*EPF106 04/03/00
Text: USTR Disagrees with WT0 Ruling on U.S. Antidumping Law
(Says WTO panel ruling on 1916 U.S. law incorrect) (430)

U.S. Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky said she disagreed with a World Trade Organization (WTO) dispute settlement panel that ruled March 31 that the U.S. Antidumping Act of 1916 violates global trade rules.

The European Union in November 1998 requested that a WTO dispute settlement panel examine the 1916 law, contending that it was inconsistent with the agreements that established the WTO. There are other U.S. antidumping laws and the 1916 act is rarely used, according to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Barshefsky said the WTO panel "erred in concluding that the 1916 Act should be analyzed under antidumping rules despite the many distinctions between the 1916 Act and antidumping measures." The 1916 law is more like an anti-trust statute, USTR said.

Under WTO rules, the United States has the right to appeal the panel's report to the WTO Appellate Body.

Following is the text of the USTR statement.

(begin text)

U.S. Disagrees with WTO Dispute Settlement Panel Ruling on Antidumping Act of 1916

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative said today that the United States disagrees with a World Trade Organization dispute panel, which ruled that the rarely-used U.S. Antidumping Act of 1916 breaks global trade rules.

"The panel erred in concluding that the 1916 Act should be analyzed under antidumping rules despite the many distinctions between the 1916 Act and antidumping measures," said United States Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky.

Under WTO rules, the United States has the right to appeal the report to the WTO Appellate Body. Once a report is adopted, the United States will determine how to respond.

The dispute panel found that the 1916 Act is inconsistent with WTO rules because the specific intent requirement does not satisfy the material injury test required by the WTO, and that civil and criminal penalties for the 1916 Act go well beyond the antidumping provisions of the WTO.

The United States disagreed, saying that the 1916 Act is more akin to an anti-trust statute than the antidumping statutes maintained pursuant to the Antidumping Agreement, against which the 1916 Act was measured. It permits private lawsuits for treble damages and criminal penalties against importers of products sold below market value. In addition to showing the requisite low-priced imports, a successful 1916 Act claim must prove a specific intent to injure a U.S. industry.

(end text)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: usinfo.state.gov)

NNNN