Dispute Settlement
U.S. Trade Remedy Law: The Canadian Experience
III United States Safeguard Law
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1 Multilateral Trade Agreements
- 2 Safeguard Investigation Procedures
- 2.1 Petitions
- 2.2 Investigations and Determinations
- 2.3 Domestic Industry and Like or Directly Competitive
Articles
- 2.4 Increased Imports
- 2.5 Serious Injury
- 2.6 Substantial Cause
- 2.7 Public Hearings
- 2.8 ITC Report
- 2.9 Critical Circumstances and Provisional Relief
- 2.10 Referrals for Related Agency Action
- 2.11 Facilitation of Positive Adjustment
- 2.12 Presidential Action
- 2.13 Forms of Relief
- 2.14 Congressional Veto Power
- 2.15 Monitoring, Modification, and Termination of Action
- 2.16 North American Free Trade Agreement
- 2.17 Compensation and Compliance
- 2.18 Uruguay Round Special Agricultural Safeguards
- 2.19 Miscellaneous Provisions
U.S. trade legislation contains “escape clause” or “safeguard” provisions, which
permit the President to temporarily suspend, withdraw or modify trade concessions
(usually by means of import quotas or additional duties), and/or offer
adjustment assistance to domestic industries, firms and workers injured by
import competition. The intent of these provisions is not to provide permanent
protection from foreign imports, but to offer affected industries, firms and
workers an opportunity to adjust to import competition. Safeguard actions are
available whether the imports are priced “fairly” or “unfairly,” although they
are generally used in response to increases in fairly traded imports. Remedies
used to respond to unfair trade, i.e. dumped or subsidized imports, are invariably
exhausted before safeguard action is requested. Despite the fact that safeguard-
type actions may be found in several statutes,
128 the primary measure is
found in Chapter 1 of Title II (sections 201–203) of the Trade Act of 1974 and
is generally known as section 201.
The President determines whether or not to grant import relief after an investigation
by the U.S. International Trade Commission and upon receiving a recommendation
from it. In its investigation, the ITC determines whether an article is
being imported in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious
injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or
directly competitive with the imported article. The Secretaries of Labour and
Commerce determine whether to provide adjustment assistance to affected
workers and firms/industries respectively.
Import relief granted under Title II largely receded during the mid-1980s to mid-
1990s as a declining number of petitions were filed by U.S. industries seeking
such relief. However, as exemplified by the 1998 increase in U.S. imports of steel
in particular, there was a re-emergence of consideration by U.S. industries of safeguard
actions in the late 1990s.
The import relief authorized in Title II of the Trade Act of 1974 is circumscribed
by the WTO and NAFTA obligations and requirements. Article XIX of the GATT
1947 and NAFTA Article 802 both permit signatories to temporarily suspend,
withdraw or modify trade concessions to give domestic industries injured by
import competition an opportunity to take measures necessary to become more
competitive with foreign firms. International concern about the use of import and
export restraint agreements outside the scope of Article XIX was perceived to be
the primary reason for the establishment of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards
in the Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations. This agreement specifically
prohibits the use of certain unilateral and bilateral negotiated measures
affording import relief, such as voluntary restraint agreements, orderly marketing
agreements or export restraint agreements. In such agreements, one country
undertakes to limit its exports of a particular product to another importing nation.
Like many countries, the United States has concluded such agreements in the
past to respond to import competition.
An entity “representative of an industry,” including trade associations, unions or
groups of workers, may file a petition with the ITC under section 202 of the Trade
Act of 1974. The petition must include a statement describing the purpose of the
petition—in other words, the means of adjustment sought—which is invariably
protection from allegedly injurious imports. With the petition, or within 120 days
of filing it, the petitioner may submit a plan to facilitate positive adjustment to
import competition.129 An ITC investigation may also be initiated upon the
request of the President or the U.S. Trade Representative, or upon a resolution of
the House Committee on Ways and Means or the Senate Committee on Finance.
In addition, it may be self-initiated.
Unless the ITC determines good cause, no investigation may be initiated with
respect to the same subject matter as a previous investigation, unless one year has
elapsed since the ITC report to the President. If import relief was provided further
to a safeguard investigation, no new action may be initiated with respect to the
same product for a period of time equivalent to the period of import relief previously
granted or for two years, whichever is greater.130
Once the ITC initiates proceedings, it must determine which producers constitute
the domestic industry and what products are like or directly competitive with the
imported articles. Unlike other trade remedy provisions, there is no statutory
deadline between the submission of a petition and the initiation of an investigation.
