Source

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) has given Europe, Japan and others the go-ahead to impose sanctions on a number of US companies dumping low-cost goods.

The sanctions are in retaliation for the Byrd Amendment, a rule that allows US firms to blow the whistle on "unfair" trade practices.

The $150m (£79m) in fines against the US could be imposed in early 2005.

Most of this will come from the EU and Japan, whose companies have been most affected by the Byrd Amendment.

Both have already presented the WTO with a list of products and goods they plan to hit, ranging from sweetcorn to metals to textiles.

US trade officials indicated that the US was willing to comply with its international obligations on the issue while vigorously defending its trading interests.

Retaliation

"We are continuing to work with Congress to bring the US into compliance and we are consulting with our trading partners on these efforts," said Richard Mills, spokesman for US trade representative Robert Zoellick.

"It is important to remember that these issues do not affect the ability of the United States to continue enforcing our trade laws," Mr Mills added.

Canada, which along with Brazil, South Korea, India, Mexico and Chile is involved in the complaint, said it was studying what it might impose sanctions on.

These countries, along with the EU and Japan, argue that the Byrd Amendment gives US companies an incentive to complain and is therefore against WTO anti-dumping agreements.

The US believes that companies that export products at a price below what they normally charge in their home market give unfair competition to domestic producers.

The case is the latest in a string of trade disputes dividing the EU and US.

[ 11-26-2004, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: dplax ]

The whole system is so ******* unjust. Nothing would do more to alleviate third world poverty than the EU and US both stopping subsidies of industries and lowering barriers to trade. Plus, if no subsidies or barriers existed it would prevent these tit-for-tat trade disputes that have no function but to strain diplomatic relations.

[ 11-26-2004, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

Notice that they retaliated to the Byrd amendment by seeking sanctions for practices exactly like those prohibited by the Byrd Amendment. Of course Japan and Europe are gonna flip over our measures to prevent their dumping of steel, etc. If they can just keep dumping unabated for a few years, they can drive our market to 0, and then grab a monopoly. ;) Dumping is wrong going either way -- suck it up.

I don't notice that. The Byrd amendment would fine foreign companies, and then give that fine money to those companies American competitors. This is one of the things that made the Byrd amendment so bad, it was a double hit for the companies involved. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the responses are going to involve the same sort of double penalty.

If the US economy couldn't deal with the trade agreements, then they should have never been approved in the first place. If you enter into an agreement that you think is unfair, then you should have never agreed to it in the first place.

[img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img] Translation: "Free Trade" isn't the goal, but rather "the best trade you can haggle for" is. [img]graemlins/biglaugh.gif[/img]

Besides, you ignore the fact that the WTO/GATT has been an ongoing treaty negotiation since 1944. It is constantly changing. Hopefully, toward more fairness. But, no country negotiates for fairness -- they all negotiate for favoratism. We just hope they end up getting somewhere near fairness.