Order Code IB10081
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Lumber Imports From Canada:
Issues and Events
Updated August 13, 2002
Ross W. Gorte
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Jeanne Grimmett
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
U.S. Industry Arguments
Current Issues
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Historical Background
Analysis: Subsidies and Injury
Subsidies: Canadian Stumpage Fees
Subsidies: Export Restrictions
Injury to the U.S. Lumber Industry
Current Issues and Events
The 2001–2002 Countervailing and Antidumping Investigations
Canadian WTO Challenges to U.S. Countervailing Duty and Antidumping Laws
LEGISLATION
CHRONOLOGY
FOR ADDITIONAL READING

---

IB10081
08-13-02
Lumber Imports From Canada: Issues and Events
SUMMARY
U.S. lumber producers have raised con-
cant growth in Canadian exports and market
cerns about softwood imports from Canada
share, from less than 3 billion board feet
many years. Alleged Canadian subsidies (a
(BBF) and 7% of the U.S. market in 1952 to
prerequisite for establishing countervailing
more than 18 BBF annually since 1998 and a
duties — CVDs) were investigated in 1982,
market share of more than 33% since 1995.
1986, and 1992. No subsidies were found in
Canadians counter that the U.S. industry has
1983. Preliminary subsidy findings led to a
been unable to satisfy the growth in demand.
1986 Memorandum of Understanding (with a
U.S. homebuilders and other lumber users
15% Canadian tax on lumber exported to the
assert that Canadian lumber is needed to
United States), and to a 6.51% CVD in 1992.
satisfy U.S. demands.
The 1992 CVD was challenged under the
U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, and was
Current Issues. In response to peti-
terminated in 1994. A 1996 Softwood Lum-
tions, the Department of Commerce initiated
ber Agreement (SLA) restricted lumber ex-
CVD and antidumping investigations on April
ports to the United States for 5 years, until
30, 2001. Final Commerce determinations on
March 31, 2001. (See CRS Report RL30826.)
March 22, 2002, were subsidies of 19.34%
and average dumping margins of 9.67%. On
U.S. Industry Arguments. The U.S.
May 2, the ITC voted 4-0 that imports had
producers argue that they have been injured by
caused injury to the U.S. industry. This led
Canadian subsidies, especially for provincial
the Commerce Department to publish its final
“stumpage fees” (for the right to harvest
countervailing duty order, initiating duties
trees). In Canada, the provinces own 90% of
averaging 29%, on May 22, 2002. Canada has
the timberlands; this contrasts with the United
requested binational panel reviews, under
States, where 42% of timberlands are publicly
Chapter 19 of NAFTA, of these findings.
owned and where government timber is often
sold competitively. These differences in land
Canada has filed five WTO cases against
tenure make comparisons difficult.
the United States in connection with softwood
lumber issues. In August 2001, the WTO
In addition, U.S. lumber producers argue
adopted a panel report finding that U.S. treat-
that log export restrictions in Canada subsi-
ment of export restrictions as a subsidy vio-
dize Canadian producers by preventing other
lates the SCM Agreement; the panel did not
producers from getting direct access to Cana-
recommend remedial action since such treat-
dian timber. U.S. log exports from federal
ment is not mandatory. A July 15, 2002, panel
and state lands are also restricted, but logs can
report upheld a U.S. law creating an adminis-
be exported from U.S. private lands. Canada
trative procedure for complying with WTO
has argued in the WTO that U.S. treatment of
decisions involving antidumping and CVD
export restrictions as a subsidy violates the
determinations. Three cases involve chal-
WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Counter-
lenges of U.S. actions in the softwood lumber
vailing Measures (SCM).
investigations themselves. A preliminary
mixed decision has been issued in one case;
Finally, U.S. producers argue that they
Canada has requested a panel in the second;
have been injured by imports of Canadian
the third is in consultations.
softwood lumber. They point to the signifi-
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10081
08-13-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On May 22, 2002, the Department of Commerce issued its final countervailing duty
order assessing countervailing duties of 19.34% ad valorem (as a percent of lumber values),
and anti-dumping margins averaging 9.67% on Canadian lumber exports. Canada has
requested binational panel reviews of the subsidy and injury determinations, in accordance
with Chapter 19 of NAFTA, and the panels are expected to report by February 11, 2003. On
July 15, 2002, a WTO panel upheld U.S. procedures for complying with WTO decisions. In
three separate cases, Canada is challenging the U.S. investigations; a preliminary panel
report in July 2002 led to a mixed decision in one, a panel has been requested in a second,
and consultations are continuing in a third case.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Concerns among U.S. lumber producers about softwood lumber imports from Canada
have been raised for decades; the current dispute has persisted for at least 20 years. U.S.
producers argue that they have been harmed by unfair competition, which they assert results
from subsidies to Canadian producers, primarily in the form of low provincial stumpage fees
(the fees for the right to harvest trees from Province-owned timberlands) and Canadian
restrictions on log exports. Canadians defend their system, and U.S. homebuilders and other
lumber users advocate unrestricted lumber imports. This issue brief provides a concise
historical account of the dispute, summarizes the subsidy and injury evidence, and discusses
the current issues and events. (For more historical background and analysis, see CRS Report
RL30826.)
Historical Background
The current dispute began in 1981, when letters from Members of Congress and a
petition from the U.S. lumber industry asked the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and
the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to investigate lumber imports from Canada
for a possible countervailing duty (CVD).1 The ITC found preliminary evidence of injury
to the U.S. industry, but in 1983, the DOC’s International Trade Administration (ITA)
determined that subsidies were de minimis (less than 0.5%), ending the CVD investigation.
In 1986, the U.S. lumber industry filed a petition for another CVD investigation with
the DOC and the ITC. A 1985 court ruling on an ITA determination of countervailable
benefits on certain imports from Mexico was seen as a favorable precedent for reversing the
ITA finding on Canadian lumber subsidies. The ITC again found preliminary evidence of
injury to the U.S. industry, and the ITA reversed its 1983 determination, with a preliminary
finding that Canadian producers received a subsidy of 15% ad valorem (i.e., 15% of lumber
1 U.S. trade law (19 U.S.C. 1671-1671h) authorizes countervailing duties on imported goods, if the
DOC determines that the imports are being subsidized (directly or indirectly) by a foreign country
and if the ITC determines that the imports have materially injured a U.S. industry. The duty is set
at the calculated level of the subsidies.
CRS-1

