Table 1. 2006 SLA Export Charges and Quotas Limitations Options Based on Prevailing Monthly Price of U.S. Lumber (a) itself initiates an anti-dumping or countervailing investigation pursuant to Title VII of the Tariff Act of 1930, as in force, or a successor Law (“Title VII”) concerning imports of softwood products from Canada. When the Title VII petition concerning the importation of coniferous products from Canada is filed, the United States rejects the petition on the basis of the irrevocable letters in Annex 5A (“No Letter of Injury”) and the USDOC statement in Annex 5B. These letters are provided by U.S. domestic stakeholders, who accounted for more than 60 percent of U.S. conifer production in 2005, and by one or more unions. Letters from industry associations apply with respect to the production of their members, but members whose annual softwood production in 2005 exceeds 200 million board feet must individually submit a letter without violation, charged to the threshold of 60% of U.S. production. The signed prohibitions on injury are attached to als 2006 on the effective date; Canada will also impose an export tax on coniferous wood, which will be exported to the United States if the price falls below 355$US a thousand feet of board. The agreement does not apply to all of Canada. Since the timber harvested in the Maritimes comes mainly from private lands, the Maritime provinces have not been subject to U.S.
rules. In the absence of additional tariffs, maritime producers recorded an increase in activity. On April 15, 2005, Canada`s Minister of Trade, Jim Peterson, announced that the federal government would provide Canadian softwood associations with $20 million in compensation for their legal costs related to the litigation with the United States. In the same year, another NAFTA Chapter 19 body reviewed a USITC finding that the U.S. softwood lumber industry was threatened with injury as a result of Canadian imports. Since the United States ceded its jurisdiction to the World Trade Organization, the U.S. government found that a domestic industry had suffered a violation or threatened to violate before imposing countervailing duties. The NAFTA body found the USITC`s decision to be invalid.
In addition, the panel made the controversial decision to deny the USITC the reopening of administrative data and instructed the USITC to adopt a negative decision based on the existing registration. Unlike the Lumber III phase panel, this panel`s decision was unanimous. However, the U.S. government challenged its decision before an extraordinary challenge panel, which made a unanimous decision against the United States on August 10, 2005, and found that the NAFTA decision was not sufficiently disabling to require deportation or detention in accordance with NAFTA standards. 2. The application and application of Chapter 11, Section B, of NAFTA shall be suspended for all matters arising out of the AAA 2006 and all measures taken by a Party that are necessary for the implementation or implementation of the AA 2006. . .