US Mexico Trade Dispute - Stainless Steel Sheets and Coils dumping

Last updated

The US-Mexico Trade Dispute - Stainless Steel Sheets and Coils dumping is a trade dispute between the governments of The United States and Mexico. On May 26, 2006 Mexico requested consultations with the United States about a number of final anti-dumping judgments made by the US Department of Commerce. The judgments concerned the imports of stainless steel sheets and strips from Mexico, which were supposedly illegal dumping through the use of a "Zeroing" technique by the US Department of Commerce. [1] Mexico believed that some of the laws, regulations, administrative practices and methodologies implemented by the US impaired and nullified the benefits added to Mexico, directly or indirectly, under the World Trade Organization Agreement on Customs Valuation, and that the anti-dumping laws were unwarranted. The consultations were held to discuss activities carried on between January 1999 and June 2004. This led to a panel being established in December 2006, the proceedings of which continued until May 2013, with a mutually agreeable solution being reached. Japan asked to join the consultation in June 2006.

Contents

Products in question

Stainless steel, specifically in the form of sheets and coils, was at the center of the dispute. Stainless steel is an alloy containing at least 10.2% chromium.

The complaint

On May 26, 2006, Mexico asked for an audience with the US concerning Anti-Dumping laws for stainless steel sheet and coils imported from Mexico to the US from 1999 to 2004. The consultations concerned: [2]

Mexico believed that these laws and practices violated their rights under the World Trade Organization agreement and argued that no dumping was taking place. Specifically, Mexico stated that the US laws were inconsistent with:

Panel history and decisions

On October 12, 2006, Mexico requested the production of a panel, which the dispute settlement body established on October 26, 2006. On December 20, 2006, the Director General finalized the panel's membership. In May 2007, the Chairman of the panel informed the dispute settlement body that the panel would not be able to complete the work until November 2007 due to scheduling conflicts.

On December 20, 2007, the panel report was published to all members. The panel concluded that the Zeroing Model used by the US department of commerce was not agreed with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. On the other hand, it also concluded that Simple Zeroing in periodic review was not inconsistent with the Anti Dumping Agreement. Mexico was thus only partially satisfied with the results of their complaint to the World Trade Organization.

On January 31, 2008, Mexico notified the appellate body that it would like to appeal some of the issues of law covered in the panel report, and that it wished to cover some of the legal interpretations covered by the panel. On March 26, 2008, the chairman of the appellate body informed the dispute settlement body that the 60-day period would not be sufficient to finalize the report.

On April 30, 2008, the appellate report was circulated to the Members. The new decision reversed the previous panel's decision stating that Simple Zeroing in periodic review was not in violation of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and reversed the ruling that the US was not in compliance with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. For the purposes of resolving the dispute, the panel also found it unnecessary to make an additional finding on Mexico's claim that Simple Zeroing in periodic review (as applied to the five periodic reviews at issue in the dispute) was inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Laws. Additionally, the new decision did not find that the previous panel failed to discharge its duties.

As a result, the appellate body recommended to the dispute settlement body that the United States bring the issues and practices found to be inconsistent with the anti-dumping agreement, into conformity with the obligations standing under the agreement. On May 20, 2008, the dispute settlement body adopted the appellate body and the panel reports.

Post-ruling and implementation

On June 2, 2008, at the dispute settlement body meeting, the United States notified the dispute settlement body that it intended to comply with the World Trade Organization obligations and requested a reasonable period of time to start implementation. After the lengthy process of appointing of an arbitrator, a decision was made on October 31, 2008, that the United States would have 11 months and ten days from the adoption of the Panel to implement the recommendations and rulings made by the appellate body. The reasonable time period expired on April 30, 2009.

On May 18, 2009, Mexico and the United States informed the dispute settlement body of an agreement regarding procedures. The next day, Japan requested to join the consultations. On September 7, 2010, Mexico requested the establishment of a compliance panel. After a number of years of work with the compliance panel, on May 31, 2012, Mexico requested that any work be suspended until further notice. The panel agreed to the request. On May 6, 2013, the panel circulated a report to the members, in which the panel had reached the conclusion that the two parties had reached a mutually satisfactory solution on April 8, 2013. As the case was settled and closed the panel issued a report that was limited to a brief description of the case and the statement of the conclusion.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">World Trade Organization</span> Intergovernmental trade organization

The World Trade Organization (WTO) is an intergovernmental organization headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland that regulates and facilitates international trade. Governments use the organization to establish, revise, and enforce the rules that govern international trade in cooperation with the United Nations System. The WTO is the world's largest international economic organization, with 164 member states representing over 98% of global trade and global GDP.

