U.S. poultry industry disappointed with China's continued failure to abide by WTO ruling.
China's Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) announced Aug. 21 that it is extending anti-subsidy duties on imports of U.S. broiler chicken products for another five years, starting Aug. 30, according to the Xinhua News Agency.
An investigation launched after the previous five-year duties expired last year found that China’s domestic industry could be harmed if the duties stopped, prompting the decision.
The ministry said in a statement that anti-subsidy duties on imports will be set at approximately 4%.
China imposed antidumping duties on chicken products imported from the U.S. in September 2010, claiming that chickens were subsidized in the U.S. and then dumped on the Chinese market at below market prices.
In May 2016, the U.S. Trade Representative mounted a challenge at the World Trade Organization because of China’s failure to bring its antidumping and countervailing duties against imports of U.S. chicken broiler products into compliance with WTO rules.
In 2013, a WTO dispute settlement panel comprehensively found that China's antidumping and countervailing duties violated its WTO obligations. Despite that decision, China has still refused to remove these duties. The U.S. government has tried to work with China since then to resolve this matter consistent with the panel's decision, but China fails to abide by the ruling and meet its obligations.
“We are disappointed in this announcement, especially in light of the fact that the WTO has consistently and comprehensively found that China’s countervailing and antidumping duties violated its WTO obligations. Despite those decisions, China has still refused to remove these duties,” the National Chicken Council and USA Poultry & Egg Export Council said in a joint statement. “The U.S. government has reasonably tried to work with China since then to resolve this matter consistent with the WTO dispute settlement panel’s decision, but China’s continued failure to abide by the ruling and to meet its obligations is unacceptable.”
About the Author(s)
You May Also Like