9 million and the tonnage was 8852867 tonnes 11 in a

Info icon This preview shows pages 27–28. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
The total value of all exclusions originating in 2003 was US$53.9 million and the tonnage was 88,528.67 tonnes. 11. In a report published in September 2003, the USITC estimated a small GDP net loss, of US$30.4 million, due to the safeguard measures, and that direct steel purchases from domestic producers increased from 65% to 73% of the total. The effect of the safeguard measures on U.S. welfare ranged from a welfare gain of US$65.6 million to a welfare loss of US$110 million, with a central estimate of a welfare loss of US$41.6 million. 90 12. All the cases in which safeguard measures were applied by the United States since 1998 have been challenged in the WTO. Among the procedural aspects of safeguard investigations challenged by other WTO Members feature: the basis for the exclusion of imports from NAFTA countries from the application of some safeguard measures; the timely notification of investigation initiations and application of safeguard measures; the consideration of "unforeseen developments"; the determination of serious injury, and of causation; and the definition of domestic industry in USITC investigations. 13. Two cases brought to the WTO on safeguard measures adopted between 1998 and 2000 were concluded in 2001; they concerned lamb meat and line pipe products. In the case relating to lamb meat, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that the United States had failed to demonstrate the existence of "unforeseen developments", and that the USITC definition of domestic industry to include sheep farmers in the domestic industry producing the like product of lamb meat was inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards. 91 In the challenge by Korea of the safeguard measure on line pipe products, the Panel's findings were released in October 2001 92 ; the Appellate Body reversed some of the Panel's finding but upheld others, including that the United States acted inconsistently with its obligation under the Agreement on Safeguards by failing to establish a causal link between the increased imports and the serious injury or threat thereof. 93 14. The U.S. safeguard measures applied in March 2002 as a result of the steel investigation were challenged at WTO by the EU, Japan, Korea, China, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, and Brazil; it was agreed to refer all the complaints to a single panel. 94 The Panel Report, issued in July 2003, concluded that the safeguard measures imposed by the United States on the imports of certain steel products as of 20 March 2002 were inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards and GATT 1994. In particular, the United States had acted inconsistently with the previously mentioned provisions: by failing to demonstrate that "unforeseen developments" had resulted in increased imports causing serious injury to the relevant domestic producers; with respect to the facts supporting its determination of "increased imports" for five of the ten products on which safeguard measures had been imposed; by failing to provide a reasoned and adequate explanation for most products that a 90 USITC (2003a) and (2003b).
Image of page 27

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 28
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

What students are saying

  • Left Quote Icon

    As a current student on this bumpy collegiate pathway, I stumbled upon Course Hero, where I can find study resources for nearly all my courses, get online help from tutors 24/7, and even share my old projects, papers, and lecture notes with other students.

    Student Picture

    Kiran Temple University Fox School of Business ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    I cannot even describe how much Course Hero helped me this summer. It’s truly become something I can always rely on and help me. In the end, I was not only able to survive summer classes, but I was able to thrive thanks to Course Hero.

    Student Picture

    Dana University of Pennsylvania ‘17, Course Hero Intern

  • Left Quote Icon

    The ability to access any university’s resources through Course Hero proved invaluable in my case. I was behind on Tulane coursework and actually used UCLA’s materials to help me move forward and get everything together on time.

    Student Picture

    Jill Tulane University ‘16, Course Hero Intern