Penalties against low-priced imports harassed foreign steel firms, trade
body says
BY MOYETTE GIBBONS Bloomberg News
GENEVA -- The World Trade Organization Monday upheld a decision that an
84-year-old United States law aimed at penalizing low-priced imports
violates global trade rules, forcing the United States to change the law
or face possible sanctions.
The decision backs a complaint by the European Union and Japan,
which charged that the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act breaks WTO rules by giving
American courts the power to impose criminal and civil penalties on
foreign firms.
"This is a victory for free and open trade," said Nicholas C.
Tolerico, executive vice president of Thyssen Inc., the largest importer
of steel to the United States and a division of Thyssen Krupp AG of
Germany. "The law was used to harass importers."
United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky said the
United States would review the WTO's decision before determining what
steps to take. Those steps could include changing the law or starting
legal action aimed at forcing the complainants to prove the 1916 Act
inflicts economic harm.
The WTO body "should not have assessed the 1916 Act under WTO
antidumping rules, because it is more akin to an antitrust law than an
antidumping law," Barshefsky said in a statement.
The ruling is the latest in a string of American defeats before the
WTO and comes after a February decision against offshore tax shelters
that save United States exporters billions of dollars a year. The trade
body set an Oct. 1 deadline for the United States to revise that law.
The ruling could fuel efforts by the EU, Japan, South Korea and
others to strike back at American moves to block steel imports. Japan
has already asked for a WTO panel to rule in a dispute over duties
imposed by the United States last year on hot-rolled steel.
The 15-nation EU brought its case two years ago on behalf of
Thyssen, which claims its steel plate shipments could be blocked by a
1998 suit by Geneva Steel Co. of Utah that was based on the 1916 law.
That case is pending. Tolerico, a former U.S. Commerce Department
official, said in an interview that Thyssen asked the EU to intervene
because the United States had pledged not to use the 1916 law in
anti-dumping cases.
Both the EU and Japan say the trade body's rules allow governments,
not courts, to impose penalties against "dumping" or the export of goods
below production cost.
"The European Commission welcomes this clear-cut condemnation of
this U.S. law, which has been evoked several times against EU companies
and is still used against them," the commission, the EU's executive arm,
said in a statement. "The 1916 act goes well beyond what the
anti-dumping provisions of the WTO allow."
The EU says the United States law is illegal because it carries the
threat of punishing importers by imposing "treble damages, fines or
imprisonment."
Japan and Russia were also targeted in a lawsuit brought by
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., a subsidiary of WHX Corp., in a 1998
suit based on the law.
The United States has argued that no ruling under the act has ever
led to penalties.
------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
body says
BY MOYETTE GIBBONS Bloomberg News
GENEVA -- The World Trade Organization Monday upheld a decision that an
84-year-old United States law aimed at penalizing low-priced imports
violates global trade rules, forcing the United States to change the law
or face possible sanctions.
The decision backs a complaint by the European Union and Japan,
which charged that the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act breaks WTO rules by giving
American courts the power to impose criminal and civil penalties on
foreign firms.
"This is a victory for free and open trade," said Nicholas C.
Tolerico, executive vice president of Thyssen Inc., the largest importer
of steel to the United States and a division of Thyssen Krupp AG of
Germany. "The law was used to harass importers."
United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky said the
United States would review the WTO's decision before determining what
steps to take. Those steps could include changing the law or starting
legal action aimed at forcing the complainants to prove the 1916 Act
inflicts economic harm.
The WTO body "should not have assessed the 1916 Act under WTO
antidumping rules, because it is more akin to an antitrust law than an
antidumping law," Barshefsky said in a statement.
The ruling is the latest in a string of American defeats before the
WTO and comes after a February decision against offshore tax shelters
that save United States exporters billions of dollars a year. The trade
body set an Oct. 1 deadline for the United States to revise that law.
The ruling could fuel efforts by the EU, Japan, South Korea and
others to strike back at American moves to block steel imports. Japan
has already asked for a WTO panel to rule in a dispute over duties
imposed by the United States last year on hot-rolled steel.
The 15-nation EU brought its case two years ago on behalf of
Thyssen, which claims its steel plate shipments could be blocked by a
1998 suit by Geneva Steel Co. of Utah that was based on the 1916 law.
That case is pending. Tolerico, a former U.S. Commerce Department
official, said in an interview that Thyssen asked the EU to intervene
because the United States had pledged not to use the 1916 law in
anti-dumping cases.
Both the EU and Japan say the trade body's rules allow governments,
not courts, to impose penalties against "dumping" or the export of goods
below production cost.
"The European Commission welcomes this clear-cut condemnation of
this U.S. law, which has been evoked several times against EU companies
and is still used against them," the commission, the EU's executive arm,
said in a statement. "The 1916 act goes well beyond what the
anti-dumping provisions of the WTO allow."
The EU says the United States law is illegal because it carries the
threat of punishing importers by imposing "treble damages, fines or
imprisonment."
Japan and Russia were also targeted in a lawsuit brought by
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp., a subsidiary of WHX Corp., in a 1998
suit based on the law.
The United States has argued that no ruling under the act has ever
led to penalties.
------------------
Bob--- Age and deceit will overcome youth and speed.
I'm old and deceitful.
FU WTO!! 