US declared Bombardier impeded trade probe, uncooperative and found dumping as a result

Oct. 10, 2017: The US Department of Commerce concluded Bombardier was uncooperative, didn’t answer its questions and impeded the trade investigation in the Boeing complaint.

Accordingly, under US law, Commerce could draw negative conclusions toward Bombardier and found it “guilty” (our word) of violating anti-dumping laws in its sale of the CS100 to Delta Air Lines.

The conclusions are revealed in the DOC’s filings obtained today. The documents are dated Oct. 6, the day the decision was announced. The documents are here: Anti Dumping 100617Reasoning BBD 100617

 

147 Comments on “US declared Bombardier impeded trade probe, uncooperative and found dumping as a result

  1. Quand tu veux tuer ton chien, tu dis qu’il a la rage. Et comme le chien ne parle pas…

    • Quand tu veux tuer ton chien, tu dis qu’il a la rage. Et comme le chien ne parle pas…

      When you want to kill your dog, you say he has rage. And as the dog does not speak

      My aren’t we cool- a step above pig latin just like the big kids in the sand box !

      • Solution simple

        Tell Canadian and UK public not to fly on Boeing aircraft

        Then watch the reaction

        AJK

        • Not a large market for air travel and no one tells the public what to fly on as the average traveler could not care less what aircraft they are on.

      • He seems to be quoting a saying (in his native language, I guess). Not sure why you liken it to pig Latin?

        Also, “rage” translates to “rabies” AFAIK.

        • 99 plus percent of the posts in this forum are in English- so what logical reason to post in anyn other language ?

          • What logical reason is there to get so upset by this? 😉

  2. For those not familiar with the US legal system, which apparently includes Bombardier’s legal team, in a civil (not criminal) case, if one side doesn’t show up for a court date without a very unusual excuse (like you had a heart attack or got hit by a meteorite on the way to the court), or fails to respond to court orders in a timely fashion, the judge may declare the other side to be the winner by default. Although trade disputes are not quite the same as civil cases, the principal that you forfeit the game to other side if you don’t show up to play, is not unique to trade disputes in the US legal system. In a criminal case, you won’t be declared guilty if you don’t show up for court, but you will have a bench warrant issued for your arrest and may be jailed for failure to appear. My advice to those doing business in the US, you need respect the US legal system, or if you can’t, then go do business in some other country. In particular, making kangaroo court comments to the press about a regulatory body or court while ignoring its request for information is to put it politely, not likely to help your case, and to put it not politely, just plain stupid. The quotes below are from the link after the quote.

    “What is a Default Judgment?
    In a civil lawsuit, a defendant who does not respond to the suit papers in a timely manner is considered “in default.” When the plaintiff makes the required showing of default and offers proof to the court of the amount of money owed, the court will issue a default judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. (Learn more about Parties in a Civil Lawsuit.)

    At that point, the plaintiff will be entitled to pursue enforcement of the default judgment in accordance with the procedures of the particular jurisdiction where it was obtained — the rules of the county branch of the state’s civil court, for example.”

    http://research.lawyers.com/default-judgments-in-civil-lawsuits.html

    • If it is true that Bombardier refused to comply with repeated requests for some particular information, then they have probably ruined any chance of a successful appeal to the US Federal Courts. My advice to Bombardier if they make it to the US Federal Courts – the US Courts are not an internet comment page or a political campaign. Insults to people, such as Federal Judges, who have the power to fine or jail you for contempt of court, or throw out your case, have consequences, and your typical Federal Judge is not going to take crap from anyone on either side of the case. Beginning sentences addressed to a judge with “Your Honor” is highly advised. Do not confuse the political system, where you are free to disagree with anyone, with the judicial system, where you must obey a court order, although you may is some cases have a right to appeal it.

      • It might be the case that Bombardier do not want to show the prices they pay for the parts made in China as they assume that information will be leaked to Boeing. The rest is “run of the mill parts” and parts and systems sourced in the US. Opening a FAL in Witchia at Learjet for US customers might get them out of the US/Boeing legal cross hairs.

        • Interesting that under a Civil action, they can compel you to reveal your deepest industrial (and hugely costly) operations.

          So, Canada needs to enact a similar law, make it retroactive (as that is allowed in civil matter of course) and then take Boeing to task.

          Pretty simple.

      • Honestly, do you really believe that court etiquette in Canada, or nearly every civilized nation differs that much from that of the US? The reticent decision not to disclose information in legal proceedings can be multi-fold: Perhaps BBD signed non-disclosure agreements with international partners on pricing matters, maybe implications on intellectual property are sensitive, or maybe their team (overly?) relied on the argumentation that maybe even prima facie is not established.

        More particularly though, note that in the department of commerce (!) memorandum, there are multiple instances describing that rebuttal statements were made. To infer contempt of court (as in a repugnant defendant in criminal court), is definitely pushing the scope here…

        • “Honestly, do you really believe that court etiquette in Canada, or nearly every civilized nation differs that much from that of the US?”

          YES.

          As visible here the US system does not enforce impartiality of the judging body.
          Similarities to “witch processes” is strong imho.

          Not the first time the US legal system has been leveraged to get at proprietary information in a rather one sided affair.

          • Uwe, you are referring to jurisdiction not etiquette in court 😉

            Technically speaking, with the DoC not being part of the Department of Justice, I’m not sure whether this can be called a court ruling. Wouldn’t that be a decision by the US ITC?

      • BBD probably has one avenue of appeal on the AD side – which is alleging that DOC improperly determined that there were reviewable sales. If they get the right CIT judge, they may get a remand. But, in general, DOC is master of its investigation process and telling DOC that you’re not willing to provide information because you read the law differently than the administering agency isn’t going to get you very far.

    • If no committee, thus far, could see through the steaming pile that was/is the Boeing case, there is very little point in continuing to pretend there is anything remotely even handed in the process.

      By now, it’s obvious that BBD was going to be, and will continue to be punished based on bizarre, outlandish, unsubstantiated claims of harm to Boeing, that there is no possible way to get a fair hearing in the US.

      Ironically, absolutely no harm came to Boeing with the deal to Delta, but the actions of Commerce and company, are hurting US companies, Delta among them.

      It’s time for BBD to pull out of the US. They are unlikely to get any sales in that country so why keep supporting its economy? Start with packing up Wichita and moving the resources to Canada, Mexico, N.Ireland…basically anywhere but the US. Hit Boeing hard on penalties for the delays on the Cyclone and basically cut them out of any future contracts.

      The northern states depend on Canadian trade for a great deal of their economy. Canada is the number 1 market for 32 of the 50 states, and number 2 for 9 others.

      Trump is right. Screw NAFTA. There’s nothing the US offers that can’t be purchased from somewhere else.

    • I agree. I recognise the arguments put forward about disclosure of commercially sensitive information but, to my mind, with their approach Bombardier management have messed up. Something I think they also did earlier wrt software (https://leehamnews.com/2015/12/21/cs100-certified-we-review-cs100s-birth-with-vp-cseries-rob-dewar/) and, in hindsight, perhaps they were insufficiently clued up on the ramifications of Air Canada’s fleet decisions. Perhaps also in their rail operations re missing out on consolidation that recently led to Siemens and Alstom agreeing to join.

      • It crossed my mind that BBD could have entered into an CA (confidentiality agreement) with another company and therefore reluctant to share such information.

        And/or the CS’s are more expensive to build that is believed and in the long run not competitive from a price point which will make it difficult to get investors in the program?

        • Confidentiality agreements do not make you immune to being subject to examination in the AD/CVD context.

          Plenty of other companies have MUCH more sensitive production and sales practice data submitted to Commerce for assessment and analysis – TVs, washing machines, printing presses, uranium, etc.

    • @AP-Robert

      You’re really piling it on with a continous barrage of details — seemingly being lost in the legalistic and political minutia of US trade laws — instead of looking at the big picture.

      The fact of the matter is that the US has lost about all credibility on the international stage. With all of the lies, deceptions, American exemptionalism and America firstness coming out of Washington DC for the last 15 years, it’s no wonder that not even US allies don’t trust the US government on most of the most important issues in the world today. On international trade issues the image of the US is now that of “sore loser” and not a “winner”.

      I’m afraid that Boeing’s global image will now closely track the deteriorating image of the US.

      • Addendum

        Well, God is in His heaven
        And we all want what’s his
        But power and greed and corruptible seed
        Seem to be all that there is

        I’m gazing out the window
        Of the St. James Hotel
        And I know no one can sing the blues
        Like Blind Willie McTell

        Bob Dylan

      • Before you tar the US with such a broad brush maybe you should take a look in the mirror?

        There is no question the US has its own issues to live up to and with.

        There is also no question that others have enjoyed the umbrella the US has brought to various areas.

