[USA21]

WTO Panel Rules Against Law on U.S. Punitive Import Duties

7/25/2002 5:37 PM

July 18, 2002 If the report becomes final - with a decision expected later this month - the U.S. will appeal, the official said.

"We vigorously defended the Byrd amendment, and we disagree with the panel ruling," the U.S. official said on condition of anonymity. "If this becomes final, we intend to appeal," the official said, adding that the ruling in no way affects the U.S. ability to impose antidumping duties or attack unfair trade practices.

At issue is an amendment to fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations legislation, put forward by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) that directs antidumping and countervailing duties from the general treasury and into financial aid for the industry petitioning for trade protection. At the time, the Clinton administration opposed the measure, saying that it would anger trading partners and invite WTO litigation. Indeed, the ruling is the result of a complaint brought by Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Mexico, and Thailand.

Canada's trade minister, Pierre Pettigrew, welcomed the decision. "This legislation is potentially harmful and disruptive to the international trading environment," Mr. Pettigrew said in a statement. "It means that the Byrd Amendment gives U.S. businesses a vested interest in having their government impose duties, because they would get a direct cut.

WTO panels generally issue their opinions to the parties involved for comment about a month before they issue a final report. Both sides in a dispute are allowed to request changes to the report, but in practice they are rarely made. "We believe Congress' ability to direct the use of duties is consistent with WTO rules," the official said.

-By Elizabeth Price, Dow Jones Newswires; 202-862-9295; Elizabeth.Price@dowjones.com

[Red Jones]

if the japanese lose the ability to produce food domestically due to WTO dictated rules, and then a war comes, they could be without food. They have a legitimate reason to do what they do. We are wrong to intervene.

If the Indians want to protect their unproductive domestic agriculture industry so that they can preserve jobs for 300 million people, then they should be allowed to. America is playing the role of bully and tyrant here. The elite's lust for 'globalism' is resulting in international organizations of un-elected people running roughshod over the legitimate laws made by elected lawmakers in various nations.

[brat]

Welcome to the NWO. Though I disagree with the farm subsidy, I am outraged that any internat'l body has the right to tell us what to do. This should alarm all of us!