1996

Abstract

On 19 May 2000, Canada requested consultations with the US regarding certain US measures that treat a restraint on exports of a product as a subsidy to other products made using or incorporating the restricted product if the domestic price of the restricted product is affected by the restraint. The measures at issue included provisions of the Statement of Administrative Action (SAA) accompanying the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) (H.R. 5110, H.R. Doc. 316, Vol. 1, 103d Cong., 2d Sess., 656, in particular at 925-926 (1994)) and the Explanation of the Final Rules, US Department of Commerce, Countervailing Duties, Final Rule (63 Federal Register 65,348 at 65,349-51 (Nov. 25, 1998)) interpreting section 771(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 USC. § 1677(5)), as amended by the URAA. Canada’s claims were as follows: Canada considered that these measures were inconsistent with US obligations under Articles 1.1, 10, (as well as Articles 11, 17 and 19, as they relate to the requirements of Article 10), and 32.1 of the SCM Agreement because these measures provide that the US will impose countervailing duties against practices that are not subsidies within the meaning of Article 1.1 of the SCM Agreement. Canada also considered that the US has failed to ensure that its laws, regulations and administrative procedures are in conformity with its WTO obligations as required by Article 32.5 of the SCM Agreement and Article XVI:4 of the WTO Agreement.

Countries: United States
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/reports/25189832/71
2001-06-29
2024-11-07
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/reports/25189832/71
Loading
  • Published online: 29 Jun 2001
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error
aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cud3RvLWlsaWJyYXJ5Lm9yZy8K