        Europe could not even deal with the former Yogu republic breakdown.

        And look at your own government(s) and tell me it or they have always been a shining start of integrity and decency

        Boeing has been appalling in its conduct. Boeing does not represent all of us nor the majority of us, nor does Trump factually.

        • America’s image has taken hits in recent years, from the decision to invade Iraq to the events of 2007 and 2008, when the American financial model took a huge hit,” he said. “But the most consequential is the ascent of Mr. Trump to the Oval Office.”

          Global popular opinion matters, Wisner said, in part because it defines how foreign leaders engage with American interests.

          The depths of disapproval registered abroad suggest that Trump has undone the progress Obama made in burnishing the American brand. It took Bush eight years, and the quagmire in Iraq, to notch such dismal ratings overseas, according to Pew. It has taken Trump six months.

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/poll-shows-us-tumbling-in-worlds-regard-under-trump/2017/06/26/87a4f1bc-5857-11e7-840b-512026319da7_story.html?utm_term=.cdbfb3c163ba

          • OV-99: Let me know which European country you hail from.

            I can then do the same to you.

            Having saved Europe’s butt from two WWIIs, stood the watch while Europe rebuilt during the cold war (and failed to bring their military up to snuff) , took care of the Balkans for you, backstopped you in Libya cause you got in over your head being anything to mind?

            How long do we have to baby sit Europe before it can at least support itself?

            Over here we have a term for that, Co-Dependent.

        • Europe can handle most issues in Europe, ME and Africa but that means letting Germany rearm to former size and strengths and everybody is hesitant to that, including the Germans themselves. They rather win the Commercial products race of advanced electromechanical Machines and vehicles and Airbus is an important part of that.

      • “piling it on with a continous barrage of details”? To me AP_Robert has been the most helpful contributor throughout the case, specifically getting to the facts rather than emotions and conjecture.

        • @Woody

          Any reason why you chose to quote out of context?

          I said; “piling it on with a continous barrage of details — seemingly being lost in the legalistic and political minutia of US trade laws”

          When one chooses to go down the route of legalistic and political minutia, it’s quite easy not to see the forest for the trees.

          • @Woody

            “piling it on with a barrage of details” is not necessarily a bad thing — I’m doing the same thing at times. 😉

            However, my main point was “being lost in the legalistic and political minutia” — and thereby failing to see the big picture.

            Now, with Scott Hamilton’s latest entry “To kill a better bird”, I’d be surprised if you’d still feel that AP-Robert’s great many comments on the matter represent the reality of this case.

            Boeing’s brash and controversial move to file the trade complaint with the US Department of Commerce is a bold gamble designed to kill the Bombardier CSeries entirely, not just block it from the US market, people familiar with the strategy tell LNC.

            https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/12/kill-better-bird/

          • Be surprised then.

            Since this whole case arose (actually since the Canadian 737 deal several moons back) I’ve assumed Boeing is manoeuvering to eliminate the possibility of Bombardier establishing themselves as a significant competitor and I’ve believed that Boeing had sensed the opportunity that Trump’s attitude provided (posted a comment about this some time back). AP_Robert’s posts don’t change that.

            I simply find that his posts have been by far the most informative into how the case is unfolding, how and why it is that Boeing felt technically capable of pursuing it, how and why others may respond and so on. Good solid, speculation free, insight.

          • @Woody

            Fair enough. If you subscribe to AP_Robert’s condescending attitude towards Bombardier, I’m not going to be surprised that you really do like his rants.

            My advice to Bombardier if they make it to the US Federal Courts – the US Courts are not an internet comment page or a political campaign. Insults to people, such as Federal Judges, who have the power to fine or jail you for contempt of court, or throw out your case, have consequences, and your typical Federal Judge is not going to take crap from anyone on either side of the case. Beginning sentences addressed to a judge with “Your Honor” is highly advised.

            https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/10/us-declared-bombardier-impeded-trade-probe-uncooperative-found-dumping-result/#comment-201469

            Now, I’d argue that Richard Aboulafia has a rather better take on the situation.

            The Commerce ruling represents an extension of an “America First” trade agenda. The Trump administration is increasingly relying on unilateral trade actions instead of multilateral negotiations. According to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, if the administration follows through on all of its proposed trade actions, the share of U.S. imports subject to unilateral restrictions would rise to 7.4% of the total from 3.8% in 2016.

