經(jīng)貿(mào)博覽之六:保障措施
第一部分：
一則新聞：美國對華201鋼鐵保障案
現(xiàn)在，我們來看《人民日報(bào)》2001年12月14日的一則新聞。
題目：中國關(guān)切美國201鋼鐵保障案
中國對外貿(mào)易經(jīng)濟(jì)合作部新聞發(fā)言人高燕表示，中國非常關(guān)注美國國際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)（USITC）在201鋼鐵保障案中建議的支持性措施。美國國際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)在12月7日公布了在201條款下有關(guān)進(jìn)口鋼鐵產(chǎn)品的建議措施，這些措施將很快提交給美國總統(tǒng)。
高燕指出，USITC的大多數(shù)委員都建議對被調(diào)查的鋼鐵產(chǎn)品施加已經(jīng)為期4年的高進(jìn)口關(guān)稅和關(guān)稅配額。中國政府對該201條款調(diào)查后的建議以及可能的后果表示關(guān)注。
高燕稱，中國認(rèn)為，USITC的建議措施將阻止其它國家的鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)入美國市場。
高燕稱，這樣的壁壘將有悖于世界貿(mào)易組織所倡導(dǎo)的貿(mào)易自由化政策，在全球經(jīng)濟(jì)增長放緩的現(xiàn)狀下，不僅會(huì)影響國際貿(mào)易秩序的穩(wěn)定，而且有害于在國際競爭中美國鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)的健康發(fā)展。
在今年6月28日，USTIC開始對來自于包括中國在內(nèi)的其它國家和地區(qū)的4種鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行調(diào)查。
該調(diào)查是根據(jù)《美國1974年貿(mào)易法案》的201節(jié)展開，目的是確定進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品是否威脅或損害美國國內(nèi)鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)。
高燕表示，中國一貫反對任何形式的貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義，不愿意看到正常的國際貿(mào)易受到非正當(dāng)貿(mào)易政策和措施的阻撓。她補(bǔ)充說，中國政府將密切注視該問題，并表示，她希望美國方面會(huì)進(jìn)一步考慮中國和其它國家的立場，適當(dāng)?shù)靥幚碓搯栴}。（結(jié)束）
讀罷這則新聞，我們會(huì)思考幾個(gè)問題。很清楚，中國和美國在“201鋼鐵保障案”中有矛盾。那么什么是“201鋼鐵保障案”？簡言之，就是在《美國1974年貿(mào)易法案》201節(jié)下展開的有關(guān)鋼鐵產(chǎn)品的案子。具體而言，說來話長。
“201鋼鐵保障案”背景
考慮到明顯的財(cái)務(wù)損失、利潤、投資回報(bào)和市場份額的下降，美國總統(tǒng)布什于2001年6月5日針對美國鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)面臨的挑戰(zhàn)宣布一項(xiàng)全面的動(dòng)議。作為動(dòng)議的一部分，美國總統(tǒng)指示貿(mào)易代表辦公室（USTR）要求USITC在201條款下啟動(dòng)有關(guān)鋼鐵進(jìn)口對美國國內(nèi)鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)影響的調(diào)查（USTR給USITC請求信摘錄）。
2001年6月28日，USITC對來自包括中國在內(nèi)的其他國家和地區(qū)的4類鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行調(diào)查。
2001年12月19日，USITC向美國總統(tǒng)遞交其在201條款下有關(guān)鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)口調(diào)查的報(bào)告。
2002年3月5日，美國總統(tǒng)布什在一份公告中宣布對來自包括中國在內(nèi)的其他國家和地區(qū)的某些鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行不同形式的保障措施的裁決。
《美國1974年法案》第201節(jié)
根據(jù)201條款，受到進(jìn)口增加導(dǎo)致的嚴(yán)重?fù)p害或嚴(yán)重?fù)p害威脅的國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)可以向USITC申請進(jìn)口救濟(jì)。USITC裁定一件商品是否以實(shí)質(zhì)上造成美國國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)同類產(chǎn)品或直接競爭產(chǎn)品的產(chǎn)業(yè)嚴(yán)重?fù)p害或嚴(yán)重?fù)p害威脅的程度進(jìn)口。如果委員會(huì)做出肯定性裁定，他會(huì)推薦美國總統(tǒng)采取以防止或彌補(bǔ)損害為目的的救濟(jì)，并促進(jìn)針對進(jìn)口競爭的產(chǎn)業(yè)調(diào)整。總統(tǒng)就是否提供救濟(jì)和救濟(jì)的數(shù)量做出最終決定。
201條款不要求有關(guān)不公平貿(mào)易行為的裁定，這點(diǎn)不同于反傾銷和反補(bǔ)貼法以及《美國1930年關(guān)稅法案》337節(jié)。但是，201條款的損害要求被認(rèn)為比那些不公平貿(mào)易法律的要求高。201條款要求損害或損害威脅應(yīng)當(dāng)是“嚴(yán)重的”，以及進(jìn)口增加是否是造成嚴(yán)重?fù)p害或嚴(yán)重?fù)p害威脅的“實(shí)質(zhì)原因”（就是很重要，在重要性上不低于其它任何因素）。
