X hits on this document

408 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

65 / 130

WT/DS162/R/Add.1 Page 62

1916 Act does not address the dumping addressed by Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the AntiDumping Agreement.  The unofficial compilation also explains that Congress found "the need for a different type of AD law" from the 1916 Act because "[t]he requirements under [the 1916 Act], particularly the need to show evidence of intent, are difficult to meet [...]."

3.8

According to the United States, the reason why the 1916 Act appears in two different compilations, in all likelihood, relates to the jurisdiction of House committees.  A House committee normally would place in its compilation those statutes over which it has jurisdiction under the House Rules, and the House Judiciary Committee and, very possibly, the House Ways and Means Committee would seek to have a bill to amend the 1916 Act referred to them.224

3.9

The United States notes that, in the case of a bill to amend the 1916 Act, the House Judiciary Committee would certainly have jurisdiction, given that the 1916 Act is an antitrust statute, included in title 15 of the US Code, and Rule 10 of the House Rules gives the House Judiciary Committee jurisdiction over the "[p]rotection of trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies."  While the House Ways and Means Committee would normally not have jurisdiction over a bill proposing or amending an antitrust statute, whether international in scope or solely domestic, it may have jurisdiction over a bill to amend the 1916 Act (along with the House Judiciary Committee) because of the circumstances surrounding the 1916 Act's enactment.  In this regard, the 1916 Act was passed at a time when the House Rules only allowed a bill to be referred to one House committee.  Because the provisions that were to become the 1916 Act were one part of a much larger bill proposing the Revenue Act of 1916, and the House Ways and Means Committee was the House committee that had jurisdiction over all Revenue Acts under the House Rules at that time (as it is today), the House Ways and Means Committee was the House committee to which the entire bill was referred, even though the provisions that were to become the 1916 Act, if proposed in a separate bill by themselves, would have been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.  It is possible but not definite that, because of the role that the House Ways and Means Committee played in the enactment of the 1916 Act, the Speaker of the House today might refer a bill to amend the 1916 Act to the House Ways and Means Committee (along with the House Judiciary Committee).  It is for these same reasons, in all likelihood, that the House Ways and Means Committee staff placed the 1916 Act in its unofficial compilation.

3.10

In the United States' view, the House Judiciary Committee compilation confirms that the 1916 Act is an antitrust statute, and it is noteworthy that this compilation was put together by the House committee most familiar with US antitrust laws.  The unofficial House Ways and Means Committee compilation is not necessarily inconsistent with the House Judiciary Committee's characterisation of the 1916 Act as an antitrust statute because it also includes the 1916 Act among US trade statutes.  For one thing, the unofficial House Ways and Means Committee compilation expressly states that the 1916 Act is a "different type" of statute from the United States' antidumping law.  Moreover, if this unofficial compilation is understood from the standpoint of House committee jurisdiction, it can be seen that the inclusion of the 1916 Act by the House Ways and Means Committee staff is likely based on its view of the House Ways and Means Committee's jurisdiction, not based on a view that the 1916 Act is not an antitrust statute.  Indeed, the unofficial House Ways and Means Committee compilation discusses the 1916 Act (at page 63) in the context of historical background.

224 The United States notes, in this regard, that when a bill is first introduced in the House, it is often referred to more than one House committee for consideration and review before there is a vote on the House floor regarding its passage.  The House committees to which the bill is referred are those which are considered to have jurisdiction over one or more provisions of the bill under Rule 10 of the House Rules.  The decision regarding which House committees to refer a bill to is made by the Speaker of the House, and sometimes it can be contentious.

Document info
Document views408
Page views408
Page last viewedFri Dec 09 14:06:45 UTC 2016
Pages130
Paragraphs2054
Words82375

Comments