THE UNITED STATES ARGUMENT

The United States convinced that the Article 2.4.2 of the

Anti Dumping Agreement does not require the provision
of offsets

In addition, the United States in a case if the export

price is higher than the normal value, the WTOs
members collect no anti-dumping duty, but does not
give the importer the credit against other export
transactions, Thus the comparison is based on a single
transaction.

The United States also argue that there was a similar

case with Uruguay => If there was any problem related
to the use of zeroing methodology why they still used it
as a main method in the comparison.

Conclusion
o

Zeroing is not permitted under the transaction-totransaction methodology set out in the first sentence of
the Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

The United States agreed to remove its countervailing

and anti-dumping duty orders on Canadian softwood
lumber. The US also agreed to return more than $4.5
billion in duties it had collected since 2002.

In exchange, Canada agreed to a cap on its softwood

exports to the US at 34% of the US market. Furthermore,
Canada agreed to impose an export charge on Canadian
softwood lumber exports when the price of lumber is at
or below US$355 per thousand board feet.

Conclusion
o

The new agreement only applies to the provinces of

Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Ontario and Quebec. The Atlantic Provinces and the
territories are excluded from the agreement because their
timber industries do not operate on a provincial/territorial
stumpage fee system.

The length of the agreement is seven years, beginning in

2006, with an option to extend it for an additional two
years.