201條款的進(jìn)口救濟(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是基于GATT1994的第19條，在《WTO保障措施協(xié)定》中進(jìn)一步定義。GATT第19條經(jīng)常被稱為逃脫條款，因?yàn)楫?dāng)增加的進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品對于國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)商正在造成或正在威脅造成嚴(yán)重?fù)p害的時(shí)候，它允許一國暫時(shí)性的從GATT所規(guī)定的有關(guān)產(chǎn)品的義務(wù)中“逃脫”。201條款為美國總統(tǒng)調(diào)用在GATT19條中的權(quán)利提供了美國法律下的法律框架。
何時(shí)：USITC一收到代表國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)的貿(mào)易協(xié)會(huì)、公司、注冊或認(rèn)可的聯(lián)合會(huì)或工人團(tuán)體的申請；一收到總統(tǒng)或USTR的要求；一收到眾議院方式方法委員會(huì)或參議院金融委員會(huì)的決定；或基于自己的動(dòng)議，就進(jìn)行調(diào)查。
期限：USITC通常在收到申請、要求、決定或自己動(dòng)議后120天內(nèi)做出損害裁定（更復(fù)雜的案子，可以是150天），并且必須將報(bào)告以及任何救濟(jì)建議在收到申請、要求、決定或自己動(dòng)議后180天內(nèi)遞交給總統(tǒng)。
裁定：如果USITC做出肯定性裁定，其必須向總統(tǒng)建議補(bǔ)償辦法，如果有救濟(jì)，由總統(tǒng)決定實(shí)施什么樣的救濟(jì)措施。救濟(jì)措施可以是提高關(guān)稅、數(shù)量限制或有序市場協(xié)定。
后續(xù)安排：如果提供救濟(jì)，USITC將定期報(bào)告在救濟(jì)期產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)的發(fā)展情況。如收到請求，USTIC將建議總統(tǒng)對于正在實(shí)施生效的救濟(jì)進(jìn)行減少、修改或終止的可能的經(jīng)濟(jì)效果。在任何救濟(jì)期結(jié)束的時(shí)候，USITC被要求向總統(tǒng)和國會(huì)報(bào)告救濟(jì)對于促進(jìn)國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)面對進(jìn)口競爭所做積極調(diào)整的效果。
如果在磋商后仍無法達(dá)成雙方都滿意的結(jié)果…
如果各方?jīng)]有達(dá)成一致，就得尋求WTO爭端解決機(jī)制的幫助。關(guān)于爭端解決的有關(guān)協(xié)定是《關(guān)于爭端解決規(guī)則和程序的諒解》。對于保障措施，對應(yīng)的WTO協(xié)定是《保障措施協(xié)定》。我們將在下一期的經(jīng)貿(mào)博覽中對這兩個(gè)協(xié)定，特別是《保障措施協(xié)定》詳加討論，它們對于中國利益重大、至關(guān)重要。
Part 1:
Starting with a Piece of News (excerpted)
Now, let us probe into a piece of news from People’s Daily dated December 14, 2001.
China Concerns Over US 201 Steel Case
“China is strongly concerned over the recent support measures suggested by the US International Trade Commission (USITC) in the 201 steel case. The USITC published the suggested measures concerning imported steel products based on Section 201 on December 7, which will be referred to President Bush soon, said Gao Yan, spokeswoman of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC).
Gao pointed out that most of the USITC commissioners suggested to carry on the high import duty and tariff quota on the steel products under investigation, which have lasted four years already. The Chinese government is very concerned about this suggestion and the possible result of the 201 investigations.
According to Gao, the Chinese side holds that the USITC suggestion will bar the steel products of other countries from entering the US market.
Such a barrier would run counter to the policy of trade liberalization advocated by the World Trade Organization（WTO）, and it will not only affect the stability of international trade order under the present conditions of slowed world economic development, but also harm the healthy growth of the US steel enterprises in international competition, said Gao.
On June 28 this year, the USITC started to investigate four types of steel products imported from countries and regions including China.
The investigation was carried out under the Section 201 of the US Trade Act of 1974, aiming to determine whether the imported products would threaten or harm the relevant US domestic industries.
Gao noted that China has always objected to trade protectionism in any form, and is unwilling to see the normal international trade disturbed by improper trade policies and measures. She added that the Chinese government would closely follow the issue, and said that she hoped that the US side would further consider the stances of China and other countries, and handle the issue properly. “ (the END)
After we read this news, several questions come to our minds. Clearly, there is certain problem between China and the US in terms of “201 Steel Case”. So what does “201 Steel Case” mean? Simply put, it means a case involving steel products under the Section 201 of US Trade Act of 1974. In detail, it is a long story.
Background of “201 Steel Case”
“Given the marked financial loss and declined profits, returns on investment and market share of the US steel industry, on June 5 2001, the US President Bush announced a comprehensive initiative to respond to the challenges facing the US steel industry. As part of this initiative, the US President directed the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) to request the US International Trade Commission (USITC) to initiate an investigation under Section 201 of US Trade Act of 1974 of the effect of the steel imports to the US steel industry. “(Excerpted from the request letter by USTR to USITC)
On June 28 2001, the USITC started to investigate four types of steel products imported from countries and regions including China.
On December 19, 2001, the (USITC) transmitted to the President a report on its investigation under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, with respect to imports of certain steel products.
On March 5 2002, the US President Bush announced, in a proclamation, his determination with regard to safeguard measures in various forms on some steel imports to the US from several countries including China.
Section 201 of US Trade Act of 1974
Under section 201, domestic industries seriously injured or threatened with serious injury by increased imports may petition the USITC for import relief. The USITC determines whether an article is being imported in such increased quantities that it is a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to the U.S. industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article. If the Commission makes an affirmative determination, it recommends to the President relief that would prevent or remedy the injury and facilitates industry adjustment to import competition. The President makes the final decision whether to provide relief and the amount of relief.
Section 201 does not require a finding of an unfair trade practice, as do the antidumping and countervailing duty laws and section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. However, the injury requirement under section 201 is considered to be more difficult than those of the unfair trade statutes. Section 201 requires that the injury or threatened injury be "serious" and that the increased imports must be a "substantial cause" (important and not less than any other cause) of the serious injury or threat of serious injury.
Criteria for import relief under section 201 are based on those in article XIX of the GATT, as further defined in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. Article XIX of the GATT is sometimes referred to as the escape clause because it permits a country to "escape" temporarily from its obligations under the GATT with respect to a particular product when increased imports of that product are causing or are threatening to cause serious injury to domestic producers. Section 201 provides the legal framework under U.S. law for the President to invoke U.S. rights under article XIX.
When: The ITC conducts an investigation under section 201 upon receipt of a petition from a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers which is representative of a domestic industry; upon receipt of a request from the President or the USTR; upon receipt of a resolution of the House Committee on Ways and Means or Senate Committee on Finance; or upon its own motion.
Duration: The ITC generally must make its injury finding within 120 days (150 days in more complicated cases) of receipt of the petition, request, resolution, or institution on its own motion and must transmit its report to the President, together with any relief recommendations, within 180 days after receipt of the petition, request, resolution, or institution on its own motion.
Finding: If the ITC finding is affirmative, it must recommend a remedy to the President, who determines what relief, if any, will be imposed. Such relief may be in the form of a tariff increase, quantitative restrictions, or orderly marketing agreements.
Follow-up: If import relief is provided, the ITC periodically reports on developments within the industry during the period of relief. Upon request, the ITC advises the President of the probable economic effect on the industry of the reduction, modification, or termination of the relief in effect. At the conclusion of any relief period, the ITC is required to report to the President and Congress on the effectiveness of the relief action in facilitating the positive adjustment of the domestic industry to import competition.
If no mutually satisfactory solution is found after consultations…
Well, if parties fail to reach consensus, Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO is the right place to go. The relevant agreements governing dispute settlement is the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. With regard to safeguard measures, the relevant WTO agreement is the Agreement on Safeguards.
