1 / 28

International Trade Relations ITRN 603

International Trade Relations ITRN 603. Byrd Amendment Case. Eliana Kaloshi David Lee Amy Landry. The Byrd Amendment. History and Context of the Case. Who is Byrd?. Sen. Robert Byrd Rep. Ralph Regula Sen. Mike DeWine Former Pres. Bill Clinton. Inside the Byrd Amendment.

donar
Télécharger la présentation

International Trade Relations ITRN 603

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. International Trade Relations ITRN 603 Byrd Amendment Case. Eliana Kaloshi David Lee Amy Landry

  2. The Byrd Amendment History and Context of the Case

  3. Who is Byrd? • Sen. Robert Byrd • Rep. Ralph Regula • Sen. Mike DeWine • Former Pres. Bill Clinton

  4. Inside the Byrd Amendment • What did it offer? • Affects in exporters to the U.S.

  5. Who was the beneficiary? • Was there a hidden agenda? • Were there conflicts of interests?

  6. The United States Issues of U.S. Law Involved

  7. Issues of U.S. Law Involved The Byrd Amendment/CDSOA • Provided an additional incentive for U.S. producers raise complaints. • Provided U.S. producers with an undue advantage.

  8. Trends in AD/CVD Petitions

  9. WTO: The Agreements and Provisions

  10. GATT (1994) • Article VI • Article X(3)(a)

  11. Anti-Dumping Agreement (ADA) • Article 1 • Article 18.1 • Article 18.4

  12. Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) • Article 11.4 • Article 32.1 • Article 32.5 • Definition of a “subsidy” • 4 types of “specific” subsidies

  13. Marrakesh Agreement- WTO • Article XVI:4

  14. Positions of the Main Parties

  15. Positions of the Main Parties 21 Dec. 2000 Joint Complaint filed by 9 member nations: -Australia, Brazil, Chile, European Communities, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, and Thailand (WT/DS217). 21 May 2001 Two additional member-nations join -Canada, and Mexico

  16. Anti-dumping -Article 1 ADA -Article 18.1 ADA -Article VI:2 GATT Subsidies -Article 32.1 SCM Agreement -Article 4.10 SCM Agreement -Article 7.9 SCM Agreement -Article 10 SCM Agreement Positions of the Main Parties No actions concerning the dumping of foreign goods or the application of countervailing measures may be taken outside of the WTO DSU process.

  17. Positions of the Main Parties An investigation is required and may only proceed on the grounds of domestic support with specified and delineated thresholds. -Article 5.4 of the ADA -Article 11.4 of the ASCM

  18. Positions of the Main Parties Adverse Effects No member shall through the use of subsidy cause injury to the domestic industry of another member of the WTO -Article 5 of the ASCM Domestic Laws -Article 18.4 of the ADA -Article 32.5 of the ASCM

  19. Position of the United States • The Byrd Amendment does not qualify as an action against dumping or subsidy. • The source of CDSOA distributions are legally irrelevant. • The complainant parties have not proven that the CDSOA is an action “against” dumping or subsidy.

  20. Decision of the Panel

  21. On September 16th, 2002, the Panel concluded that the Byrd Amendment was inconsistent with…

  22. Appeal Process: • U.S. appealed the decision of the Panel • Case went to the Appellate Body • Decision of the Appellate Body…

  23. Implementation and Sanctions

  24. Implementation and Sanctions • AB: Incompatible with WTO rules • Revoke the amendment (January 16, 2003) • 11 Countries complained Byrd Amendment was illegal • Panel’s findings on the amendment was an illegal response to dumping or subsidization. • December 27, 2003-U.S.’s deadline to conform with Anti-Dumping, the GATT 1994 and the SCM agreements. (continued)

  25. Implementation and Sanctions • EC proposes sanctions on U.S. products in lack of U.S.’s conformity with the panel. • Also proposed an additional duty of 15% applied on 1 May, 2005 on paper, textile, machinery and agricultural products. • More sanctions to follow if the U.S. takes no action.

  26. Proposal in Solving Trade Issues • U.S. comply with WTO rules in order to avoid further sanctions. • Difficulties in macroeconomic stability and the electoral cycle. • Would the potential for retroactive punitive damages deter such laws?

  27. ? • Questions and Answers

  28. References • U.S. Byrd Amendment: Commission proposes sanctions on US products. http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2005/april/tradoc_122080.pdf. Brussels 31 April, 2005 • Subramanian, K. Byrd Amendment-The Politics of U.S. Trade. Business Line http://www.blonnet.com/2004/09/17/stories/2004091700031000.htm. September 17, 2004. • Report of the Appellate Body, World Trade Organization. United States-Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. http://www.worldtradelaw.net/reports/wtoab/us-byrd(ab).pdf#search=%22history%20and%20context%20of%20byrd%20amendment%22. 16 January 2003. • United States — Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds217_e.htm, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: DISPUTE DS217 • WTO- Dispute Settlement (DS217)http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds217_e.htm • WTO- Legal texts: A summary of the Final Act of the Uruguay Roundhttp://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/ursum_e.htm • WTO- Legal texts: Marrakesh agreementhttp://www.wto.org/English/docs_e/legal_e/04-wto_e.htm • WTO- Subsidies and Countervailing Measures overviewhttp://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/scm_e/subs_e.htm • WTO- Trade topics: Anti-dumpinghttp://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/antidum2_e.htm • “UNITED STATES – CONTINUED DUMPING AND SUBSIDY OFFSET ACT OF 2000,” 3 Oct 2006 http://www.sice.oas.org/dispute/wto/ds217_234/ds217r_5e.asp. • “Byrd Amendment needs to comply with WTO/EU,” 3 Oct 2006 http://www.gsusignal.com/media/storage/paper924/news/2004/09/28/Perspectives/Byrd-Amendment.Needs.To.Comply.With.Wtoeu-1760719.shtml?norewrite200610091751&sourcedomain=www.gsusignal.com. • “Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures,” 3 Oct 2006 http://www.worldtradelaw.net/uragreements/scmagreement.pdf#search=%22scm%20agreement%22. • “AGREEMENT ON IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE VI OF THE GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE 1994,” 3 Oct 2006 http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/19-adp.pdf#search=%22AGREEMENT%20ON%20IMPLEMENTATION%20OF%20ARTICLE%20VI%20%22. • “Issues and Effects of Implementing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act,” 3 Oct 2006 http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05979.pdf.

More Related