United States of America: Stricter enforcement of AD/CVD laws
Description
The Finance Committee of the U.S. Senate approved on July 18, 2012 the “Enforcing Orders and Reducing Customs Evasion (ENFORCE) Act” (S.1133/H.R.3057). Sponsored on the Senate side by Chairman Ron Wyden of the committee’s Subcommittee on International Trade, Customs, and Global Competitiveness, the measure gives greater authority to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to enforce antidumping and countervailing duty orders. The bill directs the CBP to investigate claims of evasion of trade-remedy orders. In instances of affirmative final determinations by CBP, the commissioner would be authorized to suspend or continue to suspend liquidation of each entry of covered merchandise; notify the administering authority (Secretary of Commerce or other responsible U.S. officer) of the determination and request identification of the applicable antidumping or countervailing duties or cash deposit rate for such entries; require the posting of cash deposits and assess duties; review and reassess the amount of bond or other security required to be posted for covered merchandise entered on or after the date of such determination; and take appropriate additional enforcement measures. The bill specifically includes goods from Canada and Mexico. Without this directive, NAFTA commitments would otherwise exclude imports from those trading partners from the bill. The bill now awaits action in the full Senate as well as the House of Representatives.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | |
| Was such evidence identified? | |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
See the hyperlinked material in the description.
Government Response:
- 441 reads
