Canada Going to CIT to Challenge AD Order on Softwood Lumber
Canada is choosing to call for a binational panel to determine whether the countervailing duty order on its softwood lumber exports is fair, but is challenging the antidumping order at the Court of International Trade.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
In a Sept. 1 announcement, Canada's trade minister Mary Ng said, "For years, the United States has imposed unfair, unjust and illegal duties on Canadian softwood lumber, hurting Canadian industry and creating rising housing costs in both our countries.
“Current U.S. softwood lumber duties have subjected most Canadian softwood lumber exports to the new combined duty rate of 7.99%."
That is lower than the U.S. had been taxing the imports; earlier, the duties had been 8.59% and the year before that, 17.9%.
“At every opportunity, I have raised the issue of unjustified U.S. duties on Canadian softwood lumber with my U.S. counterpart Katherine Tai, United States Trade Representative, and the need for both countries to find a mutually acceptable resolution to this dispute," Ng said in the release. “Canada continues to remain ready and willing to discuss a negotiated outcome to the dispute that provides the stability and predictability the sector needs to ensure its continued growth and success.”
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative declined to answer questions about what would need to change in Canada for the U.S. to entertain a return to a quota/tariff system as existed from 2006 to 2015. Those quotas and tariffs were market-dependent, only coming into play when prices dropped below a certain level.
Even though it has been a long time since a mutual agreement was in place, those who have an interest in the residential construction market continue to argue for a return to negotiations (see 2105120029) and 2207200019)
The administration also declined to say how defending itself in CIT or in front of a USMCA panel differs.