Adopted 20 July 2015
Complainant Japan
Respondent Ukraine
Third Parties Australia; European Union; India; Korea, Republic of; Russian Federation; Turkey; United States
Measures at Issue
This dispute concerned the definitive safeguard measure imposed by Ukraine on imports of certain passenger cars to Ukraine and the investigation that led to the imposition of this measure.
Main Adopted Findings of the Panel
GATT Article XIX:1(a) (Unforeseen Developments and the Effect of GATT 1994 Obligations)
The Panel found that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article XIX:1(a) of the GATT 1994 because Ukraine's published report failed to make proper determinations regarding unforeseen developments and the effect of GATT obligations.Footnote 1
SG Article 2.1 (Increased Imports)
The Panel found that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because Ukraine inadequately analyzed intervening trends in imports, and failed to demonstrate that the increase in imports was sufficiently recent, sudden, sharp, and significant.Footnote 2
SG Article 4.2(a) (Threat of Serious Injury)
The Panel found that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(a) of the Agreement on Safeguards because Ukraine inadequately examined and explained ‘the likely future development of imports relative to domestic production; the import market share; the examined injury factors that relate directly to the position of the domestic industry; and their bearing on the likely situation of the domestic industry in the very near future’.Footnote 3
SG Article 4.2(b) (Causation)
The Panel found that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 4.2(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards because Ukraine inadequately demonstrated the existence of a causal link between increased imports and threat of serious injury to the domestic industry, and because Ukraine conducted an inadequate non-attribution analysis.Footnote 4
SG Articles 4.2(c) and 12 (Publication and Notification Requirements)
The Panel found that Ukraine acted inconsistently with: (1) Article 4.2(c) of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing to promptly publish a detailed analysis of the case under investigation as well as a demonstration of the relevance of the factors examined;Footnote 5 (2) Articles 12.1(a) and 12.1(b) of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing to notify the WTO Committee on Safeguards immediately after initiating a safeguard investigationFootnote 6 and immediately after making a finding of serious injury or threat thereof caused by increased imports;Footnote 7 (3) Article 12.2 of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing to provide ‘all pertinent information’ in its relevant notification;Footnote 8 and (4) Article 12.3 of the Agreement on Safeguards by failing to provide Japan with adequate opportunity for prior consultations with a view to reviewing all pertinent information.Footnote 9
SG Article 8.1 (Level of Concessions)
The Panel found that Ukraine acted inconsistently with Article 8.1 of the Agreement on Safeguards because Ukraine failed to provide Japan with adequate opportunity for prior consultations to review a proposed timetable for progressive liberalization of the safeguard measure, and therefore Ukraine failed to endeavour to maintain a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations between it and affected exporting Members.Footnote 10