Once such terms are established, the ITC must determine whether “an
article is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to
be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic
industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported
article.”131
For a positive finding to be made, three conditions must be satisfied:
- imports have increased;
- the domestic industry is seriously injured or is threatened with
serious injury; and
- such increased imports are a substantial cause of serious injury or
threat thereof to the domestic industry.
If the ITC finds that all three conditions are met, it must then recommend to the
President “the action that would address the serious injury, or threat thereof, to
the domestic industry and be the most effective in facilitating the efforts of the
domestic industry to make a positive adjustment to import competition.”
132
Unlike anti-dumping and countervailing duty law, there is no mathematical
threshold for determining the standing of a domestic industry to request a safeguard
investigation. The Trade Act of 1974 defines “domestic industry” as those
producers whose collective production of the like or directly competitive article
constitutes all or a major portion of the total domestic production of such
article.133
The following factors are generally considered in defining the relevant
domestic industry: productive facilities; manufacturing processes; and the
markets for the product at issue. In the case of a domestic producer who also
imports, the ITC may treat as the domestic industry only the domestic production.
The ITC may also define an industry as production in one major geographic
area in which the imports at issue are concentrated, when producers in that area
constitute a substantial portion of the entire domestic industry and primarily
serve markets in that area.
The terms “like article” and “directly competitive article” are defined in the legislative
history of the Trade Act of 1974: “‘Like’ articles are those which are substantially
identical in inherent or intrinsic characteristics (i.e. materials from which
the article is made, its appearance, quality, texture, etc.), and ‘directly competitive’
articles are those which, although not substantially identical in their inherent or
intrinsic characteristics, are substantially equivalent for commercial purposes,
that is, are adapted to the same uses and are essentially interchangeable.”
134
The ITC has identified several additional factors to be considered in identifying
the like or directly competitive product. Using a “product line” approach, the ITC
takes into account such factors as the physical properties of the article, customs
treatment, where and how it is made (e.g., in a separate facility), uses and
marketing channels. Clear dividing lines are sought between possible products,
and minor variations are disregarded.
The increased imports requirement provides that the increase must have been
either actual or relative to domestic production. The requirement is thus satisfied
if imports have increased in actual terms, or if they have remained steady or even
declined in actual terms but have increased relative to domestic production (that
is, domestic production is falling at a faster rate than imports). In making this
determination, the ITC generally examines import trends over the most recent
five-year period.
The ITC must then find whether the domestic industry is seriously injured or
threatened with serious injury. “Serious injury” is defined as a significant
impairment in the position of the domestic industry. “Threat of injury” is
defined as serious injury that is clearly imminent and not based on conjecture.
The ITC is instructed to take into account various economic factors in its
determination of injury.
In the case of serious injury, these are: significant idling of productive facilities in
the industry; the inability of a significant number of firms to conduct domestic
production operations at a reasonable profit; and significant unemployment or
underemployment within the industry.
In the case of threat of serious injury, the economic factors to be taken into
account are: a decline in sales or market share; a higher and growing inventory;
a downward trend in production, profits, wages, productivity or employment in
the domestic industry concerned; the extent to which domestic producers are
unable to generate adequate capital to modernize equipment and facilities, or are
unable to maintain existing levels of expenditure on research and development;
and the extent to which foreign exports are being diverted to the U.S. market by
reason of trade restraints on the part of other countries.
135
These statutory factors are not all-inclusive or singly decisive. The ITC must
make an injury determination within 120 days of receipt of the petition—unless
it determines that the case is extraordinarily complicated, in which circumstances
there may be an extension of 30 days.
The third condition requires a finding that the increase in imports be a substantial
cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the domestic industry. Substantial
cause is defined as “a cause which is important and not less than any other
cause.”136
The following economic factors guide the ITC in its determination:
whether there is an increase in imports (either actual or relative to domestic
production) and a decline in the proportion of the domestic industry supplied by
domestic producers.
Furthermore, the ITC is directed to consider the condition of the domestic
industry over the course of the relevant business cycle. It may not aggregate the
causes of declining demand associated with a recession or economic downturn in
the economy into a single cause of serious injury or threat of injury.
The ITC also examines factors other than imports that may be a cause of serious
injury or the threat thereof to the domestic industry, and it includes such findings
in its report. The legislative history of the Trade Act of 1974 includes examples of
other causes, such as changes in technology or consumer tastes, domestic competition
from substitute products, plant obsolescence or poor management. If such
developments are found to be more important causes of injury than increased
imports, a negative finding is required.
