:: rawblogXport ::

:: Monday, May 31, 2004 ::

U.S. officials still refuse to recognize softwood decision backing Canada Canadian Press
The U.S. Commerce Department is sharply criticizing a NAFTA panel that ruled twice in Canada's favour in the multibillion-dollar softwood lumber dispute.

In a release Friday, the department's International Trade Commission said the trade panel has been unfair, exceeded its authority and violated U.S. law in deciding the American lumber industry hasn't proven it's suffering serious damage from Canadian exports.
-----------------------------------
U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
"The Commission's request for reconsideration on Softwood Lumber"
http://www.usitc.gov/7ops/nafta-swl.reqreconsider.pdf
Conclusion
Given the Panel’s violation of U.S. law and basic tenets of fairness in refusing to grant the Commission a reasonable amount of time to respond to the Panel’s determination, the Commission seeks a reconsideration of its request for an extension of time to reopen the record and to reply fully to the Panel’s determination. The Commission seeks a reconsideration in light of the all of the record evidence and the analysis provided by the Commission in its original determination and its remand determination of the Panel’s conclusions that:
1) the Commission’s determination that the U.S. softwood lumber industry is threatened with material injury is not supported by substantial evidence;
2) the Commission’s findings regarding Canadian producers’ excess production and projected increases in capacity, capacity utilization and production related to increases in imports were not supported by substantial evidence;
3) the Commission’s findings regarding the volume of imports and the rate of increase in the volume or market penetration of imports were not supported by substantial evidence;
4) the Commission’s determination that Canadian softwood lumber was entering the U.S. market at prices that are likely to have a significant depressing or suppressing effect on domestic prices was not supported by substantial evidence; and
5) the Commission’s finding that the domestic industry had curbed its overproduction was not supported by substantial evidence.

posted 6:41 AM :: reference link :: 0 comments ::

-------------------------------------------