---

IB10081
08-13-02
market prices). On December 30, 1986, the day before the final ITA subsidy determination,
the United States and Canada signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), with Canada
imposing a 15% tax on lumber exported to the United States, to be replaced by higher
stumpage fees within 5 years. This agreement led the U.S. industry to withdraw its petition.
In September 1991, the Canadian government announced that it would withdraw from
the MOU, because most of the provinces had increased their stumpage fees. The U.S. Trade
Representative (USTR) responded by beginning a §301 investigation,2 pending completion
of a new CVD investigation by the ITA and the ITC. In March 1992, the ITA issued a
preliminary finding of 14.48% ad valorem subsidies, with a final determination in May
establishing a 6.51% ad valorem subsidies, leading to a 6.51% ad valorem duty. This was
confirmed in July with a final ITC finding that the U.S. industry had been injured by
Canadian lumber imports.
The Canadian federal government appealed both the ITA and the ITC final findings to
binational review panels under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (FTA), which was
signed on January 2, 1988. In May 1993, the binational subsidy panel remanded the ITA
finding for further analysis, and in September, the ITA revised its finding to 11.54% ad
valorem subsidies. In December, the binational subsidy panel again remanded the ITA
finding and ordered the ITA to find no subsidies. In January, the ITA complied with the
order. Using a provision of the FTA, the USTR requested an Extraordinary Challenge
Committee (ECC) to review the binational panel decisions, but the ECC was dismissed in
August 1994 for failing to meet FTA standards. In August, the DOC revoked the CVD, and
in October, the USTR announced that it would terminate the §301 action.
Two events in September 1994 induced Canada to negotiate restrictions on its lumber
exports to the United States. First, the U.S. lumber industry filed a lawsuit challenging the
constitutionality of the FTA review process. Second, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act
(URAA; P.L. 103-465) explicitly approved the President’s “statement of administrative
action” (SAA) that had accompanied his proposed legislation; the SAA stated that, because
of Canadian practices, lumber imports from Canada could be subject to a CVD. In February
1996, the two nations announced an agreement-in-principle — a fee on Canadian lumber
exports to the United States in excess of a specified quota for 5 years — with the final U.S.-
Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) signed in May and retroactive to April 1, 1996.
The SLA was effective through March 31, 2001.
Analysis: Subsidies and Injury
Annual Canadian lumber imports have risen from less than 3 billion board feet (BBF),
about 7% of the U.S. market, in the early 1950s to more than 18 BBF, more than a third of
the U.S. market, in the late 1990s. U.S. lumber producers argue that subsidies to Canadian
producers give them an unfair advantage in supplying the U.S. market and that this has
injured U.S. producers. These two issues — subsidies and injury — are the basis in U.S.
trade law for determining if a CVD is warranted. In addition, “critical circumstances” —
2 Under §301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2411-2420), the USTR can investigate and can
respond, with a broad range of feasible actions, to foreign trade practices which are found to be
illegal, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and are burdensome to U.S. interests.
CRS-2

