Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T05:26:08.019Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (WT/DS217/AB/R: DSR 2003:I,375)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 September 2015

Henrik Horn  and
Petros C. Mavroidis
Henrik Horn
Affiliation:
Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm University
Petros C. Mavroidis
Affiliation:
Columbia Law School, New York and University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland
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.

On January 16, 2003, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) issued its report on the appeal by the United States (US) of the Panel decision in United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000. The report concerns the consistency of the United States Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (the “CDSOA,” or the so-called Byrd Amendment) with several WTO provisions. This legislation requests the federal state to distribute proceeds from antidumping and countervailing duties to all US economic operators that have supported a request previously submitted to the ratione materiae competent US authority to investigate alleged dumping or subsidization. The appeal was directed against the Panel’s finding that the Byrd legislation was inconsistent with the US obligations under the WTO Antidumping Agreement (AD), and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). A total of 11 complainants (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European Community, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand), and five additional third parties (Argentina, Costa Rica, Hong Kong (China), Israel, and Norway), evidence the interest among WTO Members in the issues at stake in the dispute.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 5 , Special Issue S1: WTO Case Law of 2003 , 2006 , pp. 52 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2006

References

Bhagwati, J. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2004). Killing The Byrd Amendment With The Right Stone, World Trade Review 3: 119–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collie, D. R. and Vandenbussche, H. (2004). Anti-dumping Duties and the Byrd Amendment (mimeo).Google Scholar
Grossman, G. and Mavroidis, P. C. (2004). 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. In Horn, H. and Mavroidis, P. C. eds., The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies – The WTO Case Law of 2001. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar