International Trade Law News /title <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> <meta name="verify-v1" content="6kFGcaEvnPNJ6heBYemQKQasNtyHRZrl1qGh38P0b6M=" /> <head> <title>International Trade Law News

« Home | U.S. Lifts Most Economic Sanctions on Libya » | USTR Issues 2004 Edition of National Trade Estimat... » | Antidumping and Countervailing Petitions Filed on ... » | Mandatory Use of AES for SED Filings Expected to b... » | WTO rules that US Ban of Web-based Gambling Violat... » | U.S. Files Case Against China with the WTO » | Treasury Announces Creation of Office of Terrorism... » | European Union Initiates Sanctions on U.S. Goods » | ITC Votes to Continue Case on Outboard Engines fro... » | BIS Issues Final Penalty Guidance in the Settlemen... » 

April 28, 2004 

Department of Commerce Initiates Antidumping and Countervailing Duties Investigations of Live Swine from Canada

The Department of Commerce recently announced the initiation of two separate investigations of live swine from Canada. The first is an antidumping investigation to determine if live swine from Canada is being sold in the U.S. at less than fair market value. The other is a countervailing duty investigation to determine whether Canadian exporters of live swine receive subsidies from the Canadian government that fail to comply with international trade agreements.

The Department of Commerce is expected to make a preliminary ruling on the antidumping investigation within 90 days of the initiation of the investigation and a decision on the countervailing duties investigation in early May.

In another ongoing dispute between Canada and the U.S., the WTO has ruled that U.S. Antidumping duties on softwood lumber from Canada were consistent with the WTO Antidumping Agreement.

The WTO did not rule, however, that every U.S. practice was legal under the Antidumping Agreement. Most notably, the WTO panel ruled that the U.S. practice of zeroing was inconsistent with Section 2.4.2 of the Antidumping Agreement. This decision contravenes the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling in Timkin v. U.S., in which the Federal Circuit ruled that Commerce’s practice of zeroing negative margins was in accordance with U.S. and international laws. The Timkin court distinguished the U.S. practice from previous WTO decisions, namely the EC – Bed Linens decision, on the basis that those WTO decisions “did not involve the United States.” Timkin Company v. United States, 354 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Under the Dispute Settlement Understanding, both the United States and Canada may appeal the decision.


Editor

Subscribe

Subscribe to our confidential mailing list

Mobile Version

Search Trade Law News

International Trade and Compliance Jobs

Jobs from Indeed

Archives

Categories

Disclaimer

  • This Site is presented for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed when you use this Site. Do not consider the Site to be a substitute for obtaining legal advice from a qualified attorney. The information on this Site may be changed without notice and is not guaranteed to be complete, correct or up-to-date. While we try to revise this Site on a regular basis, it may not reflect the most current legal developments. The opinions expressed on this Site are the opinions of the individual author.
  • The content on this Site may be reproduced and/or distributed in whole or in part, provided that its source is indicated as "International Trade Law News, www.tradelawnews.com".
  • ©2003-2015. All rights reserved.

Translate This Site


Powered by Blogger