Site Loader

The case involves a special challenge to the anti dumping duty of Mexico’s Grey Portland cement and clinker. The incident involved the U.S. government, the Trade Representative’s Office, the Department of Commerce, ECC,?STCC? the Binational Panel and the Canadian government.In the course of the challenge, the Canadian government applied for the challenge and received the ECC.

ECC considers Canada as one of the three North American free trade agreements, and the Canadian government may not have direct economic interests in the theme of the two group members. The special challenge Committee believes that they exist in particular situations, and that the integrity of the Canadian intervention process is a threat. In the North American free trading market, the specific procedures for the settlement of disputes are chosen by the States parties of the North American free trading market. The debate started.

 The following is the whole process of the incident, as well as the events involved in the case. Initially, the Department of Commerce announced the old anti-dumping duty on gray Portland cement and clinker involving Mexico on August 30, 1990. From August 15, 1994 to July 31, 1995, the Binational Panel investigated and amended the original anti-dumping order. In its final decision, released on 18 June 1999, the dual group affirmed ten of the fourteen findings and amended the remaining four. A year later, on April 13, 2000, the U.S.

government, the Trade Representative’s Office and the Department of Commerce convened a special challenge committee which had examined the final results of the Fifth Administrative Review released by the U.S. Department of Commerce on April 9, 1997. They submitted a special challenge request to convene a meeting with the ECC petition to consider one of the fourteen items made by the Binational Panel. At the same time, the Canadian government also hopes to be involved in the investigation. After careful consideration and consideration by many departments, ECC agreed to the special challenge and agreed with Canada’s intervention.

Because Canada is a member of the North American free market and has no direct interest in the challenge. But the special challenge committee does not think so. They believe that the committee is for special situations, such as serious misconduct, which is seriously deviated from the basic rules of procedure, which is obviously beyond the powers or similar acts of the expert group and threatens the integrity of the expert group’s review process.

They believe that, in this case, Canada poses a threat to the integrity of the North American Free Trade Agreement decision process.Before that, there was no special challenge Committee under the North American Free Trade Agreement. Everyone follows the North American Free Trade Agreement, and the special challenge group has no substantive violation of the treaty. Although ECC proposed signings, they still cannot reject the special request for the special committee of the challenge. Three special challenges committees have been held under the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, the Canadian free trade agreement (CFA). Following the previous cases, the two sides acknowledged that the United States had met the requirements of the review. The United States claims that the two yuan Group has violated a number of North American free trade agreements. Because the group did not maintain the definition of the relevant institutions.

As the United States insisted, according to the substantial evidence rule, it was determined that there was no substantial evidence to support the definition of the institution. In the face of such a complaint from the United States, ECC is still unable to dismiss it. However, ECC think that this is not the appropriate situation to reverse or modify the petition submitted by the United States. The argument continues to go on fiercely. After careful review, ECC finds that it will not interfere with the decisions of the two country group.

ECC failed to find evidence to prove “serious conflicts of interest” or other improper actions. The U.S. also believes that the Binational Panel violated Article 1904.13(a)(iii) in that it “manifestly exceeded its powers” and the Binational Panel’s decision “threatens the integrity of the Binational Panel review process”.

After carefully considers of ECC, ECC thinks the petitioners here do not indicate that the Binational Panel “obviously exceeds its power, power or jurisdiction”, and “threatens the integrity of the two groups’ review procedures”. As these standards were not met, the petition was rejected. By the way, the United States also argued that the Binational Panel violated the principle that courts must show great deference to agency decisions. But CEMEX answered that the Panel was well aware of, and discussed at length, its obligations to review interpretations of the antidumping statutes. The Department of Commerce has failed to use the laws and regulations reasonably and misunderstood the part of its application.

The Binational Panel won this case.  Fundamentally, the dispute is that the special challenge group petitioned for a reinvestigation and did not want Canada to intervene. The United States claims that Canada is unfavourable to the action of the special challenge group, but it does not take substantive evidence to veto it. In ECC, it is hoped that Canada will be a middle cube intervention survey, which does not allow the United States to amend the petition with inappropriate reasons.

At the meantime, the U.S. wanted to accuse the Binational Panel violated many articles of  NAFTA  agreement.According to this case, it is related to NAFTA 1904.13 which means every member of panel can not determine the results of the investigation beyond its jurisdiction, nor can it change the results of the investigation because of the unjustified interests.

As same as all other laws, in the absence of reliable evidence, we cannot determine that anyone has violated the law. In this case, The special challenge Committee has put forward the accusations but no evidence. After the ECC investigation, there was still no evidence that proof the Binational Panel had a violation of  NAFTA agreement. So we cannot determine that the Binational Panel is in violation of NAFTA.  In the end, the decision was that no evidence can confirm the Binational Panel violated any agreement. The committee cannot amend results which they were targeting. Follow laws, the words without substantial evidence are absurd. I personally think it is the reason why the challenge failed.

And I want to make a bold guess at the cause of the argument. The U.S. was going to change the result for reaching their “unjustifiable interests”.

Because the amend of the Binational Panel which was made in 1999 threats their interest. Or they might not even have any benefit. The accusation which the Committee do to Binational Panel is like what they behavior. 

Post Author: admin


I'm Dora!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out