Transcript The History of the Byrd Amendment

Tendai Kavu
Jay Knodel
Christian Koschil
1
Continued Dumping and Subsidy
Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA)
2

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
3





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
4
Slide 3 of 25
5

Contested Measure

How the Byrd Amendment Works

Provisions involved
Slide 4 of 25
6

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
7

How the Byrd Amendment Works
Slide 6 of 25
8

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
9


Defendant: US
Plaintiffs: EU, Australia, Brazil,
Canada, Chile, Japan, India,
Indonesia, Mexico, Thailand.
Slide 8 of 25
10



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
11



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
12



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
13



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
14
Slide 13 of 25
15

ADA Art. 18.1 and ASCM Art. 32.1

Specific actions
Slide 14 of 25
16

ADA Art. 5.4 and ASCM Art. 11.4

Initiation of investigation
Slide 15 of 25
17

WTO Agreement Art. XVI:4

Conformity of laws
Slide 16 of 25
18

Specific Action

Investigations

Negotiating Undertakings
Slide 17 of 25
19

Specific Action

Investigations

Negotiating Undertakings
Slide 18 of 25
20
Slide 19 of 25
21



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
22



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
23




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
24




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
25





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
Slide 24 of 25
 Ended on 09/2007
26
27