The United States Argument

The United States Argument The United States convinced that the Article 2.4.2 of the Anti Dumping Agreement does not require the provision of offsets

In addition, the United States in a case if the export price is higher than the normal value, the WTOs members collect no anti-dumping duty, but does not give the importer the credit against other export transactions, Thus the comparison is based on a single transaction.

The United States also argue that there was a similar case with Uruguay => If there was any problem related to the use of zeroing methodology why they still used it as a main method in the comparison.

ConclusionZeroing is not permitted under the transaction-to-transaction methodology set out in the first sentence of the Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

The United States agreed to remove its countervailing and anti-dumping duty orders on Canadian softwood lumber. The US also agreed to return more than $4.5 billion in duties it had collected since 2002.

In exchange, Canada agreed to a cap on its softwood exports to the US at 34% of the US market. Furthermore, Canada agreed to impose an export charge on Canadian softwood lumber exports when the price of lumber is at or below US$355 per thousand board feet.ConclusionThe new agreement only applies to the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec. The Atlantic Provinces and the territories are excluded from the agreement because their timber industries do not operate on a provincial/territorial stumpage fee system.

The length of the agreement is seven years, beginning in 2006, with an option to extend it for an additional two years.