            Commerce’s C Series ruling might be rendered moot by February, when the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is set to rule on whether Boeing was actually damaged by Bombardier’s actions. But many believe the level of Commerce’s duties is as politicized as the trade complaint itself. The combined duties are nearly twice Boeing’s request of combined 160% countervailing/anti-dumping duties. Assuming Boeing is correct and Delta paid $20 million per jet, there is now a $60 million duty on each aircraft. That comes to $4.5 billion in duties for this deal, a seemingly arbitrary number.

            For jetliner markets, there are two likely consequences of the C Series case. First, since other countries will see it as a political outcome, they will retaliate, either through multilateral institutions such as the WTO or through their own national barriers.

            Since it is relatively easy to “prove” that a jet was subsidized (by one country’s criteria, without any multilateral adjudication) pretty much anyone would be able to keep competing jets out of their home markets. In this way, decades of progress toward free trade in jetliners could be undone in a few years.

            http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/opinion-could-us-trade-rulings-put-chill-aircraft-financing

            NB: If you’re interested, there’s also a relevant podcast available at aviationweek.com

            http://aviationweek.com/commercial-aviation/podcast-protectionist-threat-aviation

    • Wow, thanks for that lesson on US law. Have you considered the questions that were asked go to the heart of their commercial enterprise. Revealing that information would be effectively giving away the farm. Would Boeing open up its books to that scrutiny? I think not. BBD has been doing business in the US since its inception. I would think they have a decent legal team. They are just struggling to adapt to the new Trump playing field. The one where only the US can subsidize its industries.

      • What was Boeing asking for? Was it technical info or just pricing of the CS-100 sold to Delta and the cost to build the plane? BBD has been through some hard times, they are a small OEM embarking on a new product line in a very competitive market. Did they sell the frames below cost to break into the market with a large legacy airline? Was that the info that was requested? I just don’t know.

        • Cliff notes version

          Boeing filed a complaint with the govt trade agency re ‘ selling below reasonable costs due to improper subsidies, etc ) . The agencies DO have access to import values stated by the manufacturer. If the values do not seem to be correct re ‘ sales’ price , the agencies can then ask for supporting data. If company refuses to justify or provide supporting data, the agencie(s) can then stop imports, levy fines, levy tariffs, demand payback, etc.

          I use agencies cuz there are two or more involved depending on type of complaint, when filed, how filed, claims, etc.

          Its a very complex system. Sufffice it to say Boeing ( or any company) does NOT get access to certain cost and trade data. The agency ‘ court’ can and does get access under certain conditions.

          • Neither the ITC nor Commerce can levy fines, stop imports or demand payback.

      • Plenty of other companies have MUCH more sensitive production and sales practice data submitted to Commerce for assessment and analysis – TVs, washing machines, printing presses, uranium, etc.

  3. The legal jargon cannot hide the fact that the fix was in from the beginning.

  4. It reminds me when Concorde was not authorized to land at JFK. Same for the Eastern Airlines A300B at LaGuardia.

    There is also this conspiracy theory about the CF-105 Arrow which says that Canada was invited to cancel the programme, and as a replacement was offered for free some used F-101 Voodoos and useless Bomarc missiles.

    There was also a very strong lobby against the creation of CFM International.

    Boeing were convinced that this new Airbus consortium, like any similar European enterprise, would not survive very long. This time around though they decided they would take Bombardier more seriously than they had taken Airbus.

    But it’s too late now, the fox is inside the henhouse and the sim is already operational. The C Series can be slowed down, and that’s what Boeing is trying to do, but it can’t be stopped.

    And now the US government wants to wage a war against North Korea to retard the introduction of the C Series with Korean Airlines. 😉

        • Normand:

          There were a lot of aspects surrounding the CF-105, none really boil down to as simplistic as a few Voodoos.

          No one else was going to buy it and the cost to the Canadian military certainly were huge for Air Force when there are two other services with equally important needs.

          • Yes , UK and US had similar planned interceptors but its significant only the USSR put the Mig25 into service. Russia didnt really have the bomber fleets to make it worthwhile for the west

      • Man, that Korean Airline paint job on their first CS300 is one of the best looking paint jobs on any plane. They must have a real talented designer.

  5. Airbus is very quiet for me, assuming the CS’s are a no go in the US A319/320’s stand a good chance of being replaced by combinations of MAX7/8’s and not NEO’s if they don’t wake up, as was the case with AA and Air Canada?

    The 320’s is overdue for wing updates, or are they waiting to pick-up the C-series?!

