More on Softwood Lumber dispute

[ken hanly <northsunm@xxxxxxxxx>]

The issue is complicated and the US has imposed duties
for ages. If it loses a ruling it usually appeals and
continues collecting. There also seems to be some
conflict between WTO and NAFTA rulings. There was also
conflict re wheat but that has been mainly resolved in
Canada's favor however the duties collect ed have not
all been paid back. Some of the duties were paid to a
lobby group that used it to fight against Canada wheat
imports. It remains to be seen if they will ever be
paid back.(end of comment)
>From CBC news:
On Aug. 10, 2005, an ?extraordinary challenge panel?
under NAFTA dismissed American claims that the earlier
NAFTA decision in favour of Canada violated trade
rules.

"We are extremely pleased that the ECC dismissed the
claims of the United States," said International Trade
Minister Jim Peterson.

"This is a binding decision that clearly eliminates
the basis for U.S.-imposed duties on Canadian softwood
lumber. We fully expect the United States to abide by
this ruling, stop collecting duties and refund the
duties collected over the past three years," he said.

Washington?s initial response was that the ruling
doesn?t settle anything ? and that it will take more
negotiations before this dispute is wrapped up.

But by November, the U.S. Commerce Department said it
would comply with the NAFTA ruling, even though it
disagreed with it.

The following month, the U.S. Commerce Department said
it had recalculated its countervailing and
anti-dumping duties on softwood. The result? The new
duties would be set at a total of 10.8 per cent,
almost halving the old rate. The decision was expected
to save Canadian lumber companies $600 million a year.


Still unclear was how or if the U.S. would refund some
of the billions in duties it has already collected.
And once again, the U.S. lumber industry signalled it
might appeal.

The Canadian government, in the meantime, announced
$1.2 billion in aid for the Canadian lumber industry
just before the election was called. U.S. interests
called it another kind of subsidy and Washington said
it was ?disappointed.?.

In February 2006, the U.S. lumber lobby said the World
Trade Organization had ruled that the U.S. had
complied with its international obligations while
applying anti-dumping duties against Canadian lumber
imports. Canadian officials countered that the U.S.
was continuing to artificially inflate anti-dumping
rates by using different calculation methods to avoid
complying with an earlier WTO decision.

In March 2006, a NAFTA panel again ruled in Canada's
favour, finding that Canadian softwood lumber exports
are not subsidized. At this point, the total duties
collected by the U.S. have reached $5.2 billion.

In April 2006 a World Trade Organization appeal body
rejected Canada's request to overturn an earlier
decision by the U.S. International Trade Commission. A
group of lumber producers in the United States known
as the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports claimed this
ruling as another victory in their long-running
softwood lumber dispute with Canada.