Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:07:50.531Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

11 - United States – Preliminary Determination with Respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada: What is a Subsidy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 July 2010

Henrik Horn
Affiliation:
Professor, Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm University Centre for Economic Policy Research, London
Petros C. Mavroidis
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, University of Neuchâtel and Columbia University Centre for Economic Policy Research, London
Henrik Horn
Affiliation:
Stockholms Universitet
Petros C. Mavroidis
Affiliation:
Université de Neuchâtel, Switzerland
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In August 2001, the United States Department of Commerce (USDOC) issued a preliminary determination that Canadian schemes for allocating standing timber to private harvesters – “stumpage” programs – provided countervailable subsidies to Canadian softwood lumber producers. It also preliminarily determined that critical circumstances existed in the US softwood lumber industry, caused by Canadian imports. Provisional measures were imposed on the basis of a preliminary subsidy rate of 19.31 percent, applicable to all producers/exporters, and applied to all entries of softwood lumber from Canada.

As an immediate response to the publication of the USDOC determination, Canada requested the establishment of a WTO panel. In its complaint, Canada argued that the USDOC Preliminary Countervailing Duty Determination (CDC), as well as the Preliminary Critical Circumstances Determination, violated various provisions in the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreement, as well as Art. VI:3 of GATT 1994. Canada also claimed that the US countervailing duty (CVD) law regarding expedited and administrative reviews, and the application of that law to the importation of Canadian softwood lumber, violated various provisions of the SCM Agreement.

Broadly speaking, the Panel found that the USDOC did not undertake an adequate countervailing duty determination, and that the CVDs imposed on the basis of this determination thus were illegal. The Panel also found that the SCM Agreement did not allow for the retroactive application of provisional measures, but that the US CVD law concerning expedited and administrative reviews was legal under the agreement.

Type
Chapter
Information
The WTO Case Law of 2002
The American Law Institute Reporters' Studies
, pp. 220 - 247
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bagwell, Kyle and Staiger, Robert W.. 2002. The Economics of the World Trading System. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grossman, Gene M. and Petros C. Mavroidis. 2003. United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom (WTO Doc. WT/DS138/AB/R): Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? In Horn, Henrik and Mavroidis, Petros C., Principles of World Trade Law: The World Trade Organization. The Case Law of 2001.Cambridge: The American Law Institute and Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Janow, Merit and Robert W. Staiger. 2003. United States – The Treatment of Export Restraints as Subsidies Under the Subsidies Agreement of the WTO. In Horn, Henrik and Mavroidis, Petros C., Principles of World Trade Law: The World Trade Organization. The Case Law of 2001. Cambridge: The American Law Institute and Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leamer, Edward. 2001. Do Log Export Restrictions in British Columbia Confer A Competitive Advantage on its Softwood Lumber Producers? Submission prepared for the British Columbia Trade Council and the Province of British Columbia.
Nordhaus, William D. 2001. An Economic Analysis of Whether Long-Term Tenure Systems in British Columbian Provincial Forests Provide Countervailable Subsidies to Softwood Lumber Imported into the United States. July 20. Submission prepared for the British Columbia Trade Council and the Province of British Columbia.
Sykes, Alan O. 2003. The Economics of WTO Rules on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. John M. Olin Program in Law & Economics Working Papers, No. 186: University of Chicago.

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×