Open / Close Advertisement

Steel Industry Groups Object to WTO Ruling on Byrd Amendment

09/02/2004 - In response to the World Trade Organization’s ruling on the “Byrd Amendment,” the following statement was released by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI); the United Steelworkers of America (USWA); the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA); the Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA); and the Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports (CPTI):

In response to the World Trade Organization’s ruling on the “Byrd Amendment,” the following statement was released by the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI); the United Steelworkers of America (USWA); the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA); the Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA); and the Committee on Pipe and Tube Imports (CPTI):

“On behalf of the U.S. companies and workers of the referenced steel trade associations and union, we express strong objection to the final arbitration ruling of the World Trade Organization (WTO) issued on August 31, 2004 regarding the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) also referred to as the “Byrd Amendment.” The recent decision represents yet another example of how the WTO has overreached its authority, by creating and attempting to enforce requirements that are nowhere found in the WTO agreements.

“The WTO decree authorizes the European Union and 7 other countries (Brazil, Canada, Chile, Japan, India, Korea and Mexico) to retaliate against the United States for the U.S. distribution of duties levied on imports from countries, which have been traded unfairly. Under the arbitrator’s finding, these countries have received authorization to sanction U.S. products in an amount equivalent to 72% of the CDSOA distribution annually with respect to imports from those countries. The decision is being rejected by the U.S. steel industry, its USWA-represented workers, and by supporters in Congress who argue that this decision undermines the U.S. use of unfair trade laws.

“Last year, we objected to the WTO appellate ruling because it had absolutely no basis in WTO agreements or international law, and because there was strong Congressional consensus that it would improperly undermine effective enforcement of US trade laws. Furthermore, companies and workers concur that the original intent of the provision is to allow redistribution of duties to affected parties, which have been injured by unfair trade practices.

“The United States has lost more than 2.7 million manufacturing jobs and continues to set record trade deficits. A significant cause of these losses is the intervention of the WTO to alter and modify U.S. trade laws, in effect, creating new rights and obligations where none existed in the actual WTO agreement. The arbitration finding illustrates the inability of the WTO to fairly adjudicate issues between nations. Instead, the dispute resolution process is being used as a forum for those trying to improperly dismantle U.S. trade laws.

“In January 2003, the WTO Appellate Body ruled an element of the CDSOA was in violation of international trade rules, which led to the current authorization for retaliation. That decision has been widely regarded as a clear example of overreaching by the WTO Appellate Body. In response, over two-thirds of the U.S. Senate demanded that the law be maintained.