WTO appeal body reverses lumber ruling

Reuters via Yahoo ^ | 8/15/2006

[markomalley]

The World Trade Organisation's Appellate Body, reversing an earlier panel report, on Tuesday ruled that the U.S. method for calculating anti-dumping duties on softwood lumber imports violated global free trade rules.

A WTO dispute panel on April 3 rejected a challenge brought by Canada against a U.S. method known as "zeroing" for calculating anti-dumping duties on billions of dollars worth of softwood lumber imports.

But in a 60-page ruling issued on Tuesday, the three judges on the WTO's Appellate Body -- its highest arbitration court -- found that the use of zeroing was inconsistent with the WTO's Anti-Dumping Agreement.

"The Appellate Body recommends that the (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) request the United States to bring its measure into conformity with its obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement," it said.

Either side has 30 days to ask the Dispute Settlement Body to adopt the ruling, which then becomes final unless there is a consensus against it. The DSB, composed of the WTO's 149 member states, is expected to meet in September.

At issue was the U.S. method of calculating margins of dumping in its softwood lumber analysis, which compared Canadian producers' export sales with their sales in Canada.

The Appellate Body found that the margins of dumping set up under the transaction-to-transaction methodology contravened the 1995 WTO anti-dumping pact as they distorted the prices of certain export transactions and artificially inflated the magnitude of dumping.

This resulted in higher margins of dumping and made a positive determination of dumping more likely.

[Darkwolf377]

A WTO dispute panel on April 3 rejected a challenge brought by Canada against a U.S. method known as "zeroing"

Funny how the folks around here who alerted me to an earlier pro-Canada ruling by the WTO somehow missed that one.

The WTO seems to be vying for the UN position of US-knuckle-smacker-in-chief.

[hedgetrimmer]

The article you linked to has a couple of critical paragraphs missing.

The restriction on "zeroing" ensures Canadians will win pending battles in U.S. courts investigating the dumping charges, said Elliot Feldman, attorney for part of the industry in the dispute.

"It's going to require U.S. courts to adjust and change their decisions. We will file today or tomorrow a subsequent authority with the NAFTA panel that is still out on the investigation to ask them to complete their decision," he said.

He will then do the same with the International Court of Trade, where another case is pending.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060815/wl_canada_nm/canada_trade_wto_lumber_col_2

"free traders" lie when they say "free trade" and NAFTA do not harm our sovereignty.

Why must attorneys file before a NAFTA tribunal and the International Court of Trade, even though the practice was accepted by US courts and produced by our elected representatives in Congress?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

We are WTOBorg. Resistance is futile.

[1rudeboy]

Win some, lose some. It is peculiar to see the rush to defend the right to pay, what, 27% more (?) for lumber while the Gulf Coast is roughly half rebuilt. And all for a product of an industry that the tree-huggers (with acquiesence of the government) are in the process of eliminating from the domestic market.

[Toddsterpatriot]

We must pay more for lumber, for our sovereignty!

[1rudeboy]

Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
--Ronald Reagan

[dljordan]

"Why must attorneys file before a NAFTA tribunal and the International Court of Trade, even though the practice was accepted by US courts and produced by our elected representatives in Congress?"

Haven't you seen all those cutesy commercials on the tube that say "Globalize Yourself"? Why, the worlds going to be a veritable utopia when all you old nationalistic farts die off. Get with the program! :)

[1rudeboy]

Or maybe because the two parties in this case, Canada and the U.S., agreed in advance to resolve disputes using this method?

[dljordan]

"Or maybe because the two parties in this case, Canada and the U.S., agreed in advance to resolve disputes using this method?"

I reject your explanation and instead insert my own reality. It's so much easier that way.:)

[1rudeboy]

I am not opposed to alternative realities. Just not when I'm driving.

[Robert A Cook PE]

International control grows more strong ....

Hate to see a fight between Canada and the US though.