WT/DS162/R/Add.1 Page 39
Japan points out that the formal legislative history of the 1916 Act is sparse. The hearings records do, however, contain correspondence regarding the 1916 Act and the correspondence confirms that the legislation was considered to be anti‑dumping legislation. For example, US hosiery manufacturers wrote that "[w]e are very anxious to have some anti‑dumping law that will protect our hosiery manufacturers from an expected flood of cheap hosiery following the foreign war […]."124 The manufacturers cautioned, however, that they were "confident that the proposed section  as written in H.R. 16763 will have no effect whatever in controlling such low priced importations."125
Japan further notes that the records of the Congressional floor debates on the 1916 Act also are sparse. Certain legislators, however, indicated that the 1916 Act was a protectionist trade measure added to the larger Revenue Act to attract Republican votes. For example, Representative Denison stated:
"I consider as childish that provision of this bill prohibiting what is called "unfair competition": it is commonly referred to as "anti‑dumping", and pretends to protect American industries […]. The democratic leader […] in making his statement to the House said that the Republicans should support this bill because this provision against unfair competition is a protective measure and is a Republican policy."126
Japan states that other Members looked to the anti‑dumping laws of other countries for guidance in how to address dumping in the United States. During Congressional debate on the "anti‑dumping clause" of the Revenue Act (the 1916 Act), Senator Penrose argued that a "more effective dumping law is that one which has proved the test of time and experience and is contained in the tariffs laws of Canada."127 Arguing that the anti‑dumping legislation should contain no intent requirement, the Senator explained how the Canadian anti‑dumping law operated and noted that South Africa and Australia had similar anti‑dumping laws.128 Senator Penrose's comments demonstrate that Congress was familiar with and sought to remedy the problem of dumping when it passed the 1916 Act.
Japan argues that events following passage of the 1916 Act confirm that it is an anti‑dumping law. A number of parties opposed the Act's intent requirement; they were vindicated by subsequent developments. The US Tariff Commission (now the US International Trade Commission) issued a report in 1919 which concluded that the 1916 Act was not deterring dumping. The Commission recommended addressing the problem by adopting a statute modelled on the 1904 Canadian anti‑dumping law (providing for the assessment of dumping duties on imported goods comparable to Canadian goods if the imports were sold below their foreign market value).
Japan notes that a bill providing for the assessment of anti‑dumping duties was subsequently introduced and passed by the House of Representatives in 1919.129 The House bill "provided for the
124 Japan refers to the Hearings on H.R. 16763 Before the Senate Comm. on Finance, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. at 274 (1916).
125 Japan refers to ibid.
126 53 Cong. Rec. App. 1475 (1916). Japan notes that others also perceived the 1916 Act as a concession to protectionist Republicans. Japan refers to, e.g., 53 Cong. Rec. 10761 (1916), where Rep. Fess described the anti‑dumping clause as one of "many specific sops" in the larger Revenue Act to gain Republican votes needed to implement a controversial income tax; ibid., p. 10751, where Rep. Green stated that "the purpose and object of an anti‑dumping clause embodies good Republican doctrine"); ibid., p. 10616, where Rep. Bailey complained that the clause would "shut out […] competition from abroad" and was "contrary to Democratic doctrine [and] a concession to Republicanism".
127 Japan refers to 53 Cong. Rec. S13080 (1916) (statement of Senator Penrose).
128 Japan refers to ibid.
129 Japan refers to 59 Cong. Rec. 351.