1 / 21

Joshua Swarz Jeff Young Diego Velazquez Ian White

U.S. v China (Auto Parts) Pending Case #450 China v. U.S. (Various Products from China) Pending Case #449 China v. E.U. Pending Case #452 Japan (Steel) v. China Pending Case #454. Joshua Swarz Jeff Young Diego Velazquez Ian White. Introduction of U.S. v. China Pending Case #450.

hieu
Download Presentation

Joshua Swarz Jeff Young Diego Velazquez Ian White

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. v China (Auto Parts) Pending Case #450China v. U.S. (Various Products from China) Pending Case #449China v. E.U. Pending Case #452Japan (Steel) v. China Pending Case #454 Joshua Swarz Jeff Young Diego Velazquez Ian White

  2. Introduction of U.S. v. China Pending Case #450 • The case charges China with unfairly subsidizing exports of cars and auto parts. • Auto industry accounts for 52,400 jobs in Ohio. • In 2011, U.S. manufacturers produced over $350 billion worth of autos and auto parts. • In a typical year, auto and auto parts production in the U.S. accounts for 5% of GDP and 16% of all durable good shipments. • 2012 Election Year, President Obama brings forth this case in defense of U.S. autoworkers. • Mitt Romney accuses President Obama of not standing up to China on trade. • President Obama accuses Mitt Romney of outsourcing jobs to China and playing politics with the issue.

  3. U.S. v. China Pending Case #450 • Dispute DS450 • Main question of the case:Is China providing subsidies that are in direct violation of the above-mentioned Articles? • On 17 September 2012, the United States requested consultations with China concerning certain measures providing subsidies in the form of grants, loans, forgone government revenue, the provision of goods and services, and other incentives contingent upon export performance to automobile and automobile-parts enterprises in China. • The provision of subsidies to the automobile and auto-parts industries in China that would give an unfair advantage to these enterprises that are in direct competition with similar U.S. enterprises in both the global market and the national market of the United States.

  4. Principal WTO agreement(s) and article(s) involved • Articles 3, 25.1, 25.2, 25.3 and 25.4 of the SCM Agreement – Article 3 pertains to the prohibition of subsidies that are contingent upon export performance or the use of domestic over imported goods. Article 25 pertains to the divulgence of use of any subsidies, which shall still conform to other provisions agreed upon within the document, within a timely manner. • Article XVI:1 of the GATT 1994 – States that if any contracting party grants or maintains any subsidy which operates directly or indirectly to increase exports of any product or to reduce imports of any product into its territory, it shall notify the contracting parties in writing the extent and nature of the subsidization. • Paragraphs 1.2, 2(C)(1) and 2(C)(2) of Part I of China's Accession Protocol – These Paragraphs generally pertain to the agreement of China to adhere to all WTO law and regulations.

  5. Significance of the Case • China’s subsidies distort trade conditions for auto and auto parts manufacturers in the United States by providing an unfair advantage to China’s auto and auto-parts industries. This results in a loss of sales and market share in U.S. and world markets for competing U.S. auto and auto parts manufacturers and workers.

  6. Further thoughts: • Based on publicly available documents, the value of subsidies made available to auto and auto parts manufacturers in China between 2009 and 2011 was at least $1 billion. • In the years 2002 through 2011, the value of China’s exports of autos and auto parts increased more than nine-fold, from $7.4 billion to $69.1 billion. China rose from the world’s 16th largest to the 5th largest auto and auto parts exporter during his period. • The United States was China’s largest export market for auto parts in the years 2002 through 2011 • Eliminating export subsidies produces real, job-supporting results for American firms and working families • In 2011, the United States produced over $350 billion worth of auto and auto parts, and production of these parts accounts for about five percent of GDP • As of July 2012, the auto and auto parts manufacturing sector employed nearly 800,000 American workers. • In 2011, the United States exported $123 billion of autos and auto parts, supporting the jobs of thousands of American workers.

  7. Introduction of China v. U.S. Pending Case #449 • This case was filed the same day as case #450. • These two cases have been viewed as a good example of the political implications of trade negotiations. • The background of the case involves China bringing a case against the U.S. and accusing the U.S. of imposing countervailing duties on paper, steel, tires, magnets, chemicals, kitchen appliances, wood flooring, and wind towers.

  8. U.S. v. China Pending Case #449 • Dispute DS449 • On 17 September 2012, China requested consultations with the United States concerning four issues: • (i) a new piece of legislation (Public Law 112-99) that explicitly allows for the application of countervailing measures to non-market economy countries; • (ii) countervailing duty determinations or actions made or performed by US authorities between 20 November 2006 and 13 March 2012 in respect of Chinese products; • (iii) anti-dumping measures associated with the concerned countervailing duty measures as well as the combined effect of these anti-dumping measures and the parallel countervailing duty measures • (iv) the United States' failure to provide the US Department of Commerce (USDOC) with legal authority to identify and avoid the double remedies in respect of investigations or reviews initiated on or between 20 November 2006 and 13 March 2012.

