Statement of Administrative Action Accompanying the Uruguay round Agreements Act

Uruguay Round Agreements Act – Title I: Approval and General Provisions Concerning Uruguay Round Agreements – Subtitle A: Approval of Agreements and Related Provisions – declares that Congress approves: (1) the Uruguay Round Agreements concluded on 15 April 1994 in the framework of the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT); and (2) a declaration on proposed administrative measures to implement such agreements, submitted to Congress on 27 September 1994. (2) DETERMINATION BY ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITY.- Notwithstanding any provision of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Administrative Authority shall, within 180 days of receipt of a written request from the commercial agent, make a decision on the relevant procedure that would result in the Administrative Authority`s action described in paragraph (1) not being contrary to the findings of the Panel or the Appellate Body. 10 See section 351.211 of the Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duties Regulations, 19 C.F.R. Part 351 (Annex CDA-5). If no administrative review is requested, the Department of Commerce will normally request U.S. Customs to set anti-dumping or countervailing duties at rates equal to the cash payment of the estimated anti-dumping or countervailing duties required for the records in question. 3.6 If a judgment of the Dispute Settlement Body concludes that a measure taken by the ITC violates the United States` obligations under the Anti-Dumping Agreement or the Subsidy Agreement, the USTR may, pursuant to Article 129(a)(1), “request the Commission to submit an advisory report on whether Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930 [ ] allows the Commission to take measures [ ] that would lead to: that their actions are not contrary to the conclusions of the Panel or the Commission. Appellate Body”. When the ITC issues a report confirming that it can correct its actions in accordance with U.S. law, Section 129 authorizes the USTR to request the ITC to make a new decision to bring its claims into conformity with the findings of the DSB`s decision. In the absence of such a USTR direction, the ITC does not have the independent authority to review its decision to make it “non-inconsistent” with an adverse decision of the DPO. In its new conclusion, the ITC could (i) issue a new positive decision on the injury assessment or (ii) a new determination of negative injury (conclude that no injury is found to a domestic industry), depending on the result necessary to comply with the DSB ruling.

If the ITC finds negative injury, the USTR may, pursuant to Section 129(a)(6), order the Department of Commerce to “rescind all or part of the anti-dumping or countervailing duty order.” 3.11 The SAA deals specifically with the situation in which an anti-dumping or countervailing duty order is issued on the basis of a new finding by the Ministry of Commerce or itC (i.e. on the basis of findings on negative injury, dumping or subsidisation). It states that `if the implementation of a WTO report were to lead to the revocation of an [] injunction, [unliquidated] entries made before the date of the [USTR]`s [implementing order] would continue to be subject to a possible customs duty`. 13 Thus, the SAA confirms that, paragraph 1, the administrative review procedure for previous unsettled imports will be continued on the basis of a decision which, according to the findings, has not been substantiated and repealed by positive findings of injury, dumping or subsidisation in accordance with the WTO; and (2) customs responsibility for such entries will be determined by the Department of Commerce, without taking into account the new WTO-compliant provision. Subtitle C: Unfair Practices in Import Trade – Amends the Customs Act of 1930 to establish provisions relating to: (1) the conclusion of the ITC provisions on unfair trading practices; (2) the registration under customs seal of goods suspected of having been manufactured as a result of an unfair commercial practice; (3) injunctions in respect of the goods; (4) access to confidential information provided to the ITC during its investigation; (5) the suspension of actions pending before the CCI; and (6) jurisdiction over counterclaims for unfair commercial practices. 3.5 Article 129 of the URAA establishes procedures under U.S. law under which the United States may comply with adverse rulings by the DSB regarding its obligations under the Safeguards Convention, the Alzheimer`s Disease Convention of the Day and the SMC Convention in cases where implementation can be achieved through administrative measures without legal change. (ยง 115) Establishes consultation and stopover requirements for measures announced by the President.

2.7 An administrative review shall include a substantive, legal and factual analysis of whether imports of the product were dumped or subsidised during the period considered and, if so, to what extent.11 The facts relating to imports during the period considered will be examined for the first time in an administrative review. The law applied to an administrative review is the law as interpreted by the Department of Commerce at the time of its administrative review decision. The Ministry of Commerce`s interpretation of the underlying anti-dumping or countervailing customs laws or regulations may differ from the interpretation it used in the original investigation or in previous administrative reviews. 3.16 Article 1 of the AD Agreement requires that anti-dumping measures comply with the conditions of dumping and injury set out in Article VI of the GATT 1994 and that they be applied “in investigations initiated and conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement”. Therefore, an anti-dumping duty can only be applied in circumstances where the determinations of injury, dumping and cause necessary for the imposition of that duty are made in accordance with the AD Agreement. That requirement is supported by Article 9(1) of the AD Agreement, which provides that the `decision whether or not to impose an anti-dumping duty` and the `decision whether the anti-dumping duty to be imposed is the total or lower margin of dumping` are to be left to the discretion of the Member State. Article 18(1) provides that `no specific measures may be taken against the dumping of exports from another Member State if they do not comply with the provisions of GATT 1994 as interpreted in this Agreement`. Since Article VI is the only provision of the GATT 1994 dealing specifically with dumping measures, both Article 1 and Article 18. (1) of the AD Agreement prevent a Member from taking measures against dumping, unless this is done in accordance with Article VI.

3.24 The requirement for the Ministry of Commerce to continue to collect duties in administrative reviews pursuant to the original order also violates Article 21(1) of the SCM Agreement, which states that “a countervailing duty shall remain in force only for as long and as necessary to counteract subsidies causing injury”. Therefore, as long as a Member cannot prove the existence of a prejudicial subsidy, there is no reason for that Member to continue to collect a fee. In the circumstances in which the original order was revoked, there is no basis on which the Department of Commerce could decide that further subsidy determination and countervailing duty setting are necessary under that decision, as required by Article 21.1 of the SCM Agreement. In other cases where the Department of Commerce has determined that there is a lower level of subsidy than originally established, section 129(c)(1) prevents the Department of Commerce from reviewing this new provision in relation to previous unliquidated records. To consider, in the light of the relevant provisions of the covered agreements referred to by Canada in document WT/DS221/4, the subject matter to which Canada has referred in this document and to draw conclusions to assist the Dispute Settlement Body in making the recommendations or decisions provided for in those agreements.5 3.7 Where the dispute settlement judgment states that: that any action taken by the Department of Commerce is inconsistent with the provisions of the Department of Commerce. U.S. obligations under the AD Agreement or the SCM Agreement shall consult with the Department of Commerce and relevant congressional committees pursuant to Section 129(b)(1). Section 129(b)(2) requires the Department of Commerce to make a new WTO-compliant decision at the request of the USTR. Thereafter, pursuant to Section 129(b)(4), the USTR may instruct the Department of Commerce to implement all or part of its new provision.

(para. 216) Requires the managing authority, in countervailing and anti-dumping duty cases, to give exporters who have been the subject of agreements to eliminate the injurious effects of their exports or subsidies on their exports the reasons why they do not accept such agreements and to give them an opportunity to comment. 3.14 Article 129(c)(1) of the URAA violates Articles 1, 9.3, 11.1 and 18.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Articles VI(2) and VI(6)(a) of the GATT 1994 by requiring the Ministry of Commerce to conduct administrative reviews and impose anti-dumping duties on previous imports not disclosed after the date of transposition, notwithstanding the fact that: the elements that the United States needs to detect injurious dumping and impose duties, as provided for in the original provision, no longer exist […].