1. Current major cases launched by the Community

US 1916 Anti-Dumping Act:
In August 2000, the WTO Appellate Body condemned the 1916 US Anti-Dumping Act. Two European companies are still facing a judicial challenge before US courts on the basis of the 1916 Act. A WTO Arbitrator ruled on 28 February 2001 that the reasonable period of time for the US to implement the WTO Appellate Body. On 20 July 2001, the US Administration formally proposed a bill to revoke the 1916 Act. This proposal also provides for the termination of the cases pending before US courts. However, no action has yet been taken by the US Congress. The EC will closely monitor US implementation.

‘Byrd amendment’:
The ‘Byrd amendment’ signed into law provides that the proceeds from anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases be paid to the US companies responsible for bringing the cases. This provision appears incompatible with several WTO provisions. On 22 December 2000, the EC and eight other WTO Members requested WTO consultations with the US which were held on 6 February 2001, but which did not lead to any result. On 26 June 2001, the US has published the "proposed rules" for implementing the Byrd amendment.

US countervailing measures on privatised EU companies :
In May 2000, the WTO Appellate Body condemned the countervailing duties imposed by the US on British Steel’s exports of lead and bismuth steel from the UK. The US had wrongly presumed that British Steel plc. had benefited from subsidies granted to its predecessor, the state-owned British Steel Corporation, before its privatisation. The EC requested WTO consultations in 13 other cases where the US had applied the condemned methodology against EU companies. These were held in December 2000. Although the US is forced to review this methodology, it still refuses to take account of the WTO ruling. Following the application by the US of a new methodology, which also appears to violate WTO provisions, the EC requested WTO consultations on this new methodology. These were held in April 2001. On 18 July 2001, the US confirmed that it refused to accept the compromise proposal made by the EC.

US safeguard measures on imports of steel wire rod and welded line pipe:
In March 2000, the US introduced two safeguard measures on imports of steel wire rod and imports of welded line pipe in the form of a tariff increase above a tariff quota. The EC requested formal WTO consultations, which took place on 26 January 2001.

Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC):
This case is by far the largest in economic terms. In February 2000, the WTO Appellate Body condemned the income tax exemption afforded to US exporters by means of FSCs as an export subsidy inconsistent with WTO provisions. On 15 November 2000, the US adopted a new system, which, in the EC’s view, remains WTO incompatible. This WTO Panel was requested on 17 November 2000. Furthermore, at the end of November 2000, the EC requested authorisation from the WTO to adopt countermeasures against the US in order to preserve its rights. The suspension of concessions procedure was suspended the following day. The report of the compliance Panel, circulated on 20 August 2001, confirms that the FSC Replacement Act is in breach of the US obligations under the Subsidies and Agriculture Agreements and that therefore the US has not implemented the WTO recommendations and rulings as from 1 October 2001.