• ITVI.USA
    15,615.260
    270.480
    1.8%
  • OTLT.USA
    2.852
    -0.002
    -0.1%
  • OTRI.USA
    19.840
    0.040
    0.2%
  • OTVI.USA
    15,608.360
    280.700
    1.8%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    2.890
    0.070
    2.5%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.540
    -0.040
    -1.1%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.290
    0.030
    2.4%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    3.660
    0.010
    0.3%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    2.360
    0.030
    1.3%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    4.100
    0.080
    2%
  • WAIT.USA
    129.000
    2.000
    1.6%
  • ITVI.USA
    15,615.260
    270.480
    1.8%
  • OTLT.USA
    2.852
    -0.002
    -0.1%
  • OTRI.USA
    19.840
    0.040
    0.2%
  • OTVI.USA
    15,608.360
    280.700
    1.8%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    2.890
    0.070
    2.5%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.540
    -0.040
    -1.1%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.290
    0.030
    2.4%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    3.660
    0.010
    0.3%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    2.360
    0.030
    1.3%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    4.100
    0.080
    2%
  • WAIT.USA
    129.000
    2.000
    1.6%
American Shipper

Canada knocks U.S. lumber levies

Two World Trade Organization dispute panels will examine antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of softwood.

   The World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Body agreed Monday to establish two dispute panels at Canada’s request to examine U.S. antidumping and countervailing duties on imports of softwood lumber.
   Among Canada’s complaints is that the United States’ application of a weighted-average-to-transaction pricing calculation methodology failed to properly aggregate random and unrelated price variations and therefore didn’t identify a pattern of export prices as required by the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, a Geneva trade official said in a Monday email.
   Under the pricing methodology, the weighted average normal value of a good can be compared to export prices on individual transactions, and that comparison then is used as a basis for calculating dumping margins.
   Per the agreement, national investigating authorities must explain why price differentials can’t be taken into account in weighted average-to-weighted average or transaction-to-transaction comparisons in order for a WTO member to be allowed to employ the pricing methodology.
   That agreement generally bars WTO members’ investigating officials from including in weighted average dumping margin calculations any dumping margins that are zero, de minimis or based on facts available rather than a full investigation. Canada’s March 16 request for dispute panel formation also stated that the United States improperly applied zeroing in its calculation methodology.
   But the notice of the Commerce Department’s initial final affirmative determination of dumping of Canadian softwood appears to claim that the United States didn’t use zeroing in its dumping calculations.
   “For the final determination, the department calculated individual estimated weighted-average dumping margins for Canfor, Resolute, Tolko and West Fraser, none of which are zero, de minimis or based entirely on facts otherwise available,” Commerce said.
   Commerce issued amended final AD and CV duty determinations on Canadian softwood in January, and the AD determination didn’t indicate any zero rate for respondents.
   The United States is collecting AD duties on Canadian softwood of up to 7.28 percent.
   During the Monday settlement body meeting, an official representing the United States said this country was “disappointed” with Canada’s decision to move forward in requesting a dispute panel.
   Canada also alleged during the meeting that U.S. CV duties of up to 17.99 percent finalized in January on Canadian softwood are inconsistent with U.S. obligations under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
   A potential indicator of how softwood CV dispute proceedings will progress lies in a WTO dispute panel’s January decision to affirm Commerce’s methodology in calculating CV duties on coated paper from Indonesia because of that country’s log export ban, three Dickinson Wright attorneys wrote in February.
   “The WTO panel found no error with the U.S. methodology for calculating the benefit attributable to Indonesia’s log export restrictions,” wrote attorneys Brenda Swick, Daniel Ujczo and Dylan Augruso. “There was no appeal.”
   The U.S. “no doubt” will feel emboldened by the recent WTO win, the attorneys wrote.

We are glad you’re enjoying the content

Sign up for a free FreightWaves account today for unlimited access to all of our latest content

By signing in for the first time, I give consent for FreightWaves to send me event updates and news. I can unsubscribe from these emails at any time. For more information please see our Privacy Policy.