{ "id": "RL32426", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "RL32426", "active": false, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com, University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 314271, "date": "2006-04-19", "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:04:58.862029", "title": "U.S.-Canada Wheat Trade Dispute", "summary": "U.S. trade officials and northern-tier wheat producers have long expressed concerns that\nCanadian\nwheat trading practices -- both import and export -- are inconsistent with Canada's international trade\nobligations. Canada maintains that its import practices and the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) wheat\nexport practices comply fully with international trade rules and its WTO obligations, and that Canada\ndoes not subsidize its wheat exports. In addition, U.S. millers and pasta makers have expressed\nconcern over potential trade restrictions that might limit their access to Canada's high-quality grain\nsupplies.\n U.S. allegations against Canadian wheat trading practices have led to a series of investigations\nby U.S. agriculture and trade authorities at various levels -- including both the U.S. International\nTrade Commission (ITC) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) -- against wheat imports from\nCanada, as well as the trading practices of the CWB. \n ITC investigatory findings (October 2003) resulted in an 11.4% punitive duty -- including both\nantidumping (AD) and countervailing (CV) duty components -- on Canadian hard red spring (HRS)\nwheat upon entry into the United States. Canada appealed the ITC's positive injury finding against\nCanadian HRS within the NAFTA dispute settlement framework. On March 10, 2005, a NAFTA\npanel reviewing the ITC findings recommended removal of the AD portion of the punitive duty. On \nJune 7, 2005, the NAFTA panel ordered the ITC to revisit its material injury findings. In October\n2005 the ITC, pursuant to the NAFTA panel's review remand, reversed its earlier finding and issued\na new determination that there was no injury or threat of injury. This decision was upheld on appeal\nto the NAFTA panel by the North Dakota Wheat Commission, and both the AD and CV duties were\nremoved in March 2006. As a result, Canadian durum and HRS may freely enter U.S. markets.\n At the WTO, a dispute settlement panel ruled (April 4, 2004) that the CWB's trading practices\ndo not violate WTO rules for STEs; however, the panel found that certain Canadian grain marketing\npractices were not in compliance with WTO rules. As a result, Canada passed legislation (May 19,\n2005) that rectified its grain import and marketing system practices (effective August 1, 2005) to\nbring them into compliance with the WTO panel's recommendations. \n The WTO panel's ruling in favor of the CWB was upheld on appeal by the United States. \nHowever, the United States continues to pursue greater regulation of the CWB through the ongoing\nWTO trade negotiations that seek stronger disciplines on state trading enterprises. This report will\nbe updated as events warrant.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL32426", "sha1": "9711ef57b2e0181ae7d0baf01f6a98380ac38b6b", "filename": "files/20060419_RL32426_9711ef57b2e0181ae7d0baf01f6a98380ac38b6b.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL32426", "sha1": "b2667010e43fc732ca43506f6f9c663850649327", "filename": "files/20060419_RL32426_b2667010e43fc732ca43506f6f9c663850649327.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metacrs9674/", "id": "RL32426 2005-09-26", "date": "2005-09-26", "retrieved": "2007-06-12T16:13:43", "title": "U.S.-Canada Wheat and Corn Trade Disputes", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20050926_RL32426_bd3a14ee513878450e1d7948f3bf8efef26e098a.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20050926_RL32426_bd3a14ee513878450e1d7948f3bf8efef26e098a.html" } ], "topics": [ { "source": "LIV", "id": "Agriculture", "name": "Agriculture" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Foreign trade - Canada", "name": "Foreign trade - Canada" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Foreign trade regulation", "name": "Foreign trade regulation" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Corn", "name": "Corn" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Wheat trade", "name": "Wheat trade" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Wheat", "name": "Wheat" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Trade", "name": "Trade" }, { "source": "LIV", "id": "Business", "name": "Business" } ] }, { "source": "University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department", "sourceLink": "https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc815391/", "id": "RL32426_2004Jun14", "date": "2004-06-14", "retrieved": "2016-03-19T13:57:26", "title": "U.S.-Canada Wheat Trade Dispute", "summary": null, "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORT", "active": false, "formats": [ { "format": "PDF", "filename": "files/20040614_RL32426_c90744c0333bb75a7202722258f6d80fd034753b.pdf" }, { "format": "HTML", "filename": "files/20040614_RL32426_c90744c0333bb75a7202722258f6d80fd034753b.html" } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Foreign Affairs" ] }