We are to have a detailed discussion of these two agreements, in particular, the Agreement on Safeguards, which are of great interests and importance to China
第一部分：
一則新聞：美國對華201鋼鐵保障案
現(xiàn)在，我們來看《人民日報(bào)》2001年12月14日的一則新聞。
題目：中國關(guān)切美國201鋼鐵保障案
中國對外貿(mào)易經(jīng)濟(jì)合作部新聞發(fā)言人高燕表示，中國非常關(guān)注美國國際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)（USITC）在201鋼鐵保障案中建議的支持性措施。美國國際貿(mào)易委員會(huì)在12月7日公布了在201條款下有關(guān)進(jìn)口鋼鐵產(chǎn)品的建議措施，這些措施將很快提交給美國總統(tǒng)。
高燕指出，USITC的大多數(shù)委員都建議對被調(diào)查的鋼鐵產(chǎn)品施加已經(jīng)為期4年的高進(jìn)口關(guān)稅和關(guān)稅配額。中國政府對該201條款調(diào)查后的建議以及可能的后果表示關(guān)注。
高燕稱，中國認(rèn)為，USITC的建議措施將阻止其它國家的鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)入美國市場。
高燕稱，這樣的壁壘將有悖于世界貿(mào)易組織所倡導(dǎo)的貿(mào)易自由化政策，在全球經(jīng)濟(jì)增長放緩的現(xiàn)狀下，不僅會(huì)影響國際貿(mào)易秩序的穩(wěn)定，而且有害于在國際競爭中美國鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)的健康發(fā)展。
在今年6月28日，USTIC開始對來自于包括中國在內(nèi)的其它國家和地區(qū)的4種鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行調(diào)查。
該調(diào)查是根據(jù)《美國1974年貿(mào)易法案》的201節(jié)展開，目的是確定進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品是否威脅或損害美國國內(nèi)鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)。
高燕表示，中國一貫反對任何形式的貿(mào)易保護(hù)主義，不愿意看到正常的國際貿(mào)易受到非正當(dāng)貿(mào)易政策和措施的阻撓。她補(bǔ)充說，中國政府將密切注視該問題，并表示，她希望美國方面會(huì)進(jìn)一步考慮中國和其它國家的立場，適當(dāng)?shù)靥幚碓搯栴}。（結(jié)束）
讀罷這則新聞，我們會(huì)思考幾個(gè)問題。很清楚，中國和美國在“201鋼鐵保障案”中有矛盾。那么什么是“201鋼鐵保障案”？簡言之，就是在《美國1974年貿(mào)易法案》201節(jié)下展開的有關(guān)鋼鐵產(chǎn)品的案子。具體而言，說來話長。
“201鋼鐵保障案”背景
考慮到明顯的財(cái)務(wù)損失、利潤、投資回報(bào)和市場份額的下降，美國總統(tǒng)布什于2001年6月5日針對美國鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)面臨的挑戰(zhàn)宣布一項(xiàng)全面的動(dòng)議。作為動(dòng)議的一部分，美國總統(tǒng)指示貿(mào)易代表辦公室（USTR）要求USITC在201條款下啟動(dòng)有關(guān)鋼鐵進(jìn)口對美國國內(nèi)鋼鐵產(chǎn)業(yè)影響的調(diào)查（USTR給USITC請求信摘錄）。
2001年6月28日，USITC對來自包括中國在內(nèi)的其他國家和地區(qū)的4類鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行調(diào)查。
2001年12月19日，USITC向美國總統(tǒng)遞交其在201條款下有關(guān)鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)口調(diào)查的報(bào)告。
2002年3月5日，美國總統(tǒng)布什在一份公告中宣布對來自包括中國在內(nèi)的其他國家和地區(qū)的某些鋼鐵產(chǎn)品進(jìn)行不同形式的保障措施的裁決。
《美國1974年法案》第201節(jié)
根據(jù)201條款，受到進(jìn)口增加導(dǎo)致的嚴(yán)重?fù)p害或嚴(yán)重?fù)p害威脅的國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)可以向USITC申請進(jìn)口救濟(jì)。USITC裁定一件商品是否以實(shí)質(zhì)上造成美國國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)同類產(chǎn)品或直接競爭產(chǎn)品的產(chǎn)業(yè)嚴(yán)重?fù)p害或嚴(yán)重?fù)p害威脅的程度進(jìn)口。如果委員會(huì)做出肯定性裁定，他會(huì)推薦美國總統(tǒng)采取以防止或彌補(bǔ)損害為目的的救濟(jì)，并促進(jìn)針對進(jìn)口競爭的產(chǎn)業(yè)調(diào)整。總統(tǒng)就是否提供救濟(jì)和救濟(jì)的數(shù)量做出最終決定。
