United States—Definitive Safeguard Measures on Imports of Certain Steel Products
World Trade Organization, Appellate Body
WT/DS248/AB/R (Dec. 10, 2003)

- Written by Josh Lee, JD
Facts
The United States (defendant) imposed safeguards, or import restrictions, on certain steel products. However, the United States excluded Canada, Mexico, Jordan, and Israel from the safeguards. The United States had reviewed the import data on these steel products and determined that there was an increase in imports and that the increase in the imports had been harming the domestic steel industry. The data showed an increase of imports in the beginning of the investigation period, but there was a decrease from 11.5 million short tons to 6.9 million short tons during the interim period of 2000 to 2001. In its decision, the United States did not explain how the increase in imports was causing harm in light of the significant decrease in those imports during the interim period of 2000 to 2001. The United States also used import data that included imports from Canada, Mexico, Jordan, and Israel in justifying the import restrictions, even though those restrictions did not apply to those countries. Brazil, China, the European Communities, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, and Switzerland filed a challenge to these restrictions. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) Panel found against the United States, and the United States appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning ()
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.