The provisional provision directs U.S. Customs and Customs to require cash deposits for customs duties on all new imports as well as softwood products imported in the past 90 days. However, to remain in force, tariffs must be entered into through trade and then confirmed by the U.S. International Trade Commission, following an investigation containing statements by both parties. [37] The Canadian federal government then stated that it was exploring the possibility of banning the export of U.S. coal through Canadian ports and imposing retaliatory duties on Oregon`s timber exports. [38] In November 2017, the U.S. International Trade Commission decided to impose high countervailing and anti-dumping duties on timber imports because of the harm to U.S. industry caused by unfair practices. [39] In the United States, where demand for wood exceeds what local mills can provide, housing construction and other industries depend on Canada for stable and predictable access to quality products.

The 2006 Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA), which provided stability and predictability to industry on both sides of the border, expired on October 12, 2015. The Canadian government and the wood industry dispute this assertion, based on a number of factors, including the fact that Canadian wood is made available to such a wide range of industries and that, in the absence of specificity, it is not conceivable to be considered a subsidy under U.S. law. Under U.S. trade law, a subsidy punishable by compensatory measures must be specific to a particular sector. This requirement excludes the imposition of countervailing duties on public programs, such as roads, which should benefit a wide range of interests. Since 1982, there have been four main controversies. Two weeks later, a WTO panel also concluded that the United States had improperly imposed high tariffs on Canadian timber. The panel accepted the DoC`s assertion that the province`s royalties provided a “financial benefit” to Canadian producers, but found that this benefit had not reached the level of subsidy that a subsidy would constitute and could not justify U.S. tariffs. [10] (a) itself, under Title VII of the Customs Act of 1930, amended or a successor statute (“Title VII”) with respect to imports of softwood products from Canada. When a Title VII petition concerning Softwood Lumber Products` imports from Canada is filed, the United States rejects the application on the basis of the irrevocable letters in Schedule 5A (“no violation” and the USDOC`s finding in Schedule 5B.

These letters are provided by U.S. stakeholders, who account for more than 60% of U.S. conifer wood production in 2005, and by one or more unions. The letters from industry associations apply to the production of their members, but members who produce coniferous timber more than 200 million board feet in 2005 must submit a damage letter individually, which will be charged on the 60% threshold of U.S. production. Signed claims letters are attached to ALS 2006 on the reference date; The second phase, Lumber II, began in 1986, when an American state