U.S. Department of Commerce announced on “the application of countervailing duty law to China’s” views were sought to 48, the most striking is China’s Ministry of Commerce and the views of the two Chinese companies, China represents the voice. The remaining points mostly from the United States, in favor of China showed overwhelming countervailing views.
The so-called countervailing investigation, the investigation of government subsidies provided to producers is causing the country’s exports unfair competitive advantage. If the United States recognized China’s application of countervailing duty law to China’s exports will lead to “anti-dumping” after another big worry. According to the U.S. vision for comment phase has ended, the final decision will be announced in the near future.
China’s Ministry of Commerce, made clear that the United States was against “the application of countervailing duty law to China,” comments the move, in terms of both form and content is not illegal.
On the form, the United States to allow non-parties and outside organizations in the legal limit proposal, discussion does not meet U.S. domestic law.
The content for the Chinese for “countervailing duty laws” inconsistent with relevant WTO rules, also in violation of relevant United States law. China’s Ministry of Commerce, citing seven legal basis for that purpose the United States on the one hand because of its anti-dumping China as a non-market economy, and also to apply for the Chinese market economy country, “the countervailing duty law,” which will result in China double counting of domestic subsidies.
Washington’s approach, Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd., and JHS Paper (Jiangsu) Co., Ltd. joint opinion letter submitted to the U.S. Department of Commerce, questioned the practice.
The joint opinion letter that the practice of the U.S. in the long form a more complete and clear “market economy”, and “non-market economy country” distinction between standards and the identification and specific methods for calculating income subsidies. The “anti-subsidy law” limited “market economy” approach is the basis of these two established. Now to change this practice, the United States must prove that these two areas have at least one of the new standards or practices.
U.S. participation in the discussion of the organizations involved in various industries, more focused on the forestry, steel, machinery manufacturing, etc.. In 46 organizations in favor of the majority opinion, account for almost 80%.
Almost unanimously in favor of the party in general will be aimed at China’s huge trade surplus with the United States, and that is precisely because the United States has not taken effective measures to deal with the Chinese government to give Chinese companies illegal subsidies to the Chinese in the manufacturing, iron and steel smelting industry and so long maintained against the United States an unfair advantage. In favor of the party also believes that policies 20 years ago, the “countervailing law” limited “market economy” has not meet the current situation.
The few voices of opposition, only the views of American Iron and Steel Association, the most comprehensive, including: “non-market economy” for “anti-subsidy law” unfair; will be double-counting of income subsidies unreasonable; hastily launched in China, “Countervailing Duty Law” is may cause material shortages, price increases, to the U.S. domestic economy instability.
I am China Manufacturers writer, reports some information about wedgewood fine china , segmented bowls.
Related U.s. Economy Articles