---

IB10081
08-13-02
which allow for retroactive duties — are deemed to exist, if imports rise significantly after
ending import restrictions. Finally, dumping — selling imports at less than the cost of their
production — can lead to additional duties.
Subsidies: Canadian Stumpage Fees. The U.S. lumber industry has argued that
the stumpage fees charged by the Canadian provinces are less than the market price of the
timber would be and are therefore a subsidy to Canadian producers. About 90% of the
timberlands in the 10 provinces are owned by the provinces. The provinces require
management plans for forested areas and allocate the timber harvests through a variety of
agreements or leases, often for 5 or more years with renewal options. Stumpage fees for the
timber are determined administratively, often with adjustments to reflect changes in market
prices for lumber. This contrasts with the U.S. situation, where 42% of the forests are
publicly owned and where public timber is typically sold in competitive auctions; thus, much
of the timber in the United States is sold by public and private landowners at market prices.3
The use of administered fees in Canada opens the possibility that the Canadian system results
in transfers to the private sector at less than their fair market value, as the U.S. lumber
industry has charged. However, comparisons of U.S. and Canadian stumpage fees are often
disputed, because of: differences in measurement systems and the imprecision of converting
Canadian cubic meters of logs to U.S. board feet of lumber; differences in the diameter,
height, quality, and species mix of U.S. and Canadian forests; differences in management
responsibilities imposed on timber buyers (e.g., road construction, reforestation); differences
in environmental conditions and policies; and other factors.
Subsidies: Export Restrictions. Export restrictions by British Columbia (BC)
were identified as a subsidy to BC lumber producers by the ITA in its 1992 CVD
investigation. BC generally prohibits the export of logs from Crown (provincial) lands, to
assure domestic production, provide jobs, and encourage economic development. Export
restrictions on public timber in the United States indicate substantially higher prices for
export logs than for comparable logs sold domestically. Most economists would consider
restrictions that reduce domestic prices below the world market price to be subsidies, and the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) generally prohibits export restrictions. In
addition, current U.S. trade law allows the DOC to consider an export restraint on a product
to be a subsidy if the private parties who would be exporting the product provide the
restrained good to domestic purchasers for less than adequate remuneration. Nonetheless,
Canada challenged the ITA treatment of export restrictions as a subsidy, arguing that this
treatment is inconsistent with the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures. This challenge is discussed more below.
Injury to the U.S. Lumber Industry. Proving injury or threat of injury to U.S.
lumber producers is also essential to establishing a CVD. The share of the U.S. softwood
lumber market provided by Canadian lumber has grown substantially over the past 50 years.
In 1952, lumber imports from Canada were less than 3 BBF, and Canada’s market share was
less than 7%. In 1998 and 1999, Canadian lumber imports were more than 18 BBF, and
3 Some argue that U.S. federal agencies are not comparable to traditional, market-oriented private
“willing sellers,” because they do not make investments or sales based on profitability, as a private
landowner presumably would. However, the U.S. federal government owns only 33% of U.S.
timberlands, and thus probably has less impact on timber markets than do the Canadian provinces.
CRS-3

---

IB10081
08-13-02
Canada’s market share has fluctuated between 33% and 35% since 1995. These facts are
cited by U.S. producers as evidence that Canadian imports have come at the expense of
normal domestic growth in industrial lumber production. U.S. homebuilders and other
lumber users counter that Canadian lumber is essential to meeting domestic demand, and
argue for unrestricted imports. Despite consistent ITC findings of injury, indisputable proof
of injury to U.S. producers is difficult to establish.
Current Issues and Events
Two aspects of this situation are currently the focus of attention in this long-running
dispute over the exports of softwood lumber from Canada to the United States. One is the
2001-2002 countervailing and antidumping investigations. The other is the several WTO
challenges by the Canadians questioning the countervailing and antidumping investigative
processes.
The 2001–2002 Countervailing and Antidumping Investigations. The 1996
U.S.-Canada Softwood Lumber Agreement expired on March 31, 2001. On April 2, the U.S.
Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports filed antidumping and CVD petitions. On April 24, the
DOC announced that it was initiating the antidumping and CVD investigations, because the
petitioners had standing and had shown adequate industry support. On May 16, the ITC
issued its preliminary determination that there was “a reasonable indication that a U.S.
industry is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of softwood lumber from
Canada that are allegedly subsidized and sold in the United States at less than fair value”
(Investigations Nos. 701-TA-414 and 731-TA-928 (Preliminary)). On August 17, the DOC
published its preliminary determination of Canadian subsidies of 19.31% ad valorem (as a
percent of sale value), and established a preliminary duty at that level. DOC also found that
critical circumstances exist, allowing retroactive application of the duty. On November 6,
the DOC published its preliminary determination that Canadian firms were dumping lumber,
with margins ranging from 5.94–19.24% (12.58% for most firms). The DOC also announced
it would align, and postpone until March 25, 2002, final determinations in the CVD and
antidumping cases.
Negotiations were undertaken to forestall final determinations of injury, subsidy, and
dumping. The negotiations collapsed on March 21, 2002, and on March 22, the DOC issued
final determinations, with Canadian subsidies determined to be 19.34% ad valorem, and
dumping margins ranged from 2.26–15.83% (9.67% for most firms). On May 2, by a 4-0
vote of the commissioners, the ITC issued a final finding of injury. Duties averaging 29%
went into effect on May 22, when the DOC published the final duty notice in the Federal
Register.
Canada and Canadian lumber producers have sought binational panel reviews of DOC
final determinations in both the antidumping and countervailing duty cases, an option
available under Chapter 19 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in lieu
of judicial review. The panels have been established to examine whether the DOC
determinations are in accordance with U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty law; the
panels’ reports are due February 11, 2003.
Canadian WTO Challenges to U.S. Countervailing Duty and Antidumping
Laws. The DOC recognized the countervailability of export restrictions in its 1992
CRS-4

---

IB10081
08-13-02
determination of subsidies involving Canadian softwood lumber and in a 1990 determination
of subsidies involving leather from Argentina. In the SAA accompanying the Uruguay
Round Agreements Act (H.Doc 103-316, vol.1, pp. 925-926), and in the DOC’s Federal
Register explanation of its implementing rule (63 Federal Register 65349–65351, Nov.
25,1998), the Executive Branch confirmed that if it were again to investigate situations and
facts similar to those in the two cases just described, U.S. trade law would continue to permit
it to reach the same conclusion. Canada challenged this policy in the WTO, alleging that the
U.S. interpretation, as set forth in those documents, is inconsistent with U.S. obligations
under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). On August
23, the WTO adopted the final panel report in the case agreeing with Canada, that export
restraints do not constitute a financial contribution from the government, and thus do not
confer a countervailable subsidy under the SCM Agreement; however, the report
recommended no remedial action, since U.S. law does not require the DOC to treat an export
restraint as a subsidy and since there is no current U.S. measure based on such a finding.
In apparent anticipation of possible U.S. antidumping and CVD cases against Canadian
softwood lumber imports, Canada filed another WTO complaint against the United States
on January 17, 2001, challenging § 129(c)(1) of the URAA, which sets forth procedures for
administrative compliance with adverse WTO panel reports involving U.S. antidumping or
CVD measures. Canada alleged that § 129(c)(1) prohibits the United States from refunding
estimated duties in trade remedy proceedings that are found to be inconsistent with WTO
obligations and thus violates portions of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding and
various WTO antidumping and countervailing duty obligations. A WTO panel was
established in August 2001 to examine the complaint. The panel’s report, circulated to all
WTO Members July 15, 2002, concluded that the United States was not in violation of its
WTO obligations since the law did not mandate a WTO-inconsistent result. Under WTO
rules, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body must hold a meeting within 60 days to adopt the
panel’s report; the report will not be adopted at that time if Canada appeals.
On August 21, 2001, Canada requested consultations with the United States, claiming
that DOC’s preliminary subsidy and critical circumstances determinations in the softwood
lumber CVD proceeding violated the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994. Regarding the
subsidy determination, Canada cited, among other things, DOC’s treatment of stumpage as
a financial contribution, inflation of the subsidy by calculating a country-wide rate based
upon only a portion of Canadian exports to the United States, and measuring the adequacy
of remuneration for timber that provincial governments sold to lumber producers by
comparing stumpage prices in U.S. and Canadian markets, rather than by referring to
prevailing market conditions in Canada alone (see 66 Federal Register 45724-45725,
August 29, 2001). A dispute panel was established December 5, 2001, with panelists
appointed February 1, 2002. An interim panel report issued to the disputing parties July 26,
2002, reportedly concludes in part that DOC’s use of cross-border price comparisons violates
the SCM Agreement, but upholds the U.S. determination that provincial stumpage programs
constitute a financial contribution to the industry. While the panel reportedly also found that
DOC’s preliminary critical circumstances determination (allowing provisional duties) was
improper, DOC revoked the finding in its final CVD determination. A final panel report is
expected to be circulated in early September 2002, at which time parties will have 60 days
to appeal.
CRS-5

