Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-jr42d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T21:49:48.485Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

US – Lead and Bismuth II: United States – Imposition of Countervailing Duties on Certain Hot-Rolled Lead and Bismuth Carbon Steel Products Originating in the United Kingdom: Here Today, Gone Tomorrow? Privatization and the Injury Caused by Non-Recurring Subsidies*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In 1993, the US Department of Commerce began to levy countervailing duties on imports of certain leaded bars from the United Kingdom. The United States applied tariffs to goods imported from British Steel Engineering Steels, a subsidiary of British Steel plc. Following investigations by the US Department of Commerce and the United States International Trade Commission, the US authorities held that the imposition of duties was both required by Section 701 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (as amended) and not in violation of any of the country’s obligations as a member of the World Trade Organization.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2003

References

Brander, James A. and Spencer, Barbara J. 1985. Export Subsidies and International Market Share Rivalry. Journal of International Economics 18: 83100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Richard. 1989. Economic Foundations of Countervailing Duty Law. Virginia Journal of International Law 29: 767812.Google Scholar
Goetz, Charles J., Granet, , Lloyd, , and Schwartz, Warren F. 1986. The Meaning of “Subsidy” and “Injury” in the Countervailing Duty Law. International Review of Law and Economics 6: 1732.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1965. The Logic of Collective Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar