was the primary factor causing dislocation of the workers or firms. Under these criteria adjustment assistance was granted in 14 of 21 petitions filed by groups of workers. The certifications covered approximately 2500 workers and benefits amounted to $4.1 million dollars. The authority to file petitions under the provisions of the Automotive Products Act expired June 30, 1968. The Tariff Commission made its first favorable determinations on three worker petitions in November 1969. Since those rulings, 21 additional petitions have been filed witth the Commission by workers and two petitions have been filed by companies. The Commission has recently also found import injury in three of four industry petitions for escape clause relief. Since November 1, 1969, the Commission has ruled favorably in seven cases filed by groups of workers, has made negative determinations in five cases and has divided evenly in eleven cases. In the case of evenly divided Commission votes the President has the authority to accept the finding of either group of Commissioners as the finding of the Commission. In all eleven cases the President accepted the findings of those Commissioners who found injury as the finding of the Commission. In the case of escape clause determinations the President may authorize firms and workers in the affected industry to apply directly to the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary of Labor respectively for certifications of eligibility for adjustment assistance. As of October 8, 1970, eight petitions had been filed under this authority with the Secretary of Labor-five piano firms and three sheet glass plants. Certifications have already (October 15, 1970) been issued by the Department of Labor in 17 cases covering approximately 4,300 individual workers. The average worker is expected to draw 28 weeks of benefits and receive cash payments of about $2,400. There has been almost no training activity to date but steps are actively under way to rectify this. The Trade Act of 1969 as submitted to the Congress by the Administration provided two major changes in the adjustment assistance program. One was to ease the standards of eligibility of firms and groups of workers to apply for assistance. The other was to transfer the functions of making the determinations from the Tariff Commission to the President. The bill as approved by the House Ways and Means Committee made no significant changes in the Administration proposal. The new criteria delete the causal relationship between an increase in imports and trade agreement concessions and require that increased imports "contribute substantially" to the injury of the firm or worker. Contribute substantially is specified in the law as less than either major or primary. The Department of Labor is confident that it can serve effectively the workers expected to require adjustment assistance under the eased criteria. We anticipate that the number of workers actually receiving assistance will be small in comparison with total manpower program. It is likely that these workers will require less intensive sustained remedial services than the bulk of clients in other manpower programs since they already have a strong attachment to the labor force. There is adequate flexibility built into the program to enable the Department to move rapidly to implement reemployment plans jointly developed with the affected workers. ANTIDUMPING DUTIES Prepared by the Department of the Treasury I. SUBSTANCE OF PRESENT LEGISLATION. II. INTERNATIONAL I. SUBSTANCE OF PRESENT LEGISLATION The Antidumping Act of 1921, as amended, (19 U.S.C. 160 et seq.) provides that when a foreign company dumps merchandise in the United States, the Treasury Department shall levy antidumping duties equivalent to the dumping margins. Two requirements are essential for a dumping finding under the U.S. legislation: 1. A "determination of sales at less than fair value" by the Treasury Department; and 2. A determination of injury by the Tariff Commission. The Antidumping Act imposes no time limit within which the Treasury must complete its less than fair value investigation. On the other hand, the Tariff Commission is required to complete its injury investigation within three months after notification by the Treasury Department of a determination of sales at less than fair value with respect to merchandise covered by the determination. Sales at less than fair value normally take place when merchandise is sold for less in the United States than in the home market. The Act provides for other standards of price comparison when insufficient merchandise is sold in the home market to furnish an adequate basis for fair value comparison. Fair value comparisons are made on an ex facto basis. Adjustments are made under the Act for differences in "circumstances of sale" affecting the price in the United States and that in the home market. Expressly included among such circumstances of sale under Treasury's Antidumping Regulations are differences in credit terms, guarantees, warranties, technical assistance, servicing and assumption by a seller of a purchaser's advertising or selling costs. Allowances are also made, under appropriate circumstances, for price differences resulting from differences in quantities of merchandise sold in the home market as compared with those sold to the United States. The objective of the Act is, in brief, to permit fair value comparisons in the two markets on a symmetrical basis. An antidumping investigation is normally initiated on the basis of facts submitted to the Treasury Department by an American producer who has reason to believe he is being injured by reason of the dumping of foreign imports. The Treasury Department also has authority, however, to institute an antidumping investigation on its own initiative. Antidumping investigations are carried out by