(b) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 of countervailing duty orders on non-rubber footwear from India and Spain. In all three cases there were negative determinations, and revocation of the countervailing duty orders was effective on the dates the review investigations were requested. The United States received thirty-eight requests for injury reviews pursuant to Section 104(b) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979.

2.18 Also during the 1980s, pursuant to Section 331 of the Trade Act of 1974, the United States revoked outstanding countervailing duty orders on dutiable products that acquired duty-free status. The outstanding countervailing duty orders on fasteners from India, which became duty-free under the United States Generalized System of Preferences ("GSP"), and steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago, which acquired duty-free status as a result of the enactment of the United States Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery Act, are examples of such products. The orders in these two cases were revoked effective as of the date that the products acquired duty-free status and thus became entitled to an injury determination under Article VI.

2.19 The United States applied a similar procedure under Section 331 of the Trade Act of 1974 upon Mexican accession to the GATT in the case of outstanding countervailing duty orders on industrial lime and fabricated auto glass -- both duty-free products. At the time of the original orders, Mexico was not a contracting party and therefore did not benefit from an injury test. Following Mexico's accession and requests from the United States Trade Representative for injury reviews, the United States, as the result of negative determinations, revoked the orders effective as of the date the United States' Article VI obligation arose vis-à-vis Mexico, i.e. the date of Mexico's accession.

3.1 In their first submissions to the Panel and during the first meeting of the Panel, Brazil and the United States disagreed on the proper scope of the proceeding.

3.2 Specifically, Brazil presented arguments to the Panel on the administration of United States' countervailing duty laws under Article X and non-violation nullification and impairment under Article XXIII:1(b) and (c). Brazil considered that while the more basic issue before the Panel was the principle of non-discrimination in Article I:1, this principle nevertheless permeated the whole of the General Agreement and that consideration of Brazil's arguments under Articles X and XXIII:1(b) and (c) was well within the standard terms of reference of the Panel.

3.3 The United States contested Brazil's position, claiming that these issues had not been raised by Brazil in consultations nor in its request for the establishment of a panel. They were therefore outside the terms of reference of the Panel. Fundamental fairness required that these issues, which were in fact new bases for the complaint, be raised in consultations and in the request for a panel. Brazil, however, had raised these issues for the first time in its first submission to the Panel and they were therefore outside the terms of reference. The United States had not addressed these issues on the merits in its submission to the Panel and it requested the Panel to make a ruling on the matter.

4.1 Brazil requested the Panel to find that with respect to the United States' countervailing duty order on non-rubber footwear from Brazil, the United States acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article I:1 by providing less favourable treatment to Brazil than to other contracting parties in the implementation of the United States' obligations under Article VI. More specifically, Brazil requested the Panel to find that in backdating the effect of its negative injury determination only to the date of Brazil's request for an injury determination (29 October 1981), rather than to the date when the obligation for the United States to provide an injury determination under Article VI entered into force (1 January 1980), the United States acted inconsistently with its obligations under Article I:1. Brazil did not request the Panel to make a specific recommendation to the CONTRACTING PARTIES.

4.2 The United States requested the Panel to find that the United States' action in the implementation of its Article VI obligations with respect to the revocation of a countervailing duty order on non-rubber footwear from Brazil was fully consistent with United States' most-favoured-nation obligation under Article I:1.

4.3 Brazil stated that it did not consider that any one of the three different countervailing duty laws of the United States implementing United States obligations under Article VI, standing alone, violated Article I:1. Nor did Brazil contend the maintenance of three different countervailing duty laws in the United States to necessarily be inconsistent with the General Agreement. The United States could have as many countervailing duty laws as it liked, so long as each was consistent with the obligations of the United States under Articles I and VI of the General Agreement. Rather, Brazil stated, it was in the particular way in which the United States simultaneously applied its different countervailing duty laws that the United States, in the case of non-rubber footwear, discriminated against Brazil in violation of the most-favoured-nation provision of Article I:1.

4.4 More specifically, Brazil argued that the injury determination requirement of Article VI applied equally, and had to be applied in the same manner, to all contracting parties. However, the United States had failed to implement the injury determination requirement of Article VI in a consistent manner. In the application of its Article VI obligations, the United States treated imports from Brazil less favourably than imports from other contracting parties -- specifically, fasteners from India, steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago, and industrial lime and automotive glass from Mexico -- and consequently, the United States denied Brazil the unconditional benefits guaranteed under Article I:1. In the case involving non-rubber footwear from Brazil, the United States had backdated the effect of its negative injury determination to the date of Brazil's request for an injury review, whereas in the cases involving India, Trinidad and Tobago, and Mexico, the United States had backdated the effect of its negative injury determinations to the date on which United States obligations under Article VI entered into force, regardless of the date on which or by whom injury reviews had been requested.

4.5 Brazil noted that, in addition to there being a violation of a fundamental principle of the GATT, the denial of unconditional most-favoured-nation treatment in this particular case had practical implications involving litigation in the United States with more than 100 million United States dollars at stake in countervailing duties on United States imports of Brazilian footwear.

4.6 Brazil stated that the decision of the panel on "Belgian Family Allowances" ¹⁸ was particularly relevant to the scope and applicability of family allowances was not only inconsistent with the provisions of Article I ..., but was based on a concept which was difficult to reconcile with the spirit of the General Agreement ...". Brazil considered that it was significant to the present dispute that the issue in "Belgian Family Allowances" was a discriminatory method of applying charges, not the particular level of charges on particular products. It was the system applied by Belgium to the products of different countries which was discriminatory and inconsistent with Article I:1. Brazil stated that the conclusion adopted by the CONTRACTING PARTIES in the Belgian Family Allowances case was equally applicable to the present case where the United States applied a less favourable procedure to Brazil than to other contracting parties in the implementation of United States obligations under Article VI.

4.7 Brazil referred the Panel to two rulings in 1948 by the Chairman of the CONTRACTING PARTIES ¹⁹ which, Brazil considered, confirmed the breadth of the scope of Article I. In the first, the Chairman ruled that the phrase "charges of any kind" in paragraph 1 of Article I applied to consular taxes and that a charge of five per cent to some countries and of two per cent to others was a violation of Article I, without reference to the particular products involved. In the second, the Chairman ruled that the most-favoured-nation principle in Article I would be applicable to any advantage, favour, privilege or immunity granted with respect to internal taxes, again without reference to the particular products involved.

4.8 Brazil also referred the Panel to a 1968 statement by the Director-General ²⁰ which, according to Brazil, recognized and condemned the potential for discrimination in the non-tariff area. The Director-General stated:

In Brazil's view, the principles enunciated in this statement applied as much to the countervailing duty aspects of Article VI as they did to the anti-dumping aspects of that Article. Article I:1 in the present case. In that case, Belgium levied a charge on foreign products purchased by public bodies when the products originated in countries which did not provide family allowance systems meeting Belgian specifications. Norway and Denmark complained that this discriminated against their products in violation of Article I because Belgium had granted an exemption from the levy to products originating in several other countries. The panel there concluded that "the Belgian legislation on

4.9 The United States responded that the central requirement of Article I was that most-favoured-nation treatment be accorded to "like products". Specifically, Article I by its explicit terms required that any advantage granted on a product originating in or destined for one contracting party must be accorded immediately and unconditionally to the like product originating in or destined for all other contracting parties. In the view of the United States, Brazil's arguments called for an interpretation of Article I which completely neglected to take account of this basic "like product" requirement. Brazil's far-reaching interpretation of the like product requirement -- that all products must be accorded identical treatment -- was nowhere sanctioned in the language or interpretative history of Article I.

4.10 The United States also considered that Brazil's arguments disregarded the fact that the circumstances giving rise to Brazil's entitlement to an injury review under the Subsidies Agreement were completely different from the circumstances in which Mexico, India and Trinidad and Tobago became entitled to an injury review. Any differences in treatment were entirely explained by the way in which United States countervailing duty law had evolved -- wholly consistent with the GATT -- as United States GATT rights and obligations evolved. Brazil's contention that United States procedures applicable in other circumstances and to products other than non-rubber footwear violated United States Article I obligations was not supportable.

4.11 The United States stated that the like product standard in Article I was the expression of a fundamental reality of the GATT. As noted by the panel report on "Spain - Tariff Treatment of Unroasted Coffee", ²¹ there was no obligation under the GATT to follow any particular system for classifying products; nor was there any GATT obligation to provide particular tariff treatment to any product. Differences in treatment between products were permissible. What was impermissible was discrimination based on country of origin for any particular product.

4.12 The United States went on to state that the precedent cited by Brazil did not support Brazil's assertion that a broad reading should be given to Article I:1. On the contrary, the two rulings by the Chairman, cited by Brazil, were clarifications of the treatment required for internal taxes. The first dealt with a situation where all products from certain countries were subject to consular taxes at one tax rate, while all products from other countries were subject to a higher rate. This system was clearly inconsistent with the requirement that like products imported from one country be treated no less favourably than like products imported from other signatories. The ruling did not however require that unlike products be treated similarly. The second ruling, with respect to the rebate of excise taxes, also did not modify the like product requirement of Article I:1.

4.13 According to the United States, the report in "Belgian Family Allowances" was equally unavailing for Brazil's position. In that case, Belgium provided exemptions from family allowance charges for all products from certain countries, and imposed the charges on all products from other countries. Thus, all products from the latter countries were disadvantaged relative to all like products from the former group. ²² The panel did not consider particular products because all products from the exporting countries were affected. This case stood for the proposition that contracting parties may not discriminate against imports from another contracting party based on country practices in the other contracting party. Finally, the United States considered that the Director-General's Note in 1968, quoted by Brazil, concerning the principle of non-discrimination in anti-dumping investigations also affirmed the like product requirement of Article I:1. That Note specifically referred to Article 8(b) of the Anti-dumping Code of 1968, which states:

4.14 Thus, according to the United States, in determining the treatment due to a product from one signatory, reference was to be made to the treatment provided to the like product from other signatories. Article I:1 did not require that all products from all signatories be accorded the same treatment. The essential question under Article I:1 was whether the United States, in applying its countervailing duty laws, had provided non-rubber footwear from Brazil with treatment any less favourable than that accorded non-rubber footwear from other Agreement signatories. The answer was "no".

4.15 In fact, the United States noted, Brazil had omitted to mention that the United States had conducted injury review investigations of outstanding countervailing duty orders on non-rubber footwear from India and Spain at the same time as, and applying identical procedures to those used in the Brazil review. This fact illustrated clearly that United States procedures were entirely consistent with United States most-favoured-nation obligations. In all three cases, the injury review led to revocation and the revocation was effective on the date the review investigation was requested. In all three cases, the countries enjoyed the same "advantage", namely, revocation effective as soon as the country chose to exercise its right to request an injury review. Thus, Brazil had not shown, nor could it show, that non-rubber footwear from India and/or Spain received any advantage under United States countervailing duty law that the like product imported from Brazil did not receive.

4.16 The United States contended, moreover, that not only non-rubber footwear but all dutiable products from Subsidies Agreement signatories with outstanding countervailing duty orders were treated in an identical fashion under the transitional procedure of Section 104(b) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. A total of thirty-eight such Section 104(b) injury review requests were received by the United States.

4.17 The United States stated that the facts in the cases of India, Trinidad and Tobago and Mexico were very different from the facts in the case of Brazil. In the case of India, Trinidad and Tobago and Mexico, the countervailing duty orders were issued after 1 January 1980 and were not subject to the transition procedures contained in Section 104 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979. Furthermore, each involved duty-free products, and, in the case of Mexico, accession to the GATT took place after the countervailing duty order was imposed.

4.18 The United States argued that to understand why the procedures under which Brazil received an injury determination for footwear differed from the procedures accorded the other products from India, Mexico and Trinidad and Tobago, one had to trace the evolution of the United States countervailing duty law. The original law was enacted in 1890 and had been amended several times. The amendments of concern here reflected the United States' shifting international obligations as, first, the GATT came into force and, later, the United States signed the Subsidies Agreement.

4.19 As explained by the United States, Section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930 was enacted to provide for the imposition of countervailing duties on imports of dutiable products found to be subsidized. The law, in effect at the time the United States acceded to the GATT in 1947, did not provide for an injury determination as to subsidized imports and was therefore inconsistent with the Article VI requirement that countervailing duties be imposed only if the subsidized imports are found to be causing material injury. However, Section 303 was sheltered by the existing legislation clause of the PPA. This provision remained in effect today and applied to dutiable imports from all countries that were not signatories to the Subsidies Agreement. It was under Section 303 that the countervailing duty order on footwear was imposed on Brazil in 1974, without the benefit of an injury test.

4.20 The United States explained that it amended its countervailing duty law in 1974 to apply also to imports of duty-free products. Because this amendment -- Section 331 of the Trade Act of 1974 -- was not sheltered from Article VI obligations by the PPA, the United States provided in the law, with respect to imports of duty-free products from GATT contracting parties, for an injury test before the imposition of countervailing duties. It was under this law that the United States revoked the countervailing duty orders on fasteners from India, steel wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago, and industrial lime and automotive glass from Mexico. Under the provisions of that Section, the revocations were effective as of the date the products acquired duty-free status.

4.21 Finally, in 1979, the United States noted, the United States promulgated legislation to implement its rights and obligations under the Subsidies Agreement. Section 701 of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979 provided that the United States would apply an injury test before the imposition of countervailing duties as to both dutiable and duty-free products imported from a country as to which the Subsidies Agreement applied. Section 104 of the 1979 Act provided a special transitional procedure for an injury review for all countervailing duty orders issued before 1 January 1980, which had not, per Section 303 of the Tariff Act of 1930, received an injury test. It was this procedure that the United States applied to the injury review of the countervailing duty order on non-rubber footwear from Brazil.

4.22 The United States considered that each of these three laws, and the regime of laws taken as a whole, was fully consistent with United States obligations under Articles I and VI. These different laws provided different methods and timetables for revoking a countervailing duty order, depending on which provision of law applied to the imported products. However, United States law treated all dutiable products from all Subsidies Agreement signatories identically, just as it treated duty-free products from all Subsidies Agreement signatories (and GATT contracting parties) identically. Accordingly, neither the existence nor the application of the three countervailing duty laws of the United States was inconsistent with United States obligations under the General Agreement.

4.23 In rebuttal to the United States argument, Brazil stated that in the case of both dutiable and non-dutiable products, in the case of footwear from Brazil, fasteners from India, lime from Mexico and wire rod from Trinidad and Tobago, the Panel was dealing with the same matter: the transition procedures by which products previously not entitled to the injury test became entitled to that test. Assuming that transition procedures were permitted, as the Subsidies Agreement panel found, those procedures could not be applied in a discriminatory manner.

4.24 Brazil denied that it had failed to address the "like product" aspect of Article I, as the United States alleged. Brazil had clearly addressed this issue, but had argued for a broader interpretation of the provision than that argued by the United States. The narrow reading of like product advanced by the United States would all but write Article I out of the General Agreement. The United States reading was certainly not in accord with the principles laid down in the case on "Belgian Family Allowances". Nor was it in accord with the Director-General's Statement in 1968. According to the Director-General, use of a different method for levying duties, or use of different rules and formalities in connection with the importation of articles subject to [countervailing] duties, would violate Article I regardless of the particular products that might fortuitously be involved.

TO CONTINUE WITH DENIAL OF MOST-FAVOURED-NATION TREATMENT AS TO NON-RUBBER FOOTWEAR FROM BRAZIL

¹ DS18/1

² DS18/2

³ C/M/249/25; DS18/3

⁴ Improvements to the GATT Dispute Settlement Rules and Procedures, Decision of 12 April 1989, BISD 36S/61, 63-64, para. F(b)(1).

⁵ C/M/248/10-18; C/M/249/26-29

⁶ DS18/3

⁷ Panel report on "United States - Countervailing Duties on Non-Rubber Footwear from Brazil", SCM/94. The Report of the Panel was circulated to the Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures on 4 October 1989.

⁸ SCM/94, para. 4.6

⁹ 19 U.S.C. Section 1303

¹⁰ 19 U.S.C. Section 1303(a)(2)

¹¹ 19 U.S.C. Section 1671

¹² 19 U.S.C. Section 1671

¹³ The term "suspension of liquidation" as used in the US practice means that calculation and final assessment of total customs duties on an entry (shipment) of a product does not occur at the time of the entry but at a later date. In the interim the product in question is released for delivery and/or subsequent sales.

¹⁴ 45 Federal Register 1013

¹⁵ 48 Federal Register 28310

¹⁶ 48 Federal Register 24796

¹⁷ 48 Federal Register 28310

¹⁸ Panel report on "Belgian Family Allowances", adopted on 7 November 1952, BISD 1S/59.

¹⁹ "The Phrase 'charge of any kind' in Article I:1 in Relation to Consular Taxes", Ruling by the Chairman on 24 August 1948, 2 BISD 12; and "Application of Article I:1 to Rebates on Internal Taxes", Ruling by the Chairman on 24 August 1948, 2 BISD 12.

²⁰ Agreement on Implementation of Article VI, Note by the Director-General, L/3149 (29 November 1968).

²¹ Panel report on "Spain - Tariff Treatment of Unroasted Coffee", adopted on 11 June 1981, BISD 28S/102, 111.

²² Panel report on "Belgian Family Allowances", adopted on 7 November 1952, BISD 1S/59, 60.