
Bye, Bye Byrdie!
Congress axes controversial Byrd Amendment tariff pay-out mechanism
WASHINGTON, DC - 02/02/06 - Congress repealed the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act - also known as the Byrd Amendment - on a close vote of 216-214 late yesterday.
Repeal of the Byrd Amendment was a provision of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 passed by the House of Representatives, which had already passed by the Senate.
Named for its primary sponsor, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia), the amendment called for antidumping and countervailing duties to be distributed directly to US companies which were found to have suffered harm from "dumped" imports and supported a petition for import relief.
Prior to the Byrd Amendment, those duties were paid into the US Treasury.
In January 2003, in a challenge brought by 11 WTO members and the European Union (EU), the WTO found that the Byrd Amendment breached the WTO Antidumping and Subsidies Agreements and its predecessor, the Generalized Agreement on Tariffs & Trade (GATT).
The WTO granted the US until the end of 2003 to comply.
President Bush says he will sign the bill, which contains a delayed repeal of the amendment under a compromise reached between House and Senate conferees. Under that agreement, the repeal will be delayed for two years with Byrd Amendment distributions continuing for applications made prior to October 1, 2007.
According to sources, repeal will restore the affected duties to the Treasury, but will not affect the assessment of the duties against unfairly traded imports or will it affect the US vigorous enforcement of the underlying US trade remedy laws.
Since 2001, the Byrd Amendment paid out more than $1.26 billion to US companies affected by low-cost imports.
The total amount authorized varied year to year in proportion to the amount of duties distributed and, at present, is $110 million for the WTO member countries that brought the original complaint.
To date, three of those countries - Canada, Japan, and Mexico - and the EU have imposed retaliation on selected US exports.
Last week, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported nearly half the tariffs collected under the amendment went to just five US companies with more than $476 million of that amount going to just one corporation - the Timken Co., an Ohio-based ball bearing manufacturer, and several of its subsidiaries.
Several US business groups including the Washington, DC-headquartered Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) are applauded the repeal of the amendment.
"As recently as last month, many experts were saying we would never obtain congressional repeal of the Byrd Amendment during the current session," said CITAC Executive Director Steven Alexander.
Go
back, or read the latest Front Page stories:
China Projected to Take Manufacturing Crown

BOSTON, Mass. – 08/18/08 – Rapid growth in certain manufacturing segments will help China overtake the US as the world's leading manufacturer within a decade, according to Global Insight, the Massachusetts-based economics consultancy; but, rather than being a cause for concern, the forecasted explosive growth of China’s manufacturing sector “is not a sign of weakening future prospects for the US” and ''is more likely to open up greater opportunities for the US, as well as other producers,'' the company said.

China Auto Parts Tariffs Ruled Illegal

WASHINGTON, DC – 08/11/08 – A three-person World Trade Organization panel has voted to censure China over charges that it is in violation of international trade law by levying hefty tariffs on auto parts made in the US, Canadian and European Union; the import fees were levied if the affected manufacturers used less than 51% Chinese-made parts in vehicles built in China.

Suit Aims at Stalling Port Truck Plan

LOS ANGELES – 07/31/08 – The American Trucking Association and the Intermodal Motor Carriers Conference have filed suit in US District Court challenging proposed plans crafted by the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach to implement cleaner trucks by forcing drivers to purchase and maintain their own vehicles; In their filing, the groups assert that the ports’ actions ''violate federal statutory provisions which prohibit states or their political subdivisions from enacting or enforcing a legal requirement that is related to a price, route, or service of any motor carrier.''

Â
|