The third condition of a finding would therefore require a weighing of causes. The
increase in imports must be both an important cause and a cause that is equal to
or greater than any other cause of serious injury or threat thereof. The legislative
history states that the ITC must assure itself that imports are a substantial cause
and not simply one of a multitude of equal causes.137
The ITC is required to hold a public hearing within a reasonable time after the
commencement of proceedings. In addition to submissions by the domestic
producer(s) and the foreign exporter(s), other interested parties and consumers
may present evidence, comment on the adjustment plan if any, respond to
presentations of other parties, and otherwise be heard. A separate hearing on the
issue of remedy is required if the ITC reaches an affirmative determination.
138
The ITC must submit a report to the President, including its findings, remedy
recommendations (if any) and reasons for its determination no later than six
months from the date of the filing of the petition. The report must also be made
available to the public and a summary published in the Federal Register.
If the ITC determines that increased quantities of imports of an article are or
threaten to be a substantial cause of serious injury to the domestic industry, the
Commission is required to make recommendations as to relief, including its type,
amount and duration.139
The report must include the short- and long-term effects
of both the implementation and non-implementation of the recommended action
on the petitioning domestic industry, its workers, consumers, the communities
where production facilities are located, and other domestic industries. If the ITC
finds that increased imports are not a substantial cause of serious injury or threat
thereof to the domestic industry, the proceedings are terminated.
The ITC may not release information that it considers to be confidential business
information unless the party submitting the confidential business information had
notice, at the time of submission, that such information would be released by the
ITC, or such party subsequently consents to the release of the information. Regulations
provide for access to confidential information under protective orders to
authorized representatives of interested parties to the ITC investigation.
140
Critical circumstances exist where there is clear evidence that increased imports
are a substantial cause of serious injury or threat thereof to the affected domestic
industry, and delay in taking action would cause damage to the domestic industry
that would be difficult to repair. If the ITC and the President agree that critical
circumstances exist, provisional relief may be granted prior to any final determination.
The allegation of critical circumstances must appear in the original petition
and be supported with relevant evidence. If provisional relief is warranted,
the President may proclaim such relief as is necessary, for a period not to exceed
200 days. The President is also directed to give preference to duties over other
forms of provisional relief. Where a petition alleges critical circumstances and
requests provisional relief, the ITC must determine not later than 60 days after
filing whether critical circumstances exist, and the President has 30 days from
receipt of the ITC report to decide what provisional action to take, if any. After
completing its 60-day critical-circumstances phase, the ITC proceeds to conduct
a regular 180-day investigation.141
Amendments introduced in 1988 authorize the President to provide emergency
import relief for perishable agricultural products. For emergency relief, these
products must have been monitored by the ITC for a period of at least 90 days
before the filing of a petition.142
The ITC has 21 days from the filing of a petition
to make and report its determination and findings to the President, and the
President has seven days to decide what action to take.
When the ITC commences an investigation, it must notify the Secretary of
Labour, who immediately initiates a study of the number of affected workers
likely to be certified as eligible for adjustment assistance, and the extent to which
the adjustment of such workers to the import competition may be facilitated
through the use of existing programs. The ITC must also notify the Secretary of
Commerce, who must undertake a study of the number of domestic firms likely
to be certified as eligible for adjustment assistance, and the extent to which
adjustment may be facilitated by existing programs. Both Secretaries must submit
a report to the President not more than 15 days after the date on which the ITC
report is due. If during the investigation the ITC has reason to believe that
increased imports are attributable in part to unfair trade practices (e.g., dumping
or subsidization), it must promptly notify the agency administering the appropriate
trade law.
Title II of the Trade Act of 1974 also provides for the possibility of government
adjustment assistance for workers, firms and industries determined to be
adversely affected by import competition. Adjustment assistance may be
requested in petitions filed specifically for that purpose and not connected to a
safeguard measure, or as part of a section 201 petition filed to facilitate positive
adjustment to import competition. Petitions for adjustment assistance for
workers, including recognized unions, are filed with the Secretary of Labour, who
then initiates an investigation. Workers deemed eligible for adjustment assistance
may apply for a trade adjustment allowance of cash benefits or re-employment
services, including job training and job search, and relocation allowances.
Prior to 1986, firms certified to be eligible for adjustment assistance by the
Secretary of Commerce could apply for direct financial assistance. Since 1986,
however, eligible firms may receive only technical assistance for the development
and implementation of an economic adjustment proposal. The Secretary of
Commerce may also provide technical assistance for industry-wide programs “for
new product development, new process development or other uses consistent
with the purposes” of Title II.
