Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T17:23:25.397Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2017

Monroe Leigh
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Keywords

Import restrictionscountervailing duties“generally available” rule
Type
Judicial Decisions
Information
American Journal of International Law , Volume 79 , Issue 1 , January 1985 , pp. 137 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See 47 Fed. Reg. 39,379, 39,381–82 (1982).

2 U.S. law distinguishes between “export” subsidies, which are specifically designed to promote exports, and “domestic” subsidies, which are benefits to a firm’s general manufacture or production. See §771(5) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. §1677(5). While export subsidies are always countervailable, domestic subsidies are countervailable only under certain circumstances.

3 590 F.Supp. 1237, 1239.

4 id.

5 Section 771(5)(b) of the Trade Agreements Act of 1979, 19 U.S.C. §1677(5)(B).

6 In Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States, 564 F.Supp. 834 (Ct. Int’l Trade 1983) (per Maletz, J.), the court approved the generally available rule and noted that without such a rule “almost every import entering the stream of American commerce [could] be countervailed.” Id. at 838.