This is from the the Panel's "preliminary observations" in today's U.S. - Tyres WTO panel report:
7.6 ... the investigation that led to the imposition of a safeguard measure in this case against the importation of tyres from China was initiated, unusually, as the result of a petition by a labour union in the United States and not by the domestic producers of tyres. This, of itself, alerted the Panel to the possibility that there was something different about this case, particularly where the domestic producers, the normal petitioners in such cases, had indicated that they would not make any adjustments notwithstanding that a safeguard remedy was put in place with adjustment purposes.
...
7.8 ... an important allegation in this case relating to this key issue of causation was that the U.S. tyre manufacturing industry had voluntarily reduced its investment in the United States and had invested in manufacturing tyres in China instead. Thus, according to this view, the reduction in domestic manufacturing of tyres and the increase in imports from China were the consequences of deliberate economic decision-making by the U.S. tyre industry.
7.9 In such circumstances, the argument went, this case involved the invocation of a mechanism designed to protect a domestic industry that did not want that protection and by its own actions had precipitated the events that were now being invoked to justify the application of the transitional product-specific safeguard mechanism of China's Protocol of Accession. Arguably, it explained too why the investigation had been initiated by a labour union, a body that was concerned with job losses resulting from this transfer of manufacturing capacity to China, and not by the domestic producers themselves. Thus, the Panel was aware that this aspect of the case raised the question of the suitability or relevance of safeguard mechanisms in the context of "outsourcing" and "globalization", matters of considerable systemic interest to WTO Members.
I haven't gotten to the substance yet, but here's the conclusion:
8.1 For the reasons set forth above, we find that in imposing the transitional safeguards measure on 26 September 2009 in respect of imports of subject tyres from China, the United States did not fail to comply with its obligations under Paragraph 16 of the Protocol and Articles I:1 and II:1 of the GATT 1994.
