Softwood Lumber Agreement 2018

Red Fish Kitchen > Softwood Lumber Agreement 2018
  • Date: October 8, 2021
  • Comments (0)

On February 3, 2020, the U.S. Department of Commerce issued its preliminary determination for the first administrative review (AR1) in connection with anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) investigations on imports of certain coniferous products from Canada. On January 3, 2018, the U.S. Department of Commerce published countervailing duties (CVD) and anti-dumping duties (AD) in the Federal Registry. “Our government is extremely disappointed by the DECISION of the NAFTA body that upholds the JANUARY 2018 USITC provision on factual violations,” Doug Donaldson, Minister of Forests, Land, Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development, said in a news release. Q. When will Canadian shippers have to start paying cash deposits for coniferous timber shipments to the United States? A: As of April 28, all companies will have to pay cash deposits to cover the provisional countervailing duty. According to the U.S. ruling The Department of Commerce, Canfor, West Fraser, Tolko and Resolute are not required to pay retroactive tariffs. Cash deposits for these companies began with shipments that crossed the border on or later April 28.

All other Canadian shippers will have to pay the provisional CVD rate of 19.88% for shipments starting on January 28 or 90 days before the CVD order is published in the federal registry. J.D. Irving received a retroactive duty of 3.02%. On the other hand, the major sectoral organizations in the United States do not want to renew the treaty. The Executive Director of the U.S. Lumber Coalition, Zoltan Van Heyningen, expressed disapproval of the current format of the agreement. One reason for this is the evolution of the cost of softwood lumber, which the United States believes has not been included in the costs of B.C wood. The Coalition of Members stresses that if negotiations fail, its legal position to ask the US Department of Commerce to file a new case is certain. B.C. Premier John Horgan, whose softwood lumber industry has been particularly struggling in the province in recent years, said the news of the reduced tariffs was “welcome,” but reiterated Ng`s criticism. The interim finding orders the U.S. Customs and Border Guard Agency to require cash bonds for tariffs on all new imports and softwood products imported in the past 90 days.

However, to remain in effect, tariffs must be concluded by trade and then confirmed by the U.S. International Trade Commission following an investigation that contains testimony from both sides. [37] In response, the Canadian federal government indicated that it was studying the possibility of banning the export of U.S. coal through Canadian ports and imposing a retaliatory duty on Oregon timber exports. [38] In November 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission decided to impose high countervailing and anti-dumping duties on softwood lumber imports, stating that the United States had been harmed by unfair practices. [39] The crux of the case is the assertion that the Canadian softwood lumber industry is unduly subsidized by the federal and provincial governments, since most of the softwood lumber in Canada is owned by provincial governments. The prices of timber harvesting (stump fees) are set administratively and not in the competitive market that is the norm in the United States. In the United States, softwood land is privately owned and the owners are an effective political lobby. The United States argues that the Canadian agreement constitutes an unfair subsidy and is therefore subject to U.S. recourse laws, where subsided foreign trade may be subject to a countervailing duty to offset the subsidy and put the price of the product back on the market. The beginning of the coniferous timber dispute, commonly known as Lumber I, began in 1982, when the U.S.

softwood lumber industry sent a petition to the United States. Department of Commerce (DoC) to impose a countervailing duty. In the end, the DoC found that Canada`s stump system was not specific to a single sector and was therefore not questionable. [10] While the DoC made this claim, the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) found that these Canadian imports were in fact impediments to the United States. . . .