An amicus curiae is an individual or organization that is not a party to a legal case, but that is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. Whether an amicus brief will be considered is typically under the court's discretion. The phrase is legal Latin and the origin of the term has been dated to 1605–1615. The scope of amici curiae is generally found in the cases where broad public interests are involved and concerns regarding civil rights are in question.

Dumping, in economics, is a form of predatory pricing, especially in the context of international trade. It occurs when manufacturers export a product to another country at a price below the normal price with an injuring effect. The objective of dumping is to increase market share in a foreign market by driving out competition and thereby create a monopoly situation where the exporter will be able to unilaterally dictate price and quality of the product. Trade treaties might include mechanisms to alleviate problems related to dumping, such as countervailing duty penalties and anti-dumping statutes.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Canada–United States softwood lumber dispute</span> Trade dispute between Canada and the United States

The Canada–U.S. softwood lumber dispute is one of the largest and most enduring trade disputes between both nations. This conflict arose in 1982 and its effects are still seen today. British Columbia, the major Canadian exporter of softwood lumber to the United States, was most affected, reporting losses of 9,494 direct and indirect jobs between 2004 and 2009.

The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) of the World Trade Organization (WTO) makes decisions on trade disputes between governments that are adjudicated by the Organization. Its decisions generally match those of the Dispute Panel.

A trade war is an economic conflict often resulting from extreme protectionism in which states raise or create tariffs or other trade barriers against each other in response to trade barriers created by the other party. If tariffs are the exclusive mechanism, then such conflicts are known as customs wars, toll wars, or tariff wars; as a reprisal, the latter state may also increase the tariffs. Trade war arises only if the competitive protection between states is of the same type and it is not valid in case of dumping exports. Increased protection causes both nations' output compositions to move towards their autarky position. Minor trade disagreements are often called trade disputes when the war metaphor is hyperbolic.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jim Bacchus</span> American politician

James Leonard Bacchus is an American lawyer, businessman, and politician who served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives from Florida from 1991 to 1995. He was a founding member and twice chairman of the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland from 1995 to 2003. He later became a fellow of the European Institute for International Law and International Relations.

The Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, also known as the SPS Agreement or just SPS, is an international treaty of the World Trade Organization (WTO). It was negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and entered into force with the establishment of the WTO at the beginning of 1995. Broadly, the sanitary and phytosanitary ("SPS") measures covered by the agreement are those aimed at the protection of human, animal or plant life or health from certain risks.

The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, commonly referred to as the TBT Agreement, is an international treaty administered by the World Trade Organization. It was last renegotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, with its present form entering into force with the establishment of the WTO at the beginning of 1995, binding on all WTO members.

The Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTOAB) is a standing body of seven persons that hears appeals from reports issued by panels in disputes brought on by WTO members. The WTOAB can uphold, modify or reverse the legal findings and conclusions of a panel, and Appellate Body Reports, once adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), must be accepted by the parties to the dispute. The WTOAB has its seat in Geneva, Switzerland. It has been termed by at least one journalist as "effectively the supreme court of world trade".

Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 authorizes the President to take all appropriate action, including tariff-based and non-tariff-based retaliation, to obtain the removal of any act, policy, or practice of a foreign government that violates an international trade agreement or is unjustified, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that burdens or restricts U.S. commerce. Section 301 cases can be self-initiated by the United States Trade Representative (USTR) or as the result of a petition filed by a firm or industry group. If USTR initiates a Section 301 investigation, it must seek to negotiate a settlement with the foreign country in the form of compensation or elimination of the trade barrier. For cases involving trade agreements, the USTR is required to request formal dispute proceedings as provided by the trade agreements. The law does not require that the U.S. government wait until it receives authorization from the World Trade Organization (WTO) to take enforcement actions, and the President is increasingly focused on enforcing intellectual property (IP) rights under the "Special" 301 amendments but the U.S. has committed itself to pursuing the resolution of disputes under WTO agreements through the WTO dispute settlement mechanism, which has its own timetable.

Dispute settlement or dispute settlement system (DSS) is regarded by the World Trade Organization (WTO) as the central pillar of the multilateral trading system, and as the organization's "unique contribution to the stability of the global economy". A dispute arises when one member country adopts a trade policy measure or takes some action that one or more fellow members consider to be a breach of WTO agreements or to be a failure to live up to obligations. By joining the WTO, member countries have agreed that if they believe fellow members are in violation of trade rules, they will use the multilateral system of settling disputes instead of taking action unilaterally — this entails abiding by agreed procedures—Dispute Settlement Understanding—and respecting judgments, primarily of the Dispute Settlement Board (DSB), the WTO organ responsible for adjudication of disputes.

On January 26, 1999, the European Community (EC) and its Member States requested consultation with the United States concerning a dispute over discrepancies between the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights and Section 110(5) of the United States Copyright Act amended by the Fairness in Music Licensing Act. The dispute was over the legality of "the playing of radio and television music in public places without the payment of a royalty fee" (World). The disputed parties worked through the existing process of WTO Dispute Settlement. First the EC lodged a complaint against the US with the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) and requested consultation over the dispute. Then the parties requested a panel leading to the body's eventual formation, followed by the circulation of the panel report. The parties accepted the Panel Report without appeal and the dispute ended in arbitration over implementation of the panel's recommendations. Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Switzerland acted as third parties in this dispute (World).

Non-violation nullification of benefits (NVNB) claims are a species of dispute settlement in the World Trade Organization arising under World Trade Organization multilateral and bilateral trade agreements. NVNB claims are controversial in that they are widely perceived to promote the social vices of unpredictability and uncertainty in international trade law. Other commentators have described NVNB claims as potentially inserting corporate competition policy into the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU).

Zeroing refers to a controversial methodology used by the United States for calculating antidumping duties against foreign products. The foreign domestic price (FDP) of the product is compared with its U.S. import price (USIP) adjusted for transportation and handling costs. Under zeroing, the United States sets at zero the negative differences.

Korea — Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Certain Paper from Indonesia or Korea — Certain Paper or WT/DS312 is a dispute between Indonesia on April 7, 2010 forwarded to the World Trade Organization and South Korea over Indonesian paper imports. South Korea accused Indonesia of "dumping" paper export, and forced some Indonesian paper producers to pay a higher tariff. On June 4, 2004 Indonesia requested that South Korea hold bilateral consultations. However, a bilateral consultation on July 7, 2004 failed to reach an agreement.

In 2012, South Africa imposed anti-dumping duties on Brazilian imports of frozen poultry products. Brazil brought its case to the World Trade Organization, and South Africa chose to impose a general tariff on chicken imports, rather than anti-dumping duties against Brazilian importers.

European Union and its Member States — Certain Measures Relating to the Energy Sector, DS476, is the formal name of a case brought by the Russian Federation against the European Union and its member states in the World Trade Organization's Dispute Settlement Body.

In the 1990s, a trade dispute over fresh salmon arose between the Commonwealth nations of Canada and Australia. In 1995, Canada made a complaint to the World Trade Organization, of which both countries are members, about Australia's restriction on imports of fresh salmon, which were part of a quarantine measure for health purposes.

On August 29, 2013, an antidumping case involving South Korea began at the World Trade Organization over U.S. tariffs imposed on imported washing machines. South Korea exports around US$800 million–1 billion worth of washing machines to the United States per year. The machines are made in Mexico and South Korea. South Korea was notified by the WTO for consultations with the United States on anti-dumping and countervailing measures on South Korean "residential washers" by the US Department of Commerce. The case was brought by Whirlpool Corporation, one of the world's biggest appliance makers.

References

  1. ↑ "dispute settlement - the disputes - DS344". World Trade Organization. Retrieved 2015-09-30.
  2. ↑ "United States - Final Anti-Dumping Measures on Stainless Steel From Mexico". wto.org. World Trade Organization. 29 May 2013. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
  3. ↑ "Appendix L" (PDF). copyright.gov. 26 April 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
  4. ↑ "19 CFR". ww.law.cornell.edu. Cornell. 26 April 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
  5. ↑ "2015 Import Administrative AntiDumping Manual". enforcement.trade.gov. Government. 26 April 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
  6. ↑ "General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade". wto.org. World Trade Organization. April 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
  7. ↑ "Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994". wto.org. World Trade Organization. April 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.
  8. ↑ "Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization". wto.org. World Trade Organization. April 2015. Retrieved April 26, 2015.

Additional Source(s)

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.