Thursday, March 1, 2012


Given all of the information on the CVD/NME issue that I've thrown onto the interwebs over the last several days, now's a good time to recap where things stand.  So here's a summary of my most significant blog posts on the CVD/NME issue and the court case (GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States) that threw everything into flux:
  • My summary op-ed of the issue and my reasons for why Congress should just "do nothing."
  • The major problems with the current CVD/NME bill (H.R. 4105) and why more deliberation is a very good thing.  In short, the legislation (i) is biased against US importers and consumers and denies them rightful compensation; (ii) will breed a firestorm of new litigation over "retroactivity"; and (iii) doesn't solve the "double counting" problem.
  • Why the urgent rush to push H.R. 4105 bill through Congress without real consideration is totally unnecessary. (More detail on that point here.)
  • Why congressional inaction will not drown US companies via a flood of subsidized imports from China and Vietnam (and how the current NME methodology already addresses Chinese and Vietnamese subsidies).
  • The very real pain imposed on US companies and workers due to the CVD/NME policy. (More on that here and here.)
  • Background on (i) the underlying ruling of the Court of International Trade in GPX (including the court's repeated concerns over "couble counting" and DOC's admission that it doesn't know how to address those concerns); (ii) the WTO Appellate Body ruling on the U.S. CVD/NME policy and "double counting"; (iii) the "bombshell" ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in GPX and its implications; (iv) the joint letter by USTR Kirk and Commerce Secretary Bryson begging Congress to step in and save them (and why their requested solution is the wrong approach).
There's plenty more on CVDs and other subsidy issues here, but these links should cover the main issues and keep you busy for a long while.  Enjoy.

[N.B. Since a few people have asked: I have absolutely no client interest in any of the ongoing litigation - appeals, reviews or investigations - related to the CVD/NME issue.  I helped litigate - and win - the first ever US CVD investigation of NME imports (Coated Free Sheet Paper from China) back in 2006-07, representing the main exporter.  But that's it.]

1 comment:

CA Trade Consulting said...

Have you or anyone considered the possibility that this bill could lead to investor - state dispute resolution?

Specifically, the case of a foreign investor covered by an FTA o BIT that imports one of the "CVD products" to carry out its economic activities in the US (i.e. his investment), and would be greatly affected by retroactivity