---

IB10081
08-13-02
On March 6, 2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States regarding the
provisional antidumping measures imposed on Canadian lumber after DOC’s affirmative
preliminary dumping determination October 31, 2001. Canada is arguing that neither the
initiation of the antidumping investigation nor the preliminary determination is in accord
with the WTO Antidumping Agreement. The case remains in consultations. On May 3,
2002, Canada requested consultations with the United States on DOC’s final subsidy
determination in the softwood lumber CVD case. Canada requested a panel at a July 29,
2002, meeting of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body; while the United States blocked this
initial panel request, WTO rules require that a panel be established at the next meeting that
the request is made.
LEGISLATION
H.Con.Res. 45 (Kolbe)/S.Con.Res. 4 (Nickles)
Express the sense of Congress of the desirability of open trade in softwood lumber
between the United States and Canada. H.Con.Res. 45 introduced February 28, 2001;
referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. S.Con.Res. 4 introduced January 29,
2001; referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
H.Con.Res. 54 (Chambliss)/S.Con.Res. 8 (Snowe)
Express the sense of Congress that the Administration should resolve problems of
unfairly traded Canadian lumber, and should make it the top trade priority. H.Con.Res. 54
introduced March 7, 2001; referred to the House Ways and Means Committee. S.Con.Res.
8 introduced February 7, 2001; referred to the Senate Finance Committee.
CHRONOLOGY
07/02 --
On July 15, a WTO panel upheld U.S. law for complying with WTO
decisions.
05/02 --
On May 22, the DOC published its final countervailing duty order, with
duties averaging 29%.
05/02 --
On May 3, Canada requested WTO consultations on whether U.S. final
subsidy determination is consistent with the SCM Agreement.
05/02 --
On May 2, the ITC voted 4-0 that the U.S. lumber industry was injured by
Canadian imports.
03/02 --
On March 22, the DOC announced final subsidy findings of 19.34% ad
valorem, and final antidumping margins of 9.67% ad valorem for most
Canadian firms.
03/02 --
On March 6, Canada requested consultations on whether U.S. antidumping
investigation and preliminary determination are consistent with WTO
Antidumping Agreement.
CRS-6

---

IB10081
08-13-02
12/01 --
On December 5, a WTO dispute panel was established to hear Canada’s
complaint that the DOC’s preliminary determinations in the softwood lumber
CVD proceeding violate the SCM Agreement and the GATT 1994.
11/01 --
On November 6, the DOC announced its preliminary finding of Canadian
lumber dumping, with margins of 12.58% for most firms, and the alignment
of the antidumping and CVD cases, with the final finding postponed until
March 25, 2002.
08/01 --
On August 23, the WTO adopted a panel report holding that U.S. treatment
of export restraints as subsidies violated WTO agreements. Also on August
23, a WTO panel was established to examine Canada’s complaint that a U.S.
law prohibiting the refund of estimated duties in proceedings found to be
inconsistent with WTO obligations also violated WTO agreements.
08/01 --
On August 21, Canada requested consultations with the United States in the
WTO regarding the DOC’s preliminary determinations in the CVD case.
08/01 --
On August 17, the DOC issued its preliminary finding of 19.31% ad valorem
Canadian subsidies and of the existence of critical circumstances.
05/01 --
On May 16, the ITC issued its preliminary finding of injury to the U.S.
lumber industry by Canadian lumber imports.
04/01 --
On April 2, the U.S. Coalition For Fair Lumber Imports filed antidumping
and CVD petitions to restrict Canadian softwood imports. On April 24, the
DOC announced the initiation of the antidumping and CVD investigations.
03/01 --
At midnight on March 31, the 1996 Softwood Lumber Agreement expired.
01/01 --
On January 17, Canada requests consultations with United States under WTO
Dispute Settlement Understanding, arguing that U.S. procedures for
administrative compliance with adverse WTO panel reports violate the
Understanding.
09/00 --
WTO panel established to assess Canadian objection to U.S. treatment of
export restrictions.
05/00 --
Canada requests consultations with United States under WTO Dispute
Settlement Understanding, arguing U.S. treatment of export restrictions is
inconsistent with WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing
Measures.
06/99 --
U.S. Customs Service reclassifies rougher-headed lumber and notched studs
as softwood lumber subject to the SLA.
12/98 --
U.S. Court of International Trade upholds Customs Service ruling that drilled
studs are softwood lumber subject to the SLA.
CRS-7

