Japan alleged that the preliminary and final determinations of the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) in their antidumping investigations of certain hot-rolled steel products from Japan, issued on November 25 and 30, 1998, February 12, 1999, April 28, 1999, and June 23, 1999, were erroneous and based on deficient procedures under the U.S. Tariff Act of 1930 and related regulations. Japan claimed that these procedures and regulations violate the GATT 1994, as well as the Antidumping Agreement and the Agreement Establishing the WTO. Consultations were held on January 13, 2000, and a panel was established on March 20, 2000. In May 2000, the Director-General composed the panel as follows: Mr. Harsha V. Singh, Chair, Mr. Yanyong Phuangrach and Ms. Lidia di Vico, Members. On February 28, 2001, the panel circulated its report, in which it rejected most of Japan’s claims, but found that, inter alia, particular aspects of the antidumping duty calculation, as well as one aspect of the U.S. antidumping duty law, were inconsistent with the WTO Antidumping Agreement. On April 25, 2001, the United States filed a notice of appeal on certain issues in the panel report.
The Appellate Body report was issued on July 24, 2001, reversing in part and affirming in part. The reports were adopted on August 23, 2001. Pursuant to a February 19, 2002, arbitral award, the United States was given 15 months, or until November 23, 2002, to implement the DSB’s recommendations and rulings. On November 22, 2002, Commerce issued a new final determination in the hot-rolled steel antidumping duty investigation, which implemented the recommendations and rulings of the DSB with respect to the calculation of antidumping margins in that investigation. The reasonable period of time ended on July 31, 2005. With respect to the outstanding implementation issue, on July 7, 2005, the United States and Japan agreed that Japan would not request authorization to suspend concessions at that time and that the United States would not object to a future request on grounds of lack of timeliness.