officers of the Bureau of Customs. The fair value decisions are made by the Treasury Department officials on the basis of the facts collected by the Bureau in its investigation. One of the key elements in an antidumping investigation is "withholding of appraisement." Where the Commissioner of Customs has reasonable cause to believe or suspect that sales at less than fair value are taking place, he is required to issue, with the approval of the Treasury, a withholding of appraisement notice. If later the Treasury issues a determination of sales at less than fair value, and the Tariff Commission a determination of injury, and Treasury a dumping finding,1 dumping duties become assessable on all entries unappraised as of the date the notice of withholding was published in the Federal Register.2 Accordingly, once a notice of withholding is issued, the affected foreign manufacturer or exporter normally takes immediate steps to protect the American importer of his merchandise from future liability for possible dumping duties-for it is the American importer, not the foreign manufacturer or exporter, who is liable for payment of dumping duties. The foreign manufacturer or exporter can do this by taking steps to eliminate the dumping margins, or alternatively he may terminate his sales to the United States awaiting the outcome of the antidumping investigation. Dumping margins may be eliminated either by increasing the price of the foreign merchandise in the U.S. market, or alternatively by decreasing the home market price of the merchandise. Merchandise may continue to be entered in the United States after a notice of withholding has been published in the Federal Register. However, the importer must furnish a bond to Customs guaranteeing the payment of dumping duties in the event a dumping finding is later {issued. One thing a foreign manufacturer or exporter is unlikely to do, once a withholding of appraisement notice has been published, is to guarantee reimbursement to the American importer for any dumping duties for which he may become liable as a result of the subsequent issuance of a dumping finding, for if he does so, the antidumping regulations require the payment of additional dumping duties by the importer to the extent he has been reimbursed. Warranties of nonapplicability of dumping duties between an importer and exporter must, in order to be effective, be entered into before the initiation of the antidumping 1 The dumping finding is a ministerial act following the two affirmative determinations. 2 The Antidumping Act authorizes assessment of antidumping duties retroactively up to one-hundred twenty days prior to the filing of the "complaint". However, this provision has fallen into disuse for reasons which are explained later. investigation. Even in such event, they are applicable only with respect to merchandise purchased, or agreed to be purchased before publication of a withholding of appraisement notice and exported before a determination of sales at less than fair value is made. II. INTERNATIONAL ANTI-DUMPING CODE On July 1, 1968, an International Anti-Dumping Code became effective in the United States and most of the principal trading entities in the free world. The Code, an Executive Agreement, was signed under direct authority of the President. The signing of the Code generated considerable controversy which was subsequently reported in detail in a hearing before the Committee on Finance of the United States Senate, Ninetieth Congress, Second Session, June 27, 1968. Most of this controversy related to questions of the impact of the Code on Tariff Commission determinations of injury. Since by law the Treasury Department has no jurisdiction with respect to injury, this aspect of the controversy did not affect the Treasury Department. Due to the fact that the Code is an Executive Agreement, there is no question that, in the case of inconsistency between the Code and the U.S. Antidumping Act, it is the provisions of the latter which prevail. Title II of the Renegotiation Amendments Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-634) sets forth the legislative compromise which was reached with respect to the interrelationship between the Code and the Act. The Code had two primary impacts on the Treasury's administration of the Antidumping Act. Whereas previously, there had been no time limitation controlling how long a withholding of appraisement could be outstanding, under the provisions of the Code withholding may not extend beyond three months, unless the importer and exporter request an extension, in which case the Commissioner of Customs, with the approval of the Treasury, is authorized by the Antidumping Regulations to extend withholding for an additional three months, but no longer. In point of fact, when an antidumping investigation has been initiated, most importers and exporters find it to their advantage to request a six-month withholding, and the Commissioner normally agrees to such a request. In the absence of a six-month withholding request acceded to by the Commissioner of Customs, a determination of sales at less than fair value must be issued simultaneously with the publication of a notice of withholding of appraisement. The three-month limit on withholding prescribed by the Code (Article 10(d)) is consumed by the Tariff Commission's injury investigation which, under the provisions of the Antidumping Act, must be completed within three months. If the importer, manufacturer, or exporter desires additional time, as he normally does, in an attempt to persuade the Treasury Department that its withholding of appraisement was based on erroneous information or conclusions, they usually find it desirable to request a six-month withholding. This allows them an additional three months, after the withholding of appraisement notice has been published, to furnish new |