---

IB10081
08-13-02
06/98 --
U.S. Customs Service issues final decision reclassifying drilled studs as
softwood lumber subject to the SLA.
02/97 --
U.S. Customs Service issues New York Ruling Letter B81564 classifying
drilled studs as builders’ joinery exempt from the SLA.
05/96 --
USTR and Canada sign Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA), retroactive to
April 1, 1996.
12/94 --
Negotiations begin between the USTR and Canada to restrict lumber imports.
10/94 --
USTR terminates §301 action against Canadian lumber imports.
08/94 --
ECC dismissed, and 2/94 binational subsidy panel order affirmed.
01/94 --
Binational subsidy panel orders ITA to find no subsidies; ITA complies.
10/93 --
ITC reanalysis confirms original finding of injury to U.S. industry.
09/93 --
ITA reanalysis confirms and revises final finding to 11.54% ad valorem
subsidies by Canada.
07/93 --
Binational injury panel remands ITC analysis of injury for further analysis.
05/93 --
Binational subsidy panel remands ITA analysis of subsidies for further
analysis.
08/92 --
Canada challenges ITA and ITC findings under the U.S.-Canada Free Trade
Agreement (FTA), leading to binational panels to review the ITA finding of
subsidies and ITC finding of injury.
07/92 --
ITC issues final finding of injury, confirming the CVD.
05/92 --
ITA issues final finding of subsidies, establishing the CVD at 6.51% ad
valorem.
10/91 --
USTR initiates §301 action; ITA self-initiates a CVD investigation.
09/91 --
Canada announces it will withdraw from the MOU.
12/86 --
Canada and USTR announce a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with
a 15% Canadian export tax instead of a CVD.
10/86 --
ITA issues preliminary finding of subsidies, setting a CVD at 15% ad
valorem.
05/86 --
U.S. Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports files a CVD petition.
CRS-8

---

IB10081
08-13-02
03/83 --
ITA issues preliminary finding of de minimis subsidies, ending CVD
investigation.
10/82 --
U.S. lumber industry files petition requesting a CVD.
12/81 --
Letters from Members of Congress to USTR requesting a CVD investigation
of lumber imports from Canada.
FOR ADDITIONAL READING
Benjamin Cashore, Flights of the Phoenix: Explaining the Durability of the Canada-US
Softwood Lumber Dispute (Orono, ME: Canada-American Center, Dec. 1997).
Brink Lindsay, Mark A. Groombridge, and Prakash Lougani, Nailing the Homeowner: The
Economic Impact of Trade Protection of the Softwood Lumber Industry (Washington,
DC: Cato Institute, 2000).
John A. Ragosta, Harry L. Clark, Carloandrea Meacci, and Gregory I. Hume, Canadian
Governments Should End Lumber Subsidies and Adopt Competitive Timber Systems:
Comments Submitted to the Office of the United States Trade Representative on Behalf
of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports (Washington, DC: Dewey Ballantine LLP,
April 14, 2000).
FLC Les Reed, Two Centuries of Softwood Lumber War Between Canada and the United
States: A Chronicle of Trade Barriers Viewed in the Context of Saw Timber Depletion
(Montreal, Canada: Free Trade Lumber Council, May 2001).
Random Lengths, What’s New This Week? U.S.-Canada Trade Dispute Timeline (at [http://
www.randomlengths.com/base.asp?s1=In_Depth&s2=U.S.-Canada_Trade_Dispute] on
May 2, 2000).
World Resources Institute, Canada’s Forest at a Crossroads: An Assessment in the Year
2000, a Global Forest Watch Canada Report (Washington, DC: 2000).
CRS Reports
CRS, “Softwood Lumber Imports From Canada,” Trade Briefing Book (at
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebtra119.html]).
CRS Report RL30826, Softwood Lumber Imports From Canada: History and Analysis, by
Ross W. Gorte, Feb. 2, 2001.
CRS-9

---