Under the Byrd Amendment, revenues from anti-dumping tariffs are paid to the producers that filed the original anti-dumping petitions with the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Companies subject to anti-dumping penalities are hit twice - once by the original tariff, and again when their competitors get the income from the tariffs. Recall that there are already problems with the fairness of the anti-dumping laws in any event: "Friends of anti-dumping negotiations".
The WTO has ruled that the Byrd Amendment violates the trade agreements to which the U.S. has committed itself.
The Consuming Industries Trade Action Coalition (CITAC) reports on FY 2004 Byrd Amendment payouts, here: "Repeal The "Byrd Amendment".
Total disbursements under the law to date (FY 2001 to FY 2004) are just over $1 billion. Total disbursements in FY 2004 were about $284 million. Total FY 2004 disbursements to the Timken Company, a maker of bearings - about $53 million; total FY 2004 disbursements to the Lancaster Colony Corp, a maker of candles - about $26 million. The impact on industries using imports:
"Many consuming industries rely on imports of raw materials or components to maintain global competitiveness. The Byrd Amendment provides a double hit on importers of products subject to antidumping and countervailing duties. They not only must pay these duties (which, because of the "retrospective" system of collection, are of uncertain amount) but also must see them transferred to their U.S. competitors. The Byrd Amendment encourages U.S. producers to file... actions knowing full well they will be eligible for monetary distributions. U.S. companies in line to receive these payments have a clear incentive to include more products within the scope of cases, including products not even made in the United States. Consumers see cases filed because of the promise of Byrd money (such as the infamous shrimp case). Other cases include within their scope products not produced here, such as certain antifriction bearings (e.g., certain metric sizes and metallurgical requirements); and steel wire rod for "cold-heading" and manufacture of wire for tire cord."
CITAC is an association of businesses that use imported goods in their production processes, and want to protect their access to foreign markets.
The CITAC web site has several other resources on the Byrd Amendment. The "Rushford Report" describes the case against the Amendment. Here is a Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on the Byrd Amendment: "Economic Analysis of The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000". The CBO's bottom line?
"The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000 was enacted on October 28, 2000, as part of the appropriations act for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. CDSOA requires that the revenues from antidumping and countervailing duties on a given import be distributed on an annual basis to the domestic producers that were either petitioners or interested parties supporting the petition in the case that resulted in the duties being levied on that import. Under CDSOA, $231 million in duty revenues was distributed in 2001, $330 million in 2002, and $293 million in 2003.(1) The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that distributions will total $3.85 billion from 2005 through 2014. On June 16, 2003, the World Trade Organization (WTO) Appellate Body agreed with the ruling of an earlier panel that CDSOA violates the WTO agreement by providing remedies for dumping and subsidies beyond those permitted by the agreement. The United States is therefore vulnerable to retaliation--the amount has not yet been determined--if it does not repeal or modify the law.
In addition to the prospect of foreign retaliation against U.S. exports, the distributions mandated by CDSOA are detrimental to the overall economic welfare of the United States because (1) they encourage the filing of more antidumping and countervailing-duty cases, resulting in more duties that on balance harm the economy; (2) they subsidize the firms receiving them, preventing resources from flowing to higher-value activities in other firms and industries; and (3) they increase the private and public cost associated with the operation and implementation of the laws. They also discourage settlement of cases by U.S. firms, which has mixed effects on the economy."
Comments