The law provides that a positive adjustment occurs, and assistance is no longer
warranted, when: (1) the domestic industry is able to compete successfully with
imports after actions taken under section 204 terminate, or the domestic industry
experiences an orderly transfer of resources to other productive pursuits; and
(2) dislocated workers in the industry experience an orderly transition to productive
pursuits.
The domestic industry may be considered to have made a positive adjustment to
import competition even though the industry is not of the same size and composition
as it was at the time the investigation was initiated.
The Trade Act of 1974 requires the President to take all appropriate and feasible
action within his power within 60 days of receiving a report from the ITC
containing an affirmative finding. The President, however, retains discretion as to
the extent and duration of the action he deems appropriate and feasible, and may
choose to entirely disregard the ITC recommendation and take no action at all.
In making his decision, the President is advised by the Trade Policy Committee
(chaired by a Deputy Trade Representative, this Committee is the U.S. government
agency designated to hold hearings pertaining to any matters relevant to
trade agreements).
In determining what action is appropriate, the President is required to consider a
number of factors, including:
- the ITC recommendations and report;
- the extent to which workers and firms are benefiting from adjustment
assistance and similar programs, and are engaged in worker
retraining efforts;
- the efforts being made or planned by the domestic industry to make
a positive adjustment to import competition;
- the probable effectiveness of action he might take to achieve positive
adjustment;
- the economic and social costs and benefits of actions;
- the extent to which there is a diversion of foreign exports to the
United States as a result of foreign restraints;
- the potential for circumvention of action taken;
- the national security interests of the United States;
- the factors that the ITC is required to take into account in making
its recommendation; and
- factors relating to the economic interest of the United States,
including: the economic and social costs that would be incurred by
taxpayers, communities and workers if relief were not provided; the
effect of action on consumers and on competition in domestic
markets; and the impact on domestic industry as a result of international
obligations regarding compensation.143
Section 203 authorizes the President to provide one or more of the following types
of relief:
- increases in, or imposition of, duties;
- tariff-rate quotas;
- quantitative restrictions—i.e. quotas allocated among importers by
auctioned licences;
- adjustment measures, including trade adjustment assistance;
- agreements limiting exports from foreign countries into the United
States;
- initiation of international negotiations to address the cause or otherwise
alleviate the injury;
- submission of legislative proposals to facilitate positive adjustment
by industry;
- any other action within his power; or
- any combination of the above.141
If the remedy provided is tariff adjustment, the increased tariff is generally applied
on a Most Favoured Nation (MFN) basis, meaning that there would be one tariff
for imports from all WTO members. The President may not increase a rate of duty
to more than 50% ad valorem above the existing rate.
145
If quantitative restrictions are used, the concept of MFN application becomes
more difficult. Global quotas are the least discriminatory form of quantitative
restriction, but they often create problems as importers rush to fill them early in
a prescribed time period. One solution is to distribute quotas on a quarterly basis,
thereby ensuring that imports are not disproportionately entered. In practice,
quotas are usually granted on a country-by-country basis (country reserves).
Such quota systems generally establish the amount of the quota for each country,
and are usually based on the amount or proportion of trade that each country had
during a historical period. If quantitative restrictions are placed on imports, they
must permit importations at least equal to the average amount imported in the
most recent three-year representative period for which data are available—unless
the President finds that the importation of a different quantity or value is clearly
justified to prevent or remedy the serious injury.
146
As a general matter, simple tariff increases are preferred to tariff-rate quotas and
quantitative restriction quotas because a tariff tends to be least distortive of trade
and easiest to administer. The cumulative impact of any relief afforded must not
exceed the amount of relief necessary to prevent or remedy the serious injury
caused by imports. Imposition of duties or quotas in effect for more than one year
must be phased down at regular intervals during the course of the period for
which action is taken.147
The Uruguay Round amendments shortened the maximum period for initial relief
to four years. The President may extend the relief to eight years upon the recommendation
of the ITC if he determines that the relief continues to be necessary to
prevent or remedy serious injury, and there is evidence that the domestic
industry is making a positive adjustment to import competition.
148
On the day the President takes action, he must submit to Congress a document
describing the reasons for his action. If the action taken by the President differs
from the action recommended by the ITC, the President shall state in detail the
reasons for the difference. Congress may override Presidential action differing
from the action recommended by the ITC by passing a joint resolution of both
Houses within 90 days of the transmission of the President’s report.
If Presidential action is taken, the ITC is required to monitor developments in the
industry, including its efforts to adjust, and must report to the President at specified
intervals.149
If the initial period of relief exceeds three years, the ITC must
conduct a hearing and submit a report on the results of the monitoring to the
President and Congress no later than the mid-point of the initial period of relief.
150
Upon receiving such a report from the ITC, the President may reduce, modify or
terminate action if he determines that changed circumstances so warrant.
151
The changed circumstances that warrant reduction, modification or termination
include any of the following:
- The domestic industry has not undertaken adequate efforts to make
a positive adjustment.
- A change in economic circumstances has impaired the effectiveness
of the action.
- The domestic industry has submitted a petition indicating that it has
already achieved a positive adjustment to import competition.
- The WTO Dispute Settlement Body finds that an action under Title
II is inconsistent with the Agreement on Safeguards. In such a case
the U.S. Trade Representative may ask the ITC to issue an advisory
opinion on whether the United States may take steps to make its
action consistent with the Agreement. The ITC then advises the
President as to whether Title II permits steps to render U.S. action
consistent with the Agreement.
Upon request of the President, the ITC must advise him as to the probable
economic effects on the domestic industry of any proposed reduction, modification
or termination of action.
After any action taken under this title has terminated, the ITC must evaluate the
effectiveness of the action in facilitating positive adjustment by the domestic
industry to import competition, and must submit a report to the President and
Congress within six months of termination.
Chapter Eight of the North American Free Trade Agreement affects the scope of
relief that may be granted by a safeguard action as it relates to imports from
NAFTA parties. That is, when global safeguards are imposed as the result of a
section 201 investigation, the relief against NAFTA imports may be constrained
by the Agreement. Section 311 (a) of the NAFTA Implementation Act provides
that if the ITC makes an affirmative injury determination in an investigation
under section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974, the ITC must also determine whether:
- imports of the article from a NAFTA country, considered individually,
account for a substantial share of total imports; and
- imports of the article from a NAFTA country considered individually
or (in exceptional circumstances) imports from NAFTA countries
considered collectively contribute importantly to the serious injury,
or threat thereof, caused by imports.
Thus, in order to make an affirmative finding with respect to imports from Canada
or Mexico, the ITC must make an affirmative finding on both conditions. If the
ITC finds that either condition is not satisfied, it must recommend to the President
that NAFTA-origin goods be excluded. The President may subsequently
include such imports in the action if he determines that a surge in imports from
a NAFTA country or countries is undermining the effectiveness of the action.
Section 311 (b) (1) states that imports from a NAFTA country “normally” will not
be considered to account for a substantial share of total imports if that country is
not among “the top five suppliers of the article subject to the investigation, measured
in terms of import share during the most recent three-year period.”
Section 311 (c) defines “contribute importantly” as to be “an important cause, but
not necessarily the most important cause.” In determining whether imports have
contributed importantly to the serious injury or the threat thereof, the ITC is
directed to consider such factors as the change in the import share of the NAFTA
country or countries, and the level and change in the level of imports from a
NAFTA country or countries. Imports from a NAFTA country or countries
“normally” will not be considered to contribute importantly to the serious injury
or the threat thereof “if the growth rate of imports from such country or countries
during the period in which an injurious increase in imports occurred is appreciably
lower than the growth rate of total imports from all sources over the same period.”
In exceptional circumstances, imports from NAFTA countries may be considered
collectively in determining whether NAFTA imports have contributed importantly
to the serious injury or threat. The NAFTA Implementation Act Statement of
Administrative Action states, “The ITC is likely to consider imports from NAFTA
countries collectively when imports from individual NAFTA countries are each
small in terms of import penetration, but collectively are found to contribute
importantly to the serious injury or threat of serious injury.”
One of the reasons safeguards have been used infrequently is that the importing
country must generally offer affected countries some form of compensation in order
to avoid being subjected to retaliatory measures brought by the exporting countries.
The WTO does not use the terms “sanction” or “retaliation,” but it has a structure
for requiring “payment” from a country that departs from its scheduled obligations
in the context of the escape clause of Article XIX. Article XIX of the GATT 1947 and
Article 8 of the Agreement on Safeguards require the member proposing the safeguard
to grant a substantially equivalent level of concessions and other obligations
to the exporting members that would be affected by such a measure.