201條款不要求有關(guān)不公平貿(mào)易行為的裁定，這點(diǎn)不同于反傾銷和反補(bǔ)貼法以及《美國1930年關(guān)稅法案》337節(jié)。但是，201條款的損害要求被認(rèn)為比那些不公平貿(mào)易法律的要求高。201條款要求損害或損害威脅應(yīng)當(dāng)是“嚴(yán)重的”，以及進(jìn)口增加是否是造成嚴(yán)重?fù)p害或嚴(yán)重?fù)p害威脅的“實(shí)質(zhì)原因”（就是很重要，在重要性上不低于其它任何因素）。
201條款的進(jìn)口救濟(jì)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)是基于GATT1994的第19條，在《WTO保障措施協(xié)定》中進(jìn)一步定義。GATT第19條經(jīng)常被稱為逃脫條款，因?yàn)楫?dāng)增加的進(jìn)口產(chǎn)品對于國內(nèi)生產(chǎn)商正在造成或正在威脅造成嚴(yán)重?fù)p害的時(shí)候，它允許一國暫時(shí)性的從GATT所規(guī)定的有關(guān)產(chǎn)品的義務(wù)中“逃脫”。201條款為美國總統(tǒng)調(diào)用在GATT19條中的權(quán)利提供了美國法律下的法律框架。
何時(shí)：USITC一收到代表國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)的貿(mào)易協(xié)會(huì)、公司、注冊或認(rèn)可的聯(lián)合會(huì)或工人團(tuán)體的申請；一收到總統(tǒng)或USTR的要求；一收到眾議院方式方法委員會(huì)或參議院金融委員會(huì)的決定；或基于自己的動(dòng)議，就進(jìn)行調(diào)查。
期限：USITC通常在收到申請、要求、決定或自己動(dòng)議后120天內(nèi)做出損害裁定（更復(fù)雜的案子，可以是150天），并且必須將報(bào)告以及任何救濟(jì)建議在收到申請、要求、決定或自己動(dòng)議后180天內(nèi)遞交給總統(tǒng)。
裁定：如果USITC做出肯定性裁定，其必須向總統(tǒng)建議補(bǔ)償辦法，如果有救濟(jì)，由總統(tǒng)決定實(shí)施什么樣的救濟(jì)措施。救濟(jì)措施可以是提高關(guān)稅、數(shù)量限制或有序市場協(xié)定。
后續(xù)安排：如果提供救濟(jì)，USITC將定期報(bào)告在救濟(jì)期產(chǎn)業(yè)內(nèi)的發(fā)展情況。如收到請求，USTIC將建議總統(tǒng)對于正在實(shí)施生效的救濟(jì)進(jìn)行減少、修改或終止的可能的經(jīng)濟(jì)效果。在任何救濟(jì)期結(jié)束的時(shí)候，USITC被要求向總統(tǒng)和國會(huì)報(bào)告救濟(jì)對于促進(jìn)國內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)面對進(jìn)口競爭所做積極調(diào)整的效果。
如果在磋商后仍無法達(dá)成雙方都滿意的結(jié)果…
如果各方?jīng)]有達(dá)成一致，就得尋求WTO爭端解決機(jī)制的幫助。關(guān)于爭端解決的有關(guān)協(xié)定是《關(guān)于爭端解決規(guī)則和程序的諒解》。對于保障措施，對應(yīng)的WTO協(xié)定是《保障措施協(xié)定》。我們將在下一期的經(jīng)貿(mào)博覽中對這兩個(gè)協(xié)定，特別是《保障措施協(xié)定》詳加討論，它們對于中國利益重大、至關(guān)重要。
Part 1:
Starting with a Piece of News (excerpted)
Now, let us probe into a piece of news from People’s Daily dated December 14, 2001.
China Concerns Over US 201 Steel Case
“China is strongly concerned over the recent support measures suggested by the US International Trade Commission (USITC) in the 201 steel case. The USITC published the suggested measures concerning imported steel products based on Section 201 on December 7, which will be referred to President Bush soon, said Gao Yan, spokeswoman of the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Trade and Economic Cooperation (MOFTEC).
Gao pointed out that most of the USITC commissioners suggested to carry on the high import duty and tariff quota on the steel products under investigation, which have lasted four years already. The Chinese government is very concerned about this suggestion and the possible result of the 201 investigations.
According to Gao, the Chinese side holds that the USITC suggestion will bar the steel products of other countries from entering the US market.
