Canada-U.S. lumber spat gets split court ruling
Legal World
[##_1L|1013282846.jpg|width="86" height="80" alt=""|_##]The London Court of International Arbitration has issued a split ruling on Canadian softwood lumber shipments to the United States in the latest installment of the two countries' long-running trade feud. The ruling, released on Tuesday, addresses the first of two complaints the Bush administration has lodged, alleging that Canada had breached a 2006 trade deal by shipping too much lumber and exacerbating woes for struggling U.S. lumber firms.
The United States accused Canada of misinterpreting the agreement to give its exporters an unfair advantage.
The ruling marked a victory for the Western Canadian provinces of British Columbia and Alberta when the panel found against the U.S. claim that the provinces owed millions of dollars in export taxes aimed at limiting export surges.
Under the deal, Canadian lumber exporters can either pay export charges of up to 15 percent based on their selling price to the United States, or cap the charge at 5 percent along with an export quota that restrains volume.
British Columbia has traditionally produced about half of all the softwood that Canada exports to the United States.
However, the court found that Quebec and Ontario in Canada's east, which are also big producers and use the quota option to limit their exports, had sent too much lumber south.
"Under the panel decision, producers in the east of Canada will be penalized for over-shipping their allowable quota," said Zoltan van Heyningen, executive director of the Coalition for Fair Lumber Imports, the U.S. industry group that has been driving the complaints.
Canada claimed at least partial victory and said the ruling was a healthy step for the bilateral 2006 agreement, which was designed to avert more years of long, expensive lumber lawsuits.
"While Canada believes that it has fully complied with the agreement, we respect the tribunal's ruling ... Today's decision provides clarity with respect to the implementation of the SLA (Softwood Lumber Agreement) in the future," said Canadian Trade Minister David Emerson.
The United States had argued that the starting point for calculating export charges and volumes should be the first quarter of 2007, while Canada argued it should be July 2007. The court sided with the United States on that issue.
The two countries have one month to propose possible remedies for the overshipping issue, which might entail docking future exports, Van Heyningen said.
The U.S. coalition said it disagreed with the findings on the western provinces, which it said "let Canada off the hook regarding past collections of 'surge mechanism' export taxes," which they estimated at up to about $85 million.
The Bush administration has filed a separate complaint at the court, alleging that certain Canadian provinces were improperly propping up their lumber industries.
Related listings
-
Young lawyer appointed Romanian justice minister
Legal World 03/01/2008Catalin Predoiu, a 40-year-old lawyer, has been appointed Romania's new justice minister. His appointment ends a lengthy struggle between Romanian head of government Calin Popescu-Tariceanu and President Traian Basescu. The EU is closely following th...
-
Venezuela asks UK court to lift Exxon asset freeze
Legal World 02/29/2008Venezuela's state oil company has asked a British court to lift a $12 billion freeze granted to U.S. oil major Exxon Mobil pending arbitration over the seizure of oil fields in the South American country. Lawyers for PDVSA argued on Thursday that the...
-
EU Court Rules on in Vitro Dispute
Legal World 02/26/2008[##_1L|1000813288.gif|width="115" height="75" alt=""|_##]The European Court of Justice, clarifying an Austrian labor dispute, ruled against a Salzburg woman's claim that she had been entitled to labor protection when she was fired while pursuing in v...
Grounds for Divorce in Ohio - Sylkatis Law, LLC
A divorce in Ohio is filed when there is typically “fault” by one of the parties and party not at “fault” seeks to end the marriage. A court in Ohio may grant a divorce for the following reasons:
• Willful absence of the adverse party for one year
• Adultery
• Extreme cruelty
• Fraudulent contract
• Any gross neglect of duty
• Habitual drunkenness
• Imprisonment in a correctional institution at the time of filing the complaint
• Procurement of a divorce outside this state by the other party
Additionally, there are two “no-fault” basis for which a court may grant a divorce:
• When the parties have, without interruption for one year, lived separate and apart without cohabitation
• Incompatibility, unless denied by either party
However, whether or not the the court grants the divorce for “fault” or not, in Ohio the party not at “fault” will not get a bigger slice of the marital property.