Team 4: The byrd amendment

1. Team 4: The byrd amendment Tendai Kavu Jay Knodel Christian Koschil

2. The History of the Byrd Amendment Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA)

3. What is the Byrd Amendment? • Under the Byrd Amendment (which amended the Tariff Act of 1930, the principal U.S. trade remedy statute), anti-dumping and countervailing duties are given to U.S. producers who supported those trade remedy actions. These duties were previously deposited in the U.S. Treasury. • Slide 1 of 25

4. How did the CDSOA pass? • Main Proponent - Democratic Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia • Originally authored by Senator DeWine of Ohio but couldn’t pass the house for “legality” reasons. • Byrd affixed the CDSOA to the 2006 Omnibus Agricultural Spending bill, Public Law 106-387. • President Clinton signed the bill under the condition that the CDSOA later be removed. • The CDSOA remained in effect until the end of September of this year. • Slide 2 of 25

5. Where are we now? • Slide 3 of 25

6. Main WTO Issues: Is the CDSOA legal or does it break WTO rules? • Contested Measure • How the Byrd Amendment Works • Provisions involved • Slide 4 of 25

7. The Main WTO Issue • Contested Measure • US Continued Dumping and Subsidy Act of 2000 (CDSOA) • aka Byrd Amendment • “revenue from unfair trade should be used to help those hurt by trade” • Slide 5 of 25

8. The Main WTO Issue • How the Byrd Amendment Works • Slide 6 of 25

9. The Main WTO Issue • Provisions involved: • ADA Art. 18.1 and ASCM Art. 32.1 • Specific action • ADA Art. 5.4 and ASCM Art. 11.4 • Initiation of investigation • WTO Agreement Art. XVI:4 • Conformity of laws • Slide 7 of 25

10. Parties to the Amendment • Defendant: US • Plaintiffs: EU, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Japan, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand. • Slide 8 of 25

11. Position of the Main Parties • US enacted the CDSOA to protect domestic producers from unfairly priced imports. • In fiscal year 2002, US claimants received disbursements of $329 million. • US argued that the CDSOA constituted a spending decision and did not violate any agreements. • Slide 9 of 25

12. CDSOA was inserted into an Farm appropriations bill without committee or floor amendment. • President Bush budget for 2004 called for a repeal of the law after the disbursements of that year. • Senator Charles Grassley stated that “a repeal is unlikely, if not impossible. • Slide 10 of 25

13. WTO and the complainants to the case saw the CDSOA as more than a safeguard. • Imports were assessed an AD or CVD’s and the money paid out to domestic producers each year. • As the architect of the WTO the US should be one setting an example for others to follow. A rules based system upon which the WTO was founded. • Slide 11 of 25

14. National vs. International Interests • Few companies benefited from the CDSOA. • As the CDSOA is still in effect until 09/30/2007 the US continues to be hit with higher tariffs by other member states. • The CDSOA indicates a case of good politics at the expense of good governance. • Slide 12 of 25

15. CDSOA Provisions • Slide 13 of 25

16. Provisions • ADA Art. 18.1 and ASCM Art. 32.1 • Specific actions • Slide 14 of 25

17. Provisions • ADA Art. 5.4 and ASCM Art. 11.4 • Initiation of investigation • Slide 15 of 25

18. Provisions • WTO Agreement Art. XVI:4 • Conformity of laws • Slide 16 of 25

19. Decisions of the Panel • Specific Action • Investigations • Negotiating Undertakings • Slide 17 of 25

20. Decisions of the AB • Specific Action • Investigations • Negotiating Undertakings • Slide 18 of 25

21. Implementation And Sanctions • Slide 19 of 25

22. Implementation and Sanctions • 6/13/ 2003 Arbitrator issues awards to the parties. • US was given 11 months in which to implement the DSB recommendations and rulings. • Expiration of this “reasonable time” was set for 12/27/2003. • Slide 20 of 25

23. 1/15/2004 Brazil, Chile, EC, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico request DSB authorization to suspend concessions. • 1/23/2004 US requests arbitration regarding suspension of concessions. • Arbitrator disagreed with the interpretation of the complainants as it was not supported by the terms of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 or the DSU. • Slide 21 of 25

24. 11/10/2004 Brazil, EC, India, Japan, Korea, Canada, Mexico requested authorization to suspend concessions under Article 22.7 of the DSU. • 11/26/2004 DSB authorized suspension of concessions. • 12/6/2004 Chile requested authorization to suspend concessions. • 12/17/2004 DSB authorized suspension of concessions. • Slide 22 of 25

25. 2/17/2006 Congress approved the Deficit Reduction Act bringing the US into compliance. • Complainants welcomed the steps taken but disagreed that the US was now in compliance. • 4/28/2006 EC notified DSB of a new list of products on which additional duty would apply. • 4/19/2007 EC notified DSB of a new list of products that would be subject to additional duties. • Slide 23 of 25

26. Recap & Conclusion • Main WTO Issue • Specific actions • Main parties • EU and 10 other Member countries • Decision • Panel/AB concluded nonconformity • Implementation • 15% tariffs on selected goods • Status • Repealed on 02/2006 • Ended on 09/2007 • Slide 24 of 25

27. Questions?