  9. Principal WTO agreement(s) and article(s) involved • Articles 10, 15, 19, 21 and 32 of the SCM Agreement – These articles pertain to the insurance that any imposition of countervailing duties will be in accordance with the provisions of Article VI of GATT 1994, shall be based on positive evidence, and shall remain in force only as long as is necessary to counteract the injuring subsidization • Articles VI, X:1, X:2 and X:3 of the GATT 1994 – These articles pertain to the right of contracting parties to apply anti-dumping measures, the necessity of a timely formal notice of any anti-dumping measures and the right of all parties to put forth evidence which they consider relevant. • Articles 9 and 11 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement – These articles pertain to the amount, method, and manner in which countervailing and anti-dumping duties shall be implemented and collected.

  10. Basic Principle Involved: • The U.S. Public Law 112-99 allows the U.S. to apply countervailing duty and anti-dumping provisions on 24 Chinese products amounting to US$7.23 billion, including paper, steel, photovoltaic cells (cells used in solar panels), tires, magnets, chemicals, kitchen appliances, wood flooring, and wind towers. • PL 112-99 was signed into law on March 13, 2012.

  11. Significance of the Case for U.S. Trade Policy • China is disputing the ability of the U.S. to implement anti-dumping and countervailing duties on certain Chinese imports, particularly the ability of the U.S. to apply both of these duties simultaneously. Finally, China claims the United States has failed to provide the USDOC with the legal authority to identify and avoid the double remedies in respect of investigations or reviews. • At its meeting on December 17, 2012, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Canada, the EU, Japan, Turkey, and Vietnam reserved their third party rights. Subsequently, India and the Russian Federation reserved their third party rights. On February 21, 2013, China requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel. On March 4, 2013, the Director General composed the panel. On September 11, 2013, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that it expects to issue its final report to the parties by December 2013, in accordance with the timetable adopted after consultation with the parties.

  12. Further thoughts: • PL 112-99 was signed into law by President Obama on March 13,. The legality of PL 112-99 is currently being contested in the US court system. • China alleges that the United States: (i) did not publish the provisions of Section 1 of PL 112-99 in a prompt manner so as to allow companies and other WTO members to become acquainted with them; and (ii) enforced PL 112-99 prior to its official publication • China allegesthat the United States Department of Commerce has not taken steps, nor has the legal authority to, investigate and avoid double remedies in AD/CVD investigations and reviews initiated between November 30, 2006 and March 13, 2012.

  13. Introduction of China v. E.U. Pending Case #452 • This case was brought in response to an E.U. complaint against China. • The accusation was that China was dumping solar panels into the E.U. market. • China in response contends that certain E.U. countries (Italy & Greece) had additional subsidies for local producers. • Canada had lost a similar case in the WTO.

  14. China v. E.U. Pending Case #452 • E.U., specifically Greece & Italy, passed laws guaranteeing purchase of energy produced by renewable sources while requiring locally produced equipment. • The main question to be determined in this case was is it permissible for countries to require local content for companies to qualify for subsidies? • The main principle involved here is are these subsidies in violation of WTO principles?

  15. Principal WTO agreement(s) and article(s) involved • GATT 1994 Article I; Article III of SCM • Article VIII of the Agreement on Trade Related investment Measures (TRIM)

  16. Significance of the Case for U.S. Trade Policy and Further Thoughts • Many states offer concessions for locating plants in their localities. • Japan and EU had just won a similar case against Ontario, Canada. • US also has a similar case India involved local content requirement. • Current Status: • On 16 November 2012, Japan requested to join the consultations. Australia and Argentina requested to join the consultations a few days later. The European Union informed the DSB that it had accepted the request of Japan to join the consultations.

  17. Introduction of Japan v. China, Pending Case #454 • Case was filed the day after Japan won a WTO ruling against Canada and four days after a landslide election win for the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan. • Complaint seeks to overturn China’s decision to levy anti-dumping duties on Japanese stainless steel tubes. • Chinese duties also targeted the E.U. with a 9.7% tariff on imports from Tubacex S.A. and a 11.1% on products from Salzgitter A.G.

  18. Japan v. China Pending Case #454 • China is imposing anti-dumping duties against Japanese stainless steel tubes used in boilers. • The basic principle involved here is China had not disclosed its methodology for determining that Japanese products were being dumped, thus harming domestic producers. • The basic question to be determined is whether China’s dumping calculation methodologies were sound.

  19. Principal WTO agreement(s) and article(s) involved • GATT 1994 Article VI Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties

  20. Significance of the Case for U.S. Trade Policy and Further Thoughts • Many other countries have complained about China’s application of its anti-dumping policy. • U.S. and E.U. also complain about Chinese methodologies for calculating dumping determinations. • Current Status: • The DSB established a panel on May 24, 2013. The European Union, India, Korea, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United States reserved their third party rights to the case. On 17 July 2013, Japan requested the Director‑General to compose the panel. The Director-General composed the panel 12 days later.

  21. Bibliography: • http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/us/politics/in-car-country-obama-trumpets-china-trade-case.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 • http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2012/september/wto-case-challenging-chinese-subsidies • http://www.ustr.gov/about-us/press-office/fact-sheets/2012/september/wto-case-challenging-chinese-subsidies • China Securities Journal. Detailed Rules on Promoting the Growth of Foreign Trade to Be Introduced before the National Day. www.cs.com.cn. • http://about.bloomberglaw.com/practitioner-contributions/wave-of-trade-disputes-complicates-global-market-for-renewable-energy-firms-particularly-solar-sector/ • http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/20/china-japan-trade-dispute-idUSL5E8NK5HE20121220

More Related