• ITVI.USA
    15,845.180
    -15.980
    -0.1%
  • OTLT.USA
    2.806
    0.013
    0.5%
  • OTRI.USA
    21.590
    0.130
    0.6%
  • OTVI.USA
    15,846.760
    -20.840
    -0.1%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    2.950
    -0.570
    -16.2%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.610
    0.650
    22%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.370
    -0.240
    -14.9%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    3.550
    0.210
    6.3%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    2.320
    0.220
    10.5%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    4.110
    0.250
    6.5%
  • WAIT.USA
    126.000
    0.000
    0%
  • ITVI.USA
    15,845.180
    -15.980
    -0.1%
  • OTLT.USA
    2.806
    0.013
    0.5%
  • OTRI.USA
    21.590
    0.130
    0.6%
  • OTVI.USA
    15,846.760
    -20.840
    -0.1%
  • TSTOPVRPM.ATLPHL
    2.950
    -0.570
    -16.2%
  • TSTOPVRPM.CHIATL
    3.610
    0.650
    22%
  • TSTOPVRPM.DALLAX
    1.370
    -0.240
    -14.9%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXDAL
    3.550
    0.210
    6.3%
  • TSTOPVRPM.PHLCHI
    2.320
    0.220
    10.5%
  • TSTOPVRPM.LAXSEA
    4.110
    0.250
    6.5%
  • WAIT.USA
    126.000
    0.000
    0%
American Shipper

WTO sides with U.S. in Chinese tire dispute

WTO sides with U.S. in Chinese tire dispute

   The World Trade Organization Appellate Body on Monday found in favor of the United States in a dispute brought by China challenging the imposition of additional duties on imports of Chinese tires.

   A WTO panel rejected all of China's claims against the United States, finding it acted consistently with its WTO obligations in imposing the additional duties. The appellate body, in turn, rejected all of China's claims on appeal.

   'We have said all along that President Obama's decision to impose duties on Chinese tires was fully consistent with our WTO obligations,' said U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, in a statement.

Kirk

   On Sept. 11, 2009, the White House imposed additional duties on imports of certain passenger vehicle and light truck tires from China for a period of three years to remedy the market disruption caused by those imports, as determined by the U.S. International Trade Commission. This safeguard measure was imposed in response to a petition filed by the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers Union under the 1974 Trade Act.

   China alleged the ITC's determination regarding market disruption and the level and duration of the additional duties were inconsistent with the WTO's Protocol of Accession and the 1994 GATT. In addition, China alleged the section 421 of the 1974 Trade Act definition of 'significant cause' was in inconsistent with the Protocol of Accession. A WTO panel sided with the United States and rejected all of China's claims in a report circulated in December 2010. China then appealed the panel's findings regarding the ITC determination.

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.