A World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Board has ruled against European Union’s steel safeguards tariffs, siding with the Turkish government's claims that the European Commission didn't justify its restrictions under global trading rules. WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Turkey in “European Union Safeguard Measures on Certain Steel Products” DS595 on 29 April 2022.This dispute concerns a provisional safeguard measure and a definitive safeguard measure adopted by the European Union in 2018 and 2019, respectively, on imports of certain steel products. The European Union applied the measures on the grounds that three unforeseen developments increased global steel overcapacity, an increase in the use of trade restrictive and trade defense measures on steel, and the US Section 232 measures on steel had resulted in an increase in imports of certain steel products into the EU market, and that the increase in imports was threatening the EU industry with serious injury. The safeguard measures took the form of duty-free tariff-rate quotas and 25% out-of-quota safeguard duties.Turkey claimed that the provisional and definitive safeguard measures were inconsistent with various provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT because according to Turkey the European Commission applied distinct safeguard measures on 26 products but had not examined whether the circumstances and conditions for imposing a safeguard measure existed for each of those products individually and, moreover, because the European Commission had adopted an internally inconsistent approach to product scope at different stages of the investigation and application of the measures.The Panel rejected Turkey's proposition that the European Commission had applied distinct safeguard measures on 26 products. Instead, the Panel found that the European Commission had applied a single safeguard measure on 26 product categories taken together. The Panel concluded that Turkey did not establish any inconsistencies in relation to the product scope of the European Commission's analysis of the circumstances and conditions for imposing a safeguard measure. Specifically, Turkey argued that the European Commission(a) Had not identified unforeseen developments(b) If it had identified developments, they were not unforeseen(c) It had not demonstrated that the injurious increase in imports had occurred as a result of” the unforeseen developments. The Panel rejected Turkey's arguments that the European Commission had not identified unforeseen developments and that any such developments were in any case not unforeseen. However, the Panel accepted that the European Commission had not established that the increase in imports had taken place as a result of the unforeseen developments. Accordingly, the Panel found that the definitive safeguard measure was inconsistent with Article XIX:1(a) in this regard.
A World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Board has ruled against European Union’s steel safeguards tariffs, siding with the Turkish government's claims that the European Commission didn't justify its restrictions under global trading rules. WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Turkey in “European Union Safeguard Measures on Certain Steel Products” DS595 on 29 April 2022.This dispute concerns a provisional safeguard measure and a definitive safeguard measure adopted by the European Union in 2018 and 2019, respectively, on imports of certain steel products. The European Union applied the measures on the grounds that three unforeseen developments increased global steel overcapacity, an increase in the use of trade restrictive and trade defense measures on steel, and the US Section 232 measures on steel had resulted in an increase in imports of certain steel products into the EU market, and that the increase in imports was threatening the EU industry with serious injury. The safeguard measures took the form of duty-free tariff-rate quotas and 25% out-of-quota safeguard duties.Turkey claimed that the provisional and definitive safeguard measures were inconsistent with various provisions of the Agreement on Safeguards and the GATT because according to Turkey the European Commission applied distinct safeguard measures on 26 products but had not examined whether the circumstances and conditions for imposing a safeguard measure existed for each of those products individually and, moreover, because the European Commission had adopted an internally inconsistent approach to product scope at different stages of the investigation and application of the measures.The Panel rejected Turkey's proposition that the European Commission had applied distinct safeguard measures on 26 products. Instead, the Panel found that the European Commission had applied a single safeguard measure on 26 product categories taken together. The Panel concluded that Turkey did not establish any inconsistencies in relation to the product scope of the European Commission's analysis of the circumstances and conditions for imposing a safeguard measure. Specifically, Turkey argued that the European Commission(a) Had not identified unforeseen developments(b) If it had identified developments, they were not unforeseen(c) It had not demonstrated that the injurious increase in imports had occurred as a result of” the unforeseen developments. The Panel rejected Turkey's arguments that the European Commission had not identified unforeseen developments and that any such developments were in any case not unforeseen. However, the Panel accepted that the European Commission had not established that the increase in imports had taken place as a result of the unforeseen developments. Accordingly, the Panel found that the definitive safeguard measure was inconsistent with Article XIX:1(a) in this regard.