Such a barrier would run counter to the policy of trade liberalization advocated by the World Trade Organization（WTO）, and it will not only affect the stability of international trade order under the present conditions of slowed world economic development, but also harm the healthy growth of the US steel enterprises in international competition, said Gao.
On June 28 this year, the USITC started to investigate four types of steel products imported from countries and regions including China.
The investigation was carried out under the Section 201 of the US Trade Act of 1974, aiming to determine whether the imported products would threaten or harm the relevant US domestic industries.
Gao noted that China has always objected to trade protectionism in any form, and is unwilling to see the normal international trade disturbed by improper trade policies and measures. She added that the Chinese government would closely follow the issue, and said that she hoped that the US side would further consider the stances of China and other countries, and handle the issue properly. “ (the END)
After we read this news, several questions come to our minds. Clearly, there is certain problem between China and the US in terms of “201 Steel Case”. So what does “201 Steel Case” mean? Simply put, it means a case involving steel products under the Section 201 of US Trade Act of 1974. In detail, it is a long story.
Background of “201 Steel Case”
“Given the marked financial loss and declined profits, returns on investment and market share of the US steel industry, on June 5 2001, the US President Bush announced a comprehensive initiative to respond to the challenges facing the US steel industry. As part of this initiative, the US President directed the US Trade Representative Office (USTR) to request the US International Trade Commission (USITC) to initiate an investigation under Section 201 of US Trade Act of 1974 of the effect of the steel imports to the US steel industry. “(Excerpted from the request letter by USTR to USITC)
On June 28 2001, the USITC started to investigate four types of steel products imported from countries and regions including China.
On December 19, 2001, the (USITC) transmitted to the President a report on its investigation under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, with respect to imports of certain steel products.
On March 5 2002, the US President Bush announced, in a proclamation, his determination with regard to safeguard measures in various forms on some steel imports to the US from several countries including China.
Section 201 of US Trade Act of 1974
Under section 201, domestic industries seriously injured or threatened with serious injury by increased imports may petition the USITC for import relief. The USITC determines whether an article is being imported in such increased quantities that it is a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to the U.S. industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article. If the Commission makes an affirmative determination, it recommends to the President relief that would prevent or remedy the injury and facilitates industry adjustment to import competition. The President makes the final decision whether to provide relief and the amount of relief.
Section 201 does not require a finding of an unfair trade practice, as do the antidumping and countervailing duty laws and section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. However, the injury requirement under section 201 is considered to be more difficult than those of the unfair trade statutes. Section 201 requires that the injury or threatened injury be "serious" and that the increased imports must be a "substantial cause" (important and not less than any other cause) of the serious injury or threat of serious injury.
Criteria for import relief under section 201 are based on those in article XIX of the GATT, as further defined in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. Article XIX of the GATT is sometimes referred to as the escape clause because it permits a country to "escape" temporarily from its obligations under the GATT with respect to a particular product when increased imports of that product are causing or are threatening to cause serious injury to domestic producers. Section 201 provides the legal framework under U.S. law for the President to invoke U.S. rights under article XIX.
When: The ITC conducts an investigation under section 201 upon receipt of a petition from a trade association, firm, certified or recognized union, or group of workers which is representative of a domestic industry; upon receipt of a request from the President or the USTR; upon receipt of a resolution of the House Committee on Ways and Means or Senate Committee on Finance; or upon its own motion.
Duration: The ITC generally must make its injury finding within 120 days (150 days in more complicated cases) of receipt of the petition, request, resolution, or institution on its own motion and must transmit its report to the President, together with any relief recommendations, within 180 days after receipt of the petition, request, resolution, or institution on its own motion.
Finding: If the ITC finding is affirmative, it must recommend a remedy to the President, who determines what relief, if any, will be imposed. Such relief may be in the form of a tariff increase, quantitative restrictions, or orderly marketing agreements.
Follow-up: If import relief is provided, the ITC periodically reports on developments within the industry during the period of relief. Upon request, the ITC advises the President of the probable economic effect on the industry of the reduction, modification, or termination of the relief in effect. At the conclusion of any relief period, the ITC is required to report to the President and Congress on the effectiveness of the relief action in facilitating the positive adjustment of the domestic industry to import competition.
If no mutually satisfactory solution is found after consultations…
Well, if parties fail to reach consensus, Dispute Settlement Body of the WTO is the right place to go. The relevant agreements governing dispute settlement is the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. With regard to safeguard measures, the relevant WTO agreement is the Agreement on Safeguards.
We are to have a detailed discussion of these two agreements, in particular, the Agreement on Safeguards, which are of great interests and importance to China