To achieve this objective, the parties hold consultations in an attempt to arrive at
an agreement. Generally, the importing country offers interested exporting countries
concessions on other products by way of compensation. One of the problems
in recent years, as the general average of tariffs has declined to low levels, is that
it has become increasingly difficult for countries invoking safeguard measures to
be able to effectively compensate affected countries by way of granting tariff
concessions. Usually the amount of requested compensation is sufficiently large
that it becomes difficult to find any products with a high enough tariff to make
concession meaningful, except for products that are already very sensitive and
therefore subject to higher tariffs.
If no agreement is reached within 30 days of consultations, then the affected
exporting members shall be free, not later than 90 days after the measure is
applied, to suspend, 30 days from the day on which written notice of such suspension
is received by the WTO Council for Trade in Goods, the application of
substantially equivalent concessions or other obligations to the trade of the
member applying the safeguard measure. This right of suspension cannot be exercised
for the first three years that a safeguard measure is in effect, provided that
the safeguard measure has been taken as a result of an absolute increase in
imports and that such a measure conforms to the provisions of the Agreement on
Safeguards. Furthermore, Article XIX gives exporting countries having a substantial
interest in the product concerned an opportunity to consult on the matter.
NAFTA Article 802:6 also contains a “compensation” or “retaliation” provision
very similar to that found in the WTO agreements.
U.S. law makes no explicit reference to compensation in the context of safeguards
but section 123 of the Trade Act of 1974 gives the President a certain amount of
compensation authority. That provision allows that whenever import relief has
been provided by increasing or imposing any duty or other import restriction, the
President may enter into trade agreements with foreign countries to grant concessions
as compensation in order to maintain the general level of reciprocal and
mutually advantageous concessions. To carry out such an agreement, the President
may proclaim modification or continuance of any existing duty or treatment,
as appropriate.
The Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture contains provisions permitting the
designation of import-sensitive agricultural goods as “special safeguard agricultural
goods.” Imports of such goods may be subject to an imposition of safeguards
in the form of additional duties when their import level reaches a designated
trigger point. Either price-based or volume-based trigger points may be used. The
President is required to publish a list of the designated goods, determine the
appropriate volume and price trigger levels, and reset the volume-based trigger
levels on an annual basis. Finally, the President may exempt from any special
safeguards goods that originate in any NAFTA country.
No safeguard investigation may be initiated with respect to an article that is the
subject of the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing unless and until the
United States has integrated the specific product or article into GATT 1994. Thus,
such articles are no longer subject to import or export restraints concluded under
the WTO Agreement on Textiles and Clothing.
Section 406 of the Trade Act of 1974 establishes separate safeguard procedures
for non-market economies. These apply to any non-market country regardless of
whether Most Favoured Nation treatment has been accorded. The provisions are
very similar to the safeguard provisions outlined in sections 201–203, but section
406 provides for a lower standard of injury determination and faster import relief
procedures, and the investigation focuses on imports from a specific country as
opposed to all imports.
128 (Back) There are safeguards in the Uruguay Round Agreement on Textiles and Clothing to be
used during the phase-out of the Multi-Fibre Arrangement.There are also special
agricultural safeguards discussed below.
129 (Back) Sec. 202 (a) (4).
130 (Back) Sec. 203 (e) (7).
131 (Back) Sec. 201 (b) (1) (A).
132 (Back) Sec. 202 (e) (1).
133 (Back) Sec. 202 (c) (6) (A) (I).
134 (Back) Trade Act of 1974: Report of the Committee on Finance, United States Senate,
on H.R. 10710, S. Rept.No. 93-1298, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), at 21-22.
135 (Back) Sec. 202 (c) (1).
136 (Back) Sec. 202 (b) (1) (B).
137 (Back) Trade Act of 1974: Report of the Committee on Finance, United States Senate,
on H.R. 10710, S. Rept.No. 93-1298, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (1974), at 121.
138 (Back) Sec. 202 (e) (5) (A).
139 (Back) Sec. 2202 (e) (3).
140 (Back) Sec. 202 (f ).
141 (Back) Sec. 202 (d) (1) (C).
142 (Back) Sec. 202 (d) (1) (C).
143 (Back) Sec. 203 (a) (2).
144 (Back) Sec. 203 (a) (3).
145 (Back) Sec. 203 (e) (3).
146 (Back) Sec. 203 (e) (4).
147 (Back) Sec. 203 (e) (5).
148(Back) Sec. 203 (e) (1)- (2).
149 (Back) Sec. 204 (a) (1).
150 (Back) Sec. 204 (a) (2)-(3).
151 (Back) Sec. 204 (c).
|