    • Perhaps Airbus should consider buying BBD before anyone else does ? I suspect that there could be considerable interest in the BBD operation in China.

      It would be quite ironic if BBD far from being killed off gets moved to China, and becomes a far larger threat to the big two.

      There is a much bigger market for aircraft in Asia than the US going forward.

      If an entity with deep pockets were to put the money up front, would we see a CS500 ?

      Potentially the entire range could be produced at even lower price in say China ?

      Could CFM decide at that point that it would be worthwhile producing a variant of the LEAP for the CSeries ?

      • Airbus would have already bought it if they thought there was any potential profit. The only reason to buy is to keep it out of Chinese hands. That is what I don’t understand about Boeings strategy. There must be extensive discussions going on behind the scenes.

      • As long as the Bombardier family own the majority of shares, no sell to Airbus or Boeing.

        • I believe there was expressed interesting by Airbus at one point.

          It would be a killer addition.

          Airbus could eliminate the inferior 318/19 and 320 (grin) and concentrate on the far more lucrative A321.

          And as well they could give the A321 the wing it needs to clear its orbit.

          • If Boeing can put their hands on the CS100/300/(500) and start with a ~220 seat MoM Airbus will start to look like a very fragile company in a couple of years.

            ..and if rumors are true about a HGW 787-10 with ~80KLb engines and a “super range” 787-9 making use of these mods,…… I should have bought Boeing shares a year ago.

  6. Intersting. I think the brits are not happy : amp/montrealgazette.com/business/local-business/aerospace/boeing-is-a-subsidy-junkie-uks-labour-says-in-bombardier-spat/amp

    • The last paragraph is particularly interesting:

      “We are absolutely coming at Boeing,” Gardiner said. “All the advertisements, all the front covers of the evening newspapers in London that they’ve put on are not persuading anybody other than that they’re playing dirty.”

    • Of course not. But speaking for the main opposition party, which has turned hard left in the past 2 years and is going up against a weak, divided government, it would be very surprising if he or a colleague hadn’t made a strongly worded statement echoing UK public opinion.

  7. According to Delta 5hey will receive the CS100 and not pay a dime more than they have agreed to pay. In other words, Delta thunk Boeing will lose. See FlightGlobal

    • Think we are heading for a Rodeo challenge here?

      From the various articles Delta seems fairly straight about it, “not paying the tariffs”.

    • Bloomberg: “We will not pay those tariffs, and that is very clear,” Bastian said on a conference call after reporting third-quarter results. “We intend to take the aircraft.”

      Interesting. Is this Ed posturing in a way that preserves their aircraft deposits? I’m not sure what leverage he has with either Boeing or the current chaotic WH admin.

      • Seems to be catching.
        Mexico: we will not pay for that wall!
        Delta: we will not pay for that tariff!

        Delta has PLENTY of options. For example, they could simply invest some cash in a FAL for Bombardier in Kansas in exchange for Bombardier shares, then announce they are buying 100 more planes. The jump in BBD shares on that announcement alone immediately nets them a nice gain, which they can sell immediately if they want, so other airlines don’t have to feel they are buying from a competitor. Delta owns an oil refinery, so doing deals in the supply chain is nothing new to them.

        The great weakness in this Boeing/Trump attack is they are messing with a North American entity that knows the neighborhood. They can bypass this nonsense quite easily by giving on a little optics at almost no real cost. If they move the FAL for US deliveries to Kansas in the above option, they could do somethings either in the CSeries or other programs to equalize so they maintain essentially the same Canadian input and their local areas in Canada don’t suffer.

        Boeing and Trump run around and come up empty handed. Sad!

    • Some six months ago I predicted the SIA, Air Malaysia actions. At the same time I said watch out, DAL could place a big order for MAX8’s, and be launch customer for the MoM.

      This is more likely than before for me against popular believe. The CEO is responsible for the company. If he can get these at very low prices and see the tariffs fade, why not?

  8. E NUFF already- I note that an empty barrel (devoid of facts )makes the most noise .

    • You got that right, Don.
      A lot of people here whining as if their favorite sports team got flagged a bunch of times by the ref. I’m choosing to find amusement in it.

      • A lot of people here whining as if their favorite sports team got flagged a bunch of times by the ref. I’m choosing to find amusement in it.

        LOL!

        The fact of the matter is that the Boeing boys won’t admit that Boeing is out to kill off a competing product line.

        Boeing’s brash and controversial move to file the trade complaint with the US Department of Commerce is a bold gamble designed to kill the Bