What's New?
 - Sitemap - Calendar
Trade Agreements - FTAA Process - Trade Issues 

espa�ol - fran�ais - portugu�s
Search

WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATION

WT/DS221/R
15 July 2002

(02-3841)

  Original: English

UNITED STATES - SECTION 129(c)(1) OF THE
URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENTS ACT
 


Report of the Panel


(Continued)


Conclusion

6.92 As we have noted at para. 6.59, our findings at this stage of our examination are provisional. As a result, we do not, at this point, offer any conclusions regarding whether Canada has succeeded in demonstrating that, with respect to "prior unliquidated entries", section 129(c)(1) has the effect of requiring and/or precluding any of the actions identified by Canada.

6.93 With the above provisional findings in mind, we can proceed to consider whether the SAA supports Canada's assertions regarding the "effects" of section 129(c)(1).

(b) Statement of Administrative Action

6.94 For the purposes of examining whether the SAA supports Canada's assertions regarding the "effects" of section 129(c)(1), it is well once again to set out in full the portion of the SAA which both parties consider to be relevant to the Panel's examination of section 129(c)(1). The portion in question -- the first paragraph of section B.1.c.(3) of the SAA -- reads as follows:

Consistent with the principle that GATT panel recommendations apply only prospectively, subsection 129(c)(1) provides that where determinations by the ITC or Commerce are implemented under subsections (a) or (b), such determinations have prospective effect only. That is, they apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date on which the Trade Representative directs implementation. Thus, relief available under subsection 129(c)(1) is distinguishable from relief available in an action brought before a court or a NAFTA binational panel, where, depending on the circumstances of the case, retroactive relief may be available. Under 129(c)(1), if implementation of a WTO report should result in the revocation of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, entries made prior to the date of Trade Representative's direction would remain subject to potential duty liability.127

(i) Arguments of the parties

6.95 Canada submits that this statement confirms its interpretation of section 129(c)(1). Canada notes that the SAA specifically addresses the situation where an antidumping or countervailing duty order is revoked based on a new determination by the Department of Commerce or the ITC. Canada recalls that the SAA specifically states that, in such situations, "[unliquidated] entries made prior to the date of [USTR's] direction [to implement] would remain subject to potential duty liability". Canada further recalls that, in the US duty assessment system, definitive duty liability for imports subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order is determined in an administrative review proceeding. In Canada's view, the aforementioned sentence therefore confirms that (1) the administrative review procedure for "prior unliquidated entries" will continue pursuant to an order that was found to be WTO inconsistent and (2) the definitive duty liability for such entries will be determined by the Department of Commerce without regard to the new, WTO-consistent determination.

6.96 Canada also argues that it is clear from the SAA that implementation of an adverse DSB ruling is contemplated exclusively with respect to entries after the Implementation date. Canada recalls that the referenced passage of the SAA specifically states that determinations to implement DSB rulings apply to "unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date on which the Trade Representative directs implementation". Canada further points out that the SAA, in the portion at issue, states that "relief available under subsection 129(c)(1) is distinguishable from relief available in an action brought before a court or a NAFTA binational panel, where, depending on the circumstances of the case, retroactive relief may be available". Canada notes, in this regard, that there is no mention in the SAA that such "retroactive relief" would be available in conjunction with administrative review determinations. Indeed, according to Canada, it would be inconsistent with the SAA if the Department of Commerce were to implement an adverse DSB ruling in respect of "prior unliquidated entries" in subsequent administrative reviews. In Canada's view, section 129(c)(1) is, therefore, intended to have legal effect in administrative reviews of "prior unliquidated entries".

6.97 The United States disagrees with Canada regarding its interpretation of the language in the SAA to the effect that "prior unliquidated entries" would "remain subject to potential duty liability" in cases where an antidumping or countervailing duty order is revoked based on a new section 129 determination. The United States does not consider that this language supports Canada's assertion that section 129(c)(1) mandates WTO inconsistent action. The United States argues that section 129(c)(1) does not mandate or preclude any particular treatment of "prior unliquidated entries". According to the United States, the aforementioned language in the SAA does not change this fact. The United States considers that the language in question simply reflects the fact that a section 129 determination itself would not resolve whether "prior unliquidated entries" would be subject to definitive duty liability. Moreover, the United States notes that, in any event, all that the SAA states is that "prior unliquidated entries" would "remain subject to potential duty liability". The United States points out that the SAA does not say that the Department of Commerce is required to apply duties to such entries.

6.98 With respect to Canada's argument that it would be inconsistent with the SAA if the Department of Commerce were to implement a DSB ruling in respect of "prior unliquidated entries" in subsequent administrative reviews, the United States notes that the SAA does not say, as Canada suggests, that a DSB ruling will not be implemented with regard to "prior unliquidated entries". Rather, the United States argues, what the SAA actually states is that a section 129 determination will have prospective effect only. In the view of the United States, the SAA is therefore consistent with the language of section 129(c)(1) itself. The United States further submits that the SAA says nothing about the treatment to be accorded to "prior unliquidated entries" in any other segment of the proceeding. Therefore, the United States does not agree with Canada that the SAA supports the view that section 129(c)(1) is intended to have legal effect in administrative reviews of "prior unliquidated entries". The United States adds, in this respect, that this view is, in any event, contradicted by the text of section 129(c)(1) itself.

(ii) Evaluation by the Panel

6.99 The Panel considers that, for the purposes of analysis, the first paragraph of section B.1.c.(3) of the SAA can usefully be broken up into three parts. The Panel will discuss those in turn, conscious that it is dealing with one single paragraph.

6.100 The first part which we single out for separate analysis reads:

Consistent with the principle that GATT panel recommendations apply only prospectively, subsection 129(c)(1) provides that where determinations by the ITC or Commerce are implemented under subsections (a) or (b), such determinations have prospective effect only. That is, they apply to unliquidated entries of merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date on which the Trade Representative directs implementation.

6.101 We understand the logic and structure of these two sentences to be as follows: In the first sentence, the assertion is made that GATT panel recommendations have prospective effect and that, therefore, section 129(c)(1) provides that section 129 determinations, too, "have prospective effect only". The second sentence then explains what is meant by the statement that section 129 determinations "have prospective effect only". That explanation is provided in terms of the language actually used in section 129(c)(1) itself. Although it is not explicitly stated, it is implied in the two sentences that if a section 129 determination were applied to "prior unliquidated entries", this would, in the terminology of the SAA, be viewed as a "retroactive" application.

6.102 We think that our understanding of the effect of section 129(c)(1) is consistent with these two sentences. The first sentence makes it quite clear that it is "such determinations", i.e., section 129 determinations, that have prospective effect only. There is no reference in the two sentences to anything other than section 129 determinations. Specifically, nothing in these sentences indicates that section 129(c)(1) is intended to have the effect of precluding the Department of Commerce from making administrative review determinations with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" on the basis of a WTO-consistent methodology developed in a section 129 determination.128 We do not, therefore, agree with Canada that it would be inconsistent with the SAA if the Department of Commerce were to make such administrative review determinations.

6.103 Moving on, then, to the second part of the relevant passage of the SAA, we note that that part consists of only one sentence, which provides:

Thus, relief available under subsection 129(c)(1) is distinguishable from relief available in an action brought before a court or a NAFTA binational panel, where, depending on the circumstances of the case, retroactive relief may be available.

6.104 This sentence contrasts relief available under section 129(c)(1), which it characterizes as "prospective", with relief available in an action brought before a US court or a NAFTA binational panel, which it characterizes as (potentially) "retroactive". Canada has stated, in this regard, that if the US Court of International Trade or a NAFTA Chapter Nineteen panel finds that a determination of the Department of Commerce or the ITC is inconsistent with US domestic law, all entries of the subject merchandise would be liquidated in accordance with the adverse decision, including unliquidated entries that took place before the adverse decision.129

6.105 As we read it, the above-quoted sentence simply confirms that relief available under section 129(c)(1) is different from relief available under certain other provisions of US law and that section 129(c)(1), unlike those other provisions of US law, is intended to provide relief only for post-implementation entries. The sentence does not state, explicitly or by implication, that section 129(c)(1) is intended to have the effect of precluding the Department of Commerce from providing relief for "prior unliquidated entries" through a mechanism other than the section 129 mechanism. More specifically, the sentence does not say that section 129(c)(1) is intended to have the effect of precluding the Department of Commerce from making administrative review determinations with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" on the basis of a WTO-consistent methodology developed in a section 129 determination.

6.106 We would agree with Canada that the sentence at issue tends to support the view that implementation of an adverse DSB ruling was "contemplated exclusively with respect to entries after the Implementation date".130 However, as we have stated above, we consider that the fact that the United States may have sought, via section 129(c)(1), to ensure implementation only with respect to post-implementation entries does not mean that it intended to preclude implementation with respect to "prior unliquidated entries".131 In any event, the sentence in question does not suggest to us that section 129(c)(1) was intended to have that effect.

6.107 Finally, we need to examine the third part of the relevant passage of the SAA, which, again, consists of only one sentence. It reads:

Under 129(c)(1), if implementation of a WTO report should result in the revocation of an antidumping or countervailing duty order, entries made prior to the date of Trade Representative's direction would remain subject to potential duty liability.

6.108 The first thing that should be noted regarding this sentence is that it directs itself exclusively to situations where a section 129 determination results in the revocation of an antidumping or countervailing duty order. This noted, we understand the sentence to provide confirmation that if, pursuant to section 129(c)(1), an antidumping or countervailing duty order is revoked, the revocation would apply only to post-implementation entries and that, as a result, the relevant antidumping or countervailing duty order would continue to apply to "prior unliquidated entries". The statement in the above-quoted sentence to the effect that "prior unliqudated entries" "would remain subject to potential duty liability" supports our understanding. Indeed, as Canada itself has stated, a final antidumping or countervailing duty order "imposes potential duty liability on entries subject to that order".132 Thus, in our understanding, the sentence is intended to indicate that, notwithstanding the fact that an antidumping or countervailing duty order may have been revoked, under section 129(c)(1), with respect to post-implementation entries, the relevant order would continue to apply to "prior unliquidated entries".

6.109 In Canada's view, the sentence in question confirms that, because of section 129(c)(1), the administrative review process "will" continue with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" and administrative review determinations "will" be made with respect to such entries without regard to the fact that the order has been found to be WTO inconsistent. We are not persuaded by Canada's reading of the sentence in question. As we have said, the sentence at issue simply clarifies that a revocation determination that is implemented under section 129 would not have any impact on "prior unliquidated entries".

6.110 To be sure, the above-quoted sentence affirmatively states that "prior unliquidated entries" would remain subject to potential duty liability. It is conceivable, therefore, that administrative reviews would be conducted with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" and that administrative review determinations would be made with respect to such entries on the basis of a WTO inconsistent antidumping or countervailing duty order. However, it is clear to us that such actions, if taken, would not be taken because they were required by section 129(c)(1), but because they were required or allowed under other provisions of US law. At any rate, we see nothing in the above-quoted sentence which would suggest that section 129(c)(1) is intended to have the effect of requiring such actions.

6.111 Having regard to the foregoing considerations, we find that our reading of section 129(c)(1) is fully consistent with the first paragraph of section B.1.c.(3) of the SAA. Based on the same considerations, we further find that Canada has failed to establish that, in view of section B.1.c.(3) of the SAA, a US court would interpret section 129(c)(1) as having the effect of requiring and/or precluding any particular treatment of "prior unliquidated entries" after the implementation date.133

6.112 We note that Canada has also referred us to the third paragraph of section B.1.c.(5) of the SAA, which states:

Since implemented determinations under section 129 may be appealed, it is possible that Commerce or the ITC may be in a position of simultaneously defending determinations in which the agency reached different conclusions. In such situations, the Administration expects that courts and [NAFTA] binational panels will be sensitive to the fact that under the applicable standard of review, as set forth in statute and case law, multiple permissible interpretations of the law and the facts may be legally permissible in any particular case, and the issuance of a different determination under section 129 does not signify that the initial determination was unlawful.

6.113 According to Canada, this paragraph makes clear that more than one interpretation of US antidumping or countervailing duty laws may be permissible and that multiple permissible interpretations would, in fact, be expected in the light of section 129(c)(1). Canada appears to infer from this that section 129(c)(1) must be read to preclude the Department of Commerce from making administrative review determinations with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" consistently with a WTO-consistent interpretation or methodology adopted in a section 129 determination.134

6.114 Canada has not explained to our satisfaction how the above-quoted paragraph of the SAA supports its reading of section 129(c)(1). Even assuming that the paragraph in question established, as Canada seems to suggest, that, because of the operation of section 129(c)(1), the Department of Commerce could apply one interpretation of US laws to post-implementation entries and, at the same time, apply another to "prior unliquidated entries", we do not think that it would necessarily follow from this that the Department of Commerce could not apply a uniform interpretation to all entries. Even if at the time the SAA was agreed multiple statutory interpretations were expected in the light of section 129, as Canada appears to argue, this does not, in our view, support the conclusion that section 129(c)(1) is intended to have the effect of precluding the Department of Commerce from making administrative review determinations with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" on the basis of interpretations developed in a section 129 determination. We are, therefore, not persuaded that, in view of the third paragraph of section B.1.c.(5) of the SAA, we should adopt a different reading of section 129(c)(1).

(c) Application of section 129(c)(1) to date

6.115 As the Panel has noted above, before reaching any conclusions on Canada's assertions regarding the "effect" of section 129(c)(1), it will briefly consider the application of section 129(c)(1) to date, thus taking due account of the evidence submitted on this point by the United States.

(i) Arguments of the parties

6.116 The United States recalls that in the six years since section 129(c)(1) entered into force, it has been applied to two antidumping or countervailing duty investigations. The United States points out that both instances involved the DSB ruling in United States � Antidumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea .135 In that case, the Department of Commerce made new, WTO-consistent final determinations for the two investigations covered by the DSB ruling. Those determinations were then implemented with respect to all entries taking place on or after the date of implementation. According to the United States, the Department of Commerce has since completed the first administrative reviews of the antidumping orders covering the products in question. The United States notes that some of the issues raised in the WTO dispute were no longer relevant in the administrative reviews. The United States points out, however, that as far as currency conversions are concerned, the Department of Commerce examined the same types of transactions that were at issue in the WTO dispute. The United States asserts that, with respect to the issue of currency conversions, the Department of Commerce acted consistently with the DSB ruling.

6.117 Canada did not specifically discuss the application of section 129(c)(1).

(ii) Evaluation by the Panel

6.118 The Panel begins by noting that it is not aware, and has not been made aware, of any judicial interpretations of section 129(c)(1).

6.119 As for administrative practice under section 129(c)(1), the Panel notes that it is not in dispute that, to date, the Department of Commerce has applied section 129(c)(1) on only two occasions, both involving implementation of the DSB ruling in US � Stainless Steel.

6.120 In this context, it seems that, in a recent administrative review of the US antidumping order on stainless steel plate in coils from Korea, the Department of Commerce made administrative review determinations with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" after the implementation date.136 According to the United States, the issues addressed in the DSB ruling were either not relevant to the administrative review in question or else were resolved in a manner consistent with the DSB ruling. Canada has not contested the US statement regarding compliance with the DSB ruling in US�Stainless Steel.

6.121 In view of the foregoing, we find that the evidence before us relating to the application of section 129(c)(1) to date does not support Canada's view that section 129(c)(1) has the effect of requiring and/or precluding any of the actions which it has identified.

(d) Conclusion

6.122 The Panel recalls that it has considered relevant portions of the SAA and the evidence relating to the application of section 129(c)(1) to date and that it has found that both elements support its provisional findings at paras. 6.67-6.91 regarding the "effects" of section 129(c)(1) as enacted.

6.123 Thus, having regard to its detailed examination of section 129(c)(1) as enacted, of relevant portions of the SAA and of the application of section 129(c)(1) to date, the Panel concludes that Canada has failed to establish that section 129(c)(1), read in the light of the SAA:

(a) has the effect of requiring the Department of Commerce:

(i) to conduct administrative reviews with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" after the implementation date pursuant to an antidumping or countervailing duty order found by the DSB to be WTO inconsistent;

(ii) to make administrative review determinations regarding dumping or subsidization with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" after the implementation date pursuant to an antidumping or countervailing duty order found by the DSB to be WTO inconsistent;

(iii) to assess definitive antidumping or countervailing duties with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" after the implementation date pursuant to an antidumping or countervailing duty order found by the DSB to be WTO inconsistent; or

(iv) to retain cash deposits in respect of "prior unliquidated entries" after the implementation date at a level found by the DSB to be WTO inconsistent; or

(b) has the effect of precluding the Department of Commerce from:

(i) making administrative review determinations regarding dumping or subsidization with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" after the implementation date in a manner that is consistent with an adverse DSB ruling;

(ii) assessing definitive antidumping or countervailing duties with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" after the implementation date in a manner that is consistent with an adverse DSB ruling; or

(iii) refunding, after the implementation date, cash deposits collected on "prior unliquidated entries" pursuant to an antidumping or countervailing duty order found by the DSB to be WTO inconsistent.

5. Whether section 129(c)(1) mandates the United States to take any of the actions and/or not to take any of the actions identified by Canada

6.124 The Panel has concluded in Subsections C.3 and C.4 above that, as a matter of US law, section 129(c)(1) does not require (or have the effect of requiring) or preclude (or have the effect of precluding) any of the actions identified by Canada.137 On the basis of these factual conclusions, we must now assess whether Canada has established that, as a matter of WTO law, section 129(c)(1) mandates the United States to take any of the actions identified by Canada and/or mandates the United States not to take any of the actions identified by Canada.

6.125 We have previously stated that, in the circumstances of this case, if Canada does not succeed in demonstrating, as a matter of US law, that section 129(c)(1) requires (or has the effect of requiring) or precludes (or has the effect of precluding) any of the actions identified by Canada, it will not have established, as a matter of WTO law, that section 129(c)(1) "mandates" the United States to take any of those actions or "mandates" the United States not to take any of those actions.138

6.126 Accordingly, since we have concluded that Canada has failed to demonstrate that, as a factual matter, section 129(c)(1) requires (or has the effect of requiring) or precludes (or has the effect of precluding) any of the actions identified by it, we further conclude that Canada has failed to establish that, as a matter of WTO law, section 129(c)(1) mandates the United States to take any of those actions or mandates the United States not to take any of those actions.

6. Whether the actions identified by Canada, if taken or not taken, would infringe the WTO provisions that it has invoked

6.127 Since the Panel has concluded in Subsection C.5 that Canada has not succeeded in establishing that section 129(c)(1) mandates the United States to take any of the actions specified by Canada and/or mandates the United States not to take any of the actions specified by Canada, the Panel, consistently with its analytical approach outlined in Section B, considers it unnecessary to proceed with its analysis of Canada's principal claims.

6.128 As a consequence, we do not assess whether Canada's principal claims are based on a correct interpretation of the WTO provisions which Canada invokes in support of those claims.139 Nor do we assess whether Canada has met its burden of establishing that the actions which Canada alleges the United States, under section 129(c)(1), is mandated to take or mandated not to take are inconsistent with the relevant WTO provisions.

7. Overall conclusion with respect to Canada's principal claims

6.129 In the light of all its findings and conclusions in Section C, the Panel concludes that Canada has failed to establish that section 129(c)(1) is inconsistent with Articles VI:2, VI:3 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994; Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 of the AD Agreement; or Articles 10, 19.4, 21.1 and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement.

6.130 In reaching this conclusion, we note that Canada has requested us to make a specific finding in response to a statement made by the United States. Canada's request stems from the US statement that the Department of Commerce has the legal authority to implement an adverse DSB ruling with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" by applying a WTO-consistent methodology to such entries in the context of an administrative review which concludes after the implementation date.140 Canada requests that if the Panel accepts that such action is consistent with section 129(c)(1), it find that the relevant statement of the United States (i) expresses the official position of the United States in a manner that can be relied on by all Members, and (ii) is an undertaking that the United States will interpret its domestic laws and regulations to apply an adverse DSB ruling to "prior unliquidated entries".141

6.131 We understand the United States to have made the statement in question by way of an argument in the alternative, to be considered in the event that we find that the United States is obligated, as a matter of WTO law, to implement adverse DSB rulings with respect to "prior unliquidated entries".142 As noted in Subsection C.6 above, we do not, in this case, make any findings on this issue. Consequently, we cannot address Canada's request for an additional finding.

D. CANADA'S CONSEQUENTIAL CLAIMS

6.132 The Panel recalls that Canada has made consequential claims under Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

6.133 As we have observed in Section B above, Canada argues that section 129(c)(1) is inconsistent with Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement because it is inconsistent with the WTO provisions invoked by Canada in support of its principal claims. Since we have concluded in Section C that Canada has not succeeded in demonstrating that section 129(c)(1) contravenes any of the WTO provisions relied on by Canada, we must, therefore, find that Canada has not succeeded in establishing its consequential claims under Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

6.134 In the light of this, we conclude that Canada has failed to establish that section 129(c)(1) is inconsistent with Article 18.4 of the AD Agreement, Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement or Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

VII. CONCLUSION

7.1 For the reasons set forth in this report, the Panel concludes that Canada has failed to establish that section 129(c)(1) of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act is inconsistent with:

(a) Article VI:2, VI:3 and VI:6(a) of the GATT 1994;

(b) Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 and 18.4 of the AD Agreement;

(c) Articles 10, 19.4, 21.1, 32.1 and 32.5 of the SCM Agreement; and

(d) Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

7.2 In the light of its conclusion, the Panel makes no recommendations under Article 19.1 of the DSU.

__________



127 SAA, section B.1.c.(3), first paragraph, p. 1026.

128 In our view, the fact that there is no mention in the two sentences, or elsewhere in the portion in question, of the possibility of making administrative review determinations with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" on the basis of a WTO-consistent methodology developed in a section 129 determination does not, in itself, support the conclusion that section 129(c)(1) is intended to preclude that possibility.

129 In support of its statement, Canada refers to 19 U.S.C. � 1516a(c)(1) and (e) (1994). The United States has not contested Canada's statement.

130 Canada's reply to Panel Question 79(b).

131 As we have said, the intention of the US Congress may simply have been not to take any particular steps to ensure implementation with respect to "prior unliquidated entries".

132 Canada's Second Submission, footnote 13.

133 We recall that section 129(c)(1) implies that a section 129 determination can only be applied to post-implementation entries.

134 Canada's reply to Panel Question 68(b).

135 Panel Report, United States - Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel Plate in Coils and Stainless Steel Sheet and Strip from Korea ("US - Stainless Steel "), WT/DS179/R, adopted 1 February 2001.

136 Stainless Steel Plate in Coils From the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review, 66 Fed. Reg. 64017 (Dec. 11, 2001) (exhibit US-10)

137 For a description of the actions identified by Canada see, supra, paras. 6.31 and 6.32.

138 See supra, footnote 75.

139 We realize that our decision to examine first whether section 129(c)(1) mandates the United States to take any of the actions identified by Canada and/or mandates the United States not to take any of the actions identified by Canada could be construed to imply acceptance of Canada's premise that such actions, if taken or not taken, would be contrary to the WTO provisions invoked by Canada. However, no conclusions should be drawn from the structure and sequence of our findings as to whether we agree or disagree with Canada's premise.

140 Canada's request is based on the US reply to Panel Question 84(a). We see nothing in that reply which would indicate that the United States "will" act in a particular way. To the contrary, the United States simply states what it "might" do in hypothetical circumstances. Moreover, we note that the US reply to Panel Question 84(a) addresses a situation where section 129(c)(1) would not be implicated. This said, it is correct that the United States has stated that the Department of Commerce has the legal authority to implement an adverse DSB ruling with respect to "prior unliquidated entries" by applying a WTO-consistent methodology to such entries in the context of an administrative review which concludes after the implementation date. See US reply to Panel Question 91.

141 Canada's comments on the US reply to Panel Question 84.

142 US Second Submission, para. 10; US Second Oral Statement, para. 9; US Second Closing Statement, para. 4.


Return to Table of Contents