Dating safeguard r
The DSB has authority to adopt panel and Appellate Body reports.
Thus it is technically the DSB rather than the Panel or Appellate Body which would issue a request that a member come into compliance.
It is noteworthy that the WTO violation resulted from the inadequacy of explanation and not from a fault in US law.
The Appellate Body emphasized throughout its report that safeguard measures were considered extraordinary measures and that consequently WTO members had an obligation to clearly set forth the rationale for their determinations.
 Specifically, the Panel found that the US had failed to "provide a reasoned and adequate explanation of their conclusion" (1) that imports had increased; (2) that a causal link existed between the increased imports and serious injury to the domestic industry; and (3) that the increased imports had resulted from "unforeseen developments."  The Panel recommended that the Dispute Settlement Body request that the US bring all the safeguard measures into conformity with its WTO obligations.
 The Appellate Body's ruling on November 10 largely  upheld the initial Panel's conclusions, specifically its focus on the inadequacy of the US explanation of how the facts supported the conclusion that each of the elements of a safeguard case had been met.
Retaliation rarely is confined to the sector involved in the dispute and will not be in this case. She currently is an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs and Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies.
Rather, it ruled that USITC had failed to provide a logical explanation of how such causation actually occurred.