New Softwood Lumber Agreement

By 28 septiembre, 2021Sin categoría

On September 28, 2020, the United States appealed the August 2020 WTO panel report on Canada`s U.S. countervailing duty challenge on coniferous timber. On the other hand, due to the size of the market, the United States is heavily dependent on importing timber from Canada, as domestic deliveries are insufficient to meet customer needs. Coniferous wood (cedar, Douglas fir, pine, spruce) is used throughout North America in large constructions, furniture, interior and exterior work, etc. U.S. producers have long argued that Canada`s system of provincial regulation of stump fees paid to the Crown in exchange for timber harvesting rights unduly subsidizes a private and operated industry in the United States, with prices set by the competitive market. As a result, the United States argues, imports of Canadian softwood lumber should be subject to countervailing duties. As a result, they will give instructions to the United States. As of December 28, 2017, Customs and Border Services apply CVD and AD customs duties on all timber shipments from Canada. The U.S.

continues to insist on taxes on Canadian coniferous timber until a tendering system for the purchase of softwood lumber is in place in Canada. The United States views Canada`s approach to setting stump fees as a subsidy. The U.S. Softwood Lumber Coalition argues that, unlike the action-based domestic sale of wood, Canada`s administrative price concept does not reflect the market value of the products. On September 7, Bloc Québécois leader Gilles Duceppe approved the softwood agreement and effectively neutralized any chance of a vote of no confidence in an election. [18] Five days later, Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson and his U.S. counterpart Susan Schwab officially signed the agreement in Ottawa. Despite claims by supporters that this is the best deal possible, Elliott Feldman, an international and economic specialist at Baker & Hostetler in Washington, D.C. and former director of the Business Council of Canada, criticized the deal as «unilateral» and a «bad deal for Canada.» [19] On September 19, 2006, the agreement passed its first reading in the Canadian House of Commons by a majority of 172 to 116 [20]. On September 27, The Canadian Press reported that Canada had not met a deadline it had set itself to implement the agreement. The withdrawal of some of the 30 issues relating to the agreement was the main cause of the delay in compliance with the agreement.

[21] The softwood issue relates to competition between Canadian and U.S. softwood lumber companies and the problems posed by differences in their respective forest management principles. «Each of the two previous timber disputes ended with neutral international tribunals, which handed down judgments that forced the trade to overturn their erroneous and unreastened subsidy findings for similar reasons.» 1. The Parties shall set up technical working groups which shall meet at the request of a Party. The working groups shall be composed, in equal parts, of representatives of each of the Parties which have competence in the implementation and enforcement of the AA 2006, including customs duties, tariff classification according to the Harmonized Commodity Description and Coding System, coniferous timber markets and data sources, as well as the technical specifications of coniferous products. . . .