jim rozen
Diamond
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2004
- Location
- peekskill, NY
Nobody is commenting on this NYT article from
friday so I will pipe up on it.
"Ruling Could Lead to Tarriffs on Chinese Goods"
quote
...a federal judge on thursday dismissed a bid
by china to block the bush administration from
from imposing tarriffs on chinese goods produced
by heavily subsidized [prc] government companies.
The ruling... clears the way for the commerce
department to decide whether to impose the
tarriff barriers on one specific product, high
gloss paper, as early as friday.
The effect of the ruling could be even more
far reaching. If the commerce department raises
tarriffs on paper... it could set a precedent for
duties to be imposed on steel, machinery,
plastics, furniture, and other goods from china.
Executives AND (emphasis mine) union employees
in these industries say they may seek duties on
the grounds that their chinese competitors have
devastated american companies and thrown
americans out of work.
....
The commerce department announced last year it would decide by april 2 whether to revise its
longstanding ban on imposing duties to counter
act industry subsidies in NONMARKET ECONOMIES
(emphasis mine). Such a step would break with a
precedent established about 20 years ago.
(regan era I would say)
Duties at present can be imposed on products
exported from these countries if "dumping" can
be proved ... but these anti-dumping duties are
small compared with those under a separate
regulation against subidies.
In the 1980s the federal government adopted the
rational that it was impossible to tell what was
a subsidy in a NONMARKET ECONOMY (emphasis mine)
like china's closing off the possibility of ever
imposing anti-subsidy duties. Last year the
commerce department said it would review the
the ruling and make a new determination this
year.
Congressional leaders have, meanwhile, vowed to
pass legislation to force the commerce department
to impose its own duties if it refuses to do so
on its own.
end quote
This was a ruling by a federal judge Gregory
W. Carmen sitting on the US court of
international Trade in new york.
I've been quite guilty of political meanderings
on this sub-board so this is one that's right
down the middle of the subject alley....
Jim
friday so I will pipe up on it.
"Ruling Could Lead to Tarriffs on Chinese Goods"
quote
...a federal judge on thursday dismissed a bid
by china to block the bush administration from
from imposing tarriffs on chinese goods produced
by heavily subsidized [prc] government companies.
The ruling... clears the way for the commerce
department to decide whether to impose the
tarriff barriers on one specific product, high
gloss paper, as early as friday.
The effect of the ruling could be even more
far reaching. If the commerce department raises
tarriffs on paper... it could set a precedent for
duties to be imposed on steel, machinery,
plastics, furniture, and other goods from china.
Executives AND (emphasis mine) union employees
in these industries say they may seek duties on
the grounds that their chinese competitors have
devastated american companies and thrown
americans out of work.
....
The commerce department announced last year it would decide by april 2 whether to revise its
longstanding ban on imposing duties to counter
act industry subsidies in NONMARKET ECONOMIES
(emphasis mine). Such a step would break with a
precedent established about 20 years ago.
(regan era I would say)
Duties at present can be imposed on products
exported from these countries if "dumping" can
be proved ... but these anti-dumping duties are
small compared with those under a separate
regulation against subidies.
In the 1980s the federal government adopted the
rational that it was impossible to tell what was
a subsidy in a NONMARKET ECONOMY (emphasis mine)
like china's closing off the possibility of ever
imposing anti-subsidy duties. Last year the
commerce department said it would review the
the ruling and make a new determination this
year.
Congressional leaders have, meanwhile, vowed to
pass legislation to force the commerce department
to impose its own duties if it refuses to do so
on its own.
end quote
This was a ruling by a federal judge Gregory
W. Carmen sitting on the US court of
international Trade in new york.
I've been quite guilty of political meanderings
on this sub-board so this is one that's right
down the middle of the subject alley....
Jim