Posted on 04/03/2006 7:03:33 PM PDT by nypokerface
OTTAWA (AFP) - Canada's legal footing in a longstanding and bitter trade dispute with the United States over lumber was shaken by a WTO ruling that upheld US assertions Canada dumped softwood into its markets.
The WTO panel found the US Department of Commerce was correct in its calculations that Canadian firms had sold timber cheaper in the United States than at home or below their production costs.
The decision follows a previous WTO ruling that maintained how the United States calculated duties imposed on Canadian southbound softwood exports and a litany of NAFTA judgments that favored both sides on separate occasions.
Canada immediately disputed the decision, which comes days after its Prime Minister Stephen Harper and US President George W. Bush agreed to appoint special envoys to look into ways to kick start talks to end the trade row.
"We disagree with the WTO decision," Brooke Grantham, a spokesman for Canada's international trade department told AFP. "We're carefully considering our options, including a possible appeal."
"The government of Canada continues to believe that a negotiated resolution is in the best interest of both countries. But if there is not a resolution, we will continue to pursue all our legal options and to support Canada's lumber industry," he added.
Canada broke off talks last year to protest a US decision to continue to collect duties on Canadian softwood imports despite a NAFTA ruling that Canadian imports of softwood lumber had not harmed the US lumber industry.
Canada is seeking a refund of 4.5 billion US dollars in duties on Canadian softwood imports since May 2002, but the United States has balked at the demands.
Instead, US officials have repeatedly pressed for a negotiated settlement.
Last month, a North American Free Trade Agreement panel ruled that Canada does not substantially subsidize its lumber industry and that the United States was wrong to have imposed punitive duties.
If this latest WTO ruling is not overturned on appeal, Canada would lose the right to retaliate against the United States with duties of its own to recoup its losses, officials said.
As you consider this, you should understand that the U.S. stance in the softwood lumber dispute actually has nothing to do with protecting the U.S. lumber industry. In fact, it actually has virtually nothing to do with lumber at all -- except insofar as it effectively enhances the profitability of lumber producers in key GOP strongholds like Georgia and North Carolina.
You seem to want an arguement. I just posted some info to outline the difference between a WTO ruling and a NAFTA ruling.
As is the norm in these disputes each side is convinced god is on his side. So why do you keep bringing up this Pride bullshit.
Yet the Uruguay round of GATT passed both houses of Congress by a two-thirds majority. It never ceases to amaze me that someone could think that this vote was unconstitutional and that they're all traitors for representing the wishes of their constituencies. I'm still waiting for you to show us any settled litigation showing GATT to be unconstitutional. It's been more than 10 years now. You'd think some protectionist would have challenged it by now.
This a contrast of incompatible logic systems. One says that constitutionality is something that must be proven in say, a court of law. The other says that trade agreements are unconstitutional because well, they just are!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.