Skip Navigation
| Skip Navigation |
|
|
|
|
|
GATT refers to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Unless stated otherwise, all years referred to in the text are calendar years. Numbers in the text and tables may not add up to totals because of rounding. Cover photo shows cargo being unloaded at the port of Newark, New Jersey, in 1971. (U.S. News & World Report Collection, Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress.) |
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied U.S. antidumping and countervailing-duty laws and policy at the request of the Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Trade of the Committee on Ways and Means. In May 1994, CBO published a paper, "A Review of U.S. Antidumping and Countervailing-Duty Law and Policy," in order to assist the Congress as it developed legislation to carry out the agreement reached during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. This report, which was prepared by Bruce Arnold of CBO's Natural Resources and Commerce Division, under the supervision of Elliot Schwartz and Jan Paul Acton, contains a more detailed discussion of the topic.
The study concludes that U.S. laws treat the pricing of imports in the U.S. market differently than they treat the pricing of domestically produced goods. Over time, the antidumping and countervailing-duty laws have become a general source of protection for U.S. firms from foreign competition. In keeping with CBO's mandate to provide nonpartisan analysis, the study makes no recommendations.
The earlier drafts of this study were reviewed by a number of individuals representing a variety of viewpoints on trade law and policy. Their comments and questions led to a clarification and strengthening of the analysis, although they do not necessarily agree with the conclusions. The author particularly wishes to thank Joseph E. Stiglitz, Council of Economic Advisors; Susan G. Esserman, Department of Commerce; Nancy E. Schwartz, Office of Management and Budget; Alfred E. Eckes, Ohio University; Emil Friberg, General Accounting Office; Leonard M. Shambon, law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering; and Thomas R. Howell and Alan William Wolff, law firm of Dewey Ballentine. Within CBO, Mark Booth, Robert A. Dennis, Daniel Gadra, Nicola O. Goren, and Christopher Williams provided many useful suggestions on earlier drafts.
Paul L. Houts edited the manuscript and Christian Spoor provided editorial
assistance. Donna Wood typed the many drafts. With the assistance of Martina
Wojak-Piotrow, Kathryn Quattrone prepared the study for publication.
Robert D. Reischauer
Director
September 1994
SUMMARY
ONE - INTRODUCTION
TWO - PREDATORY PRICING, PRICE DISCRIMINATION, SELLING BELOW COST, AND GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZATION
THREE - THE EVOLUTION OF U.S. LAWS: AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE
FOUR - CONTROVERSIES OVER U.S. AD/CVD PROCEDURES
FIVE - THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE CURRENT AD/CVD LAWS AND PROCEDURES
SIX - THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT
APPENDIXES
A -The Frequency of Occurrence of Predatory Pricing
B - An Overview of Current U.S. Antidumping and Countervailing-Duty
Procedures
| TABLES | |
| 1. | Calculating Average Dumping Margins Using the Commerce Department Methodology: An Example |
| 2. | History of Consumer Electronics Import Litigations, 1959-1979 |
| 3. | Frequencies of Affirmative and Negative Determinations by DOC and ITC in Antidumping Cases |
| 4. | Frequencies of Affirmative and Negative Determinations by DOC and ITC in Countervailing-Duty Cases |
| 5. | Import Relief Measures Initiated, by Type and Country, 1979-1988 |
| 6. | Trade-Weighted Average Final Dumping and Subsidy Margins for AD/CVD Investigations Receiving Affirmative Final Injury Determinations by the ITC, 1980-1988 |
| A-1. | Percentage of Private Antitrust Cases Alleging Various Illegal Practices |
| BOXES | |
| 1. | U.S. Trade Remedy Laws |
| 2. | A Brief Overview of the U.S. AD/CVD Administrative Process |
| 3. | Why the Countervailing Duty More Than Offsets the Subsidy in Cases of Competitive Markets |
This document is available in its entirety in PDF.