By Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON, Sep 1 2004 (IPS)

The United States says it will continue to slap duties on countries it claims dump their goods on the U.S. market, despite a World Trade Organisation ruling Tuesday that authorises seven nations and the European Union (EU) to impose sanctions against Washington’s anti-dumping law.

The United States says it will continue to slap duties on countries it claims dump their goods on the U.S. market, despite a World Trade Organisation ruling Tuesday that authorises seven nations and the European Union (EU) to impose sanctions against Washington’s anti-dumping law.

According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) the United States will not back down even after the WTO gave the U.S. trading partners the right to retaliate based on claims of significant economic damage from the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also know as the Byrd Amendment.

USTR Spokesman Christopher Padilla said in a statement the decision will not “affect the ability of the United States to continue enforcing its trade laws to impose duties on countries that sell unfairly dumped or subsidised products in the U.S. market.”

The response contradicts Washington’s often-repeated call to developing nations that only by abiding by global trade rules will they prosper economically.

According to analysts, the WTO decision also acknowledged that the U.S. anti-dumping law is being abused by businesses here.

Earlier in 2004, the Geneva-headquartered WTO ruled the Byrd amendment violated trade rules because it penalised foreign companies twice: first by making them pay dumping duties and then by giving their U.S. competitors that money.

The trade body set the level of sanctions the nations were allowed to impose on Washington at up to 70 percent of the duties collected by the United States.

But the WTO arbitrators ruled Tuesday that the trading partners’ claims of damage were “exaggerated,” and set a ceiling of 150 million dollars that the nations can impose on the United States in retaliation.

The Byrd amendment, passed in 2000, directs the U.S. government to distribute anti-dumping and anti-subsidy fines it collects directly to U.S. companies harmed by dumping and subsidies. Before it became law, such revenue went to the U.S. Treasury.

In September 2002, a WTO dispute settlement panel found the amendment violated several provisions of various WTO agreements. Four months later the WTO Appellate Body upheld most of the panel’s findings.

This week it announced it would allow retaliation because of Washington’s failure to comply with those earlier rulings.

“It is unfortunate that this dispute has come as far as retaliation authorisation,” said Daniel Ikenson, trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington DC.

“While it is well within the rights of any sovereign WTO member to ignore dispute settlement findings, such non-compliance will only invite retaliation against other U.S. interests, inspire similar disregard for WTO decisions from other members, and ultimately undermine the rules-based system of trade,” he added.

Ikenson argued that the U.S. law, by compensating petitioners and supporters of petitions (complaints of dumping) provides an extra financial motive to file anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases.

Also, by excluding from compensation those companies or unions that do not support the petitions, the law encourages firms that might otherwise decline to support the complaints to do so simply to maintain eligibility for compensation.

Petitioning industries tend to deny any link between their actions and the Byrd Amendment. Yet, the WTO tribunal included as evidence a letter from a U.S. law firm urging a company to register support for the countervailing duty case against lumber from Canada in order to qualify for Byrd amendment payouts.

Canadian International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said Tuesday’s ruling fully protects his country’s right to retaliate. “We continue to urge the U.S. to live up to its WTO obligations and to repeal the Byrd Amendment,” he added in a statement.

The U.S. Congress has been reluctant to change the Byrd Amendment under pressure from some businesses that have profited from the law.

But the administration of President George W Bush claims it is acting in the interest of workers, saying Tuesday it will work closely with Congress to resolve this issue in a way that promotes “the competitiveness of American workers,” and protects U.S. jobs.

“It is proving difficult to pry congressional hands from a tool that allows them to quietly subsidise their business constituents. Unfortunately, the relatively low levels of retaliation authorised – about 150 million (dollars) this year – will do little to inspire a change in that mindset,” said Ikenson.

The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC), which promotes U.S. exports abroad, said Wednesday that Washington should take immediate steps to end the Byrd Amendment’s payouts to U.S. companies.

“The WTO’s authorisation for retaliation is one more reason that Congress should repeal the Byrd Amendment,” said CITAC President Jon Jenson, in a statement.

“The amendment is bad policy because it distorts trade, provides an incentive for filing trade petitions, and keeps products under trade restrictions that are in short supply in the U.S. or not made here at all.”

Jenson, whose group pushes for access for U.S. products in foreign markets, warned that U.S. exporters might bear the consequences of Congress’ failure to terminate the law.

Excerpt:

By Emad Mekay
WASHINGTON, Sep 1 2004 (IPS)

The United States says it will continue to slap duties on countries it claims dump their goods on the U.S. market, despite a World Trade Organisation ruling Tuesday that authorises seven nations and the European Union (EU) to impose sanctions against Washington’s anti-dumping law.

According to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) the United States will not back down even after the WTO gave the U.S. trading partners the right to retaliate based on claims of significant economic damage from the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, also know as the Byrd Amendment.

USTR Spokesman Christopher Padilla said in a statement the decision will not “affect the ability of the United States to continue enforcing its trade laws to impose duties on countries that sell unfairly dumped or subsidised products in the U.S. market.”

The response contradicts Washington’s often-repeated call to developing nations that only by abiding by global trade rules will they prosper economically.

According to analysts, the WTO decision also acknowledged that the U.S. anti-dumping law is being abused by businesses here.

The WTO case was brought by the EU, Canada, Japan, India, Brazil, Mexico, Chile and South Korea.

The trade body set the level of sanctions the nations were allowed to impose on Washington at up to 70 percent of the duties collected by the United States.

But the WTO arbitrators ruled Tuesday that the trading partners’ claims of damage were “exaggerated,” and set a ceiling of 150 million dollars that the nations can impose on the United States in retaliation.

The Byrd amendment, passed in 2000, directs the U.S. government to distribute anti-dumping and anti-subsidy fines it collects directly to U.S. companies harmed by dumping and subsidies. Before it became law, such revenue went to the U.S. Treasury.

In September 2002, a WTO dispute settlement panel found the amendment violated several provisions of various WTO agreements. Four months later the WTO Appellate Body upheld most of the panel’s findings.

This week it announced it would allow retaliation because of Washington’s failure to comply with those earlier rulings.

“It is unfortunate that this dispute has come as far as retaliation authorisation,” said Daniel Ikenson, trade policy analyst at the Cato Institute in Washington DC.

“While it is well within the rights of any sovereign WTO member to ignore dispute settlement findings, such non-compliance will only invite retaliation against other U.S. interests, inspire similar disregard for WTO decisions from other members, and ultimately undermine the rules-based system of trade,” he added.

Ikenson argued that the U.S. law, by compensating petitioners and supporters of petitions (complaints of dumping) provides an extra financial motive to file anti-dumping and countervailing duty cases.

Also, by excluding from compensation those companies or unions that do not support the petitions, the law encourages firms that might otherwise decline to support the complaints to do so simply to maintain eligibility for compensation.

Petitioning industries tend to deny any link between their actions and the Byrd Amendment. Yet, the WTO tribunal included as evidence a letter from a U.S. law firm urging a company to register support for the countervailing duty case against lumber from Canada in order to qualify for Byrd amendment payouts.

Canadian International Trade Minister Jim Peterson said Tuesday’s ruling fully protects his country’s right to retaliate. “We continue to urge the U.S. to live up to its WTO obligations and to repeal the Byrd Amendment,” he added in a statement.

The U.S. Congress has been reluctant to change the Byrd Amendment under pressure from some businesses that have profited from the law.

But the administration of President George W Bush claims it is acting in the interest of workers, saying Tuesday it will work closely with Congress to resolve this issue in a way that promotes “the competitiveness of American workers,” and protects U.S. jobs.

“It is proving difficult to pry congressional hands from a tool that allows them to quietly subsidise their business constituents. Unfortunately, the relatively low levels of retaliation authorised – about 150 million (dollars) this year – will do little to inspire a change in that mindset,” said Ikenson.

The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC), which promotes U.S. exports abroad, said Wednesday that Washington should take immediate steps to end the Byrd Amendment’s payouts to U.S. companies.

“The WTO’s authorisation for retaliation is one more reason that Congress should repeal the Byrd Amendment,” said CITAC President Jon Jenson, in a statement.

“The amendment is bad policy because it distorts trade, provides an incentive for filing trade petitions, and keeps products under trade restrictions that are in short supply in the U.S. or not made here at all.”

Jenson, whose group pushes for access for U.S. products in foreign markets, warned that U.S. exporters might bear the consequences of Congress’ failure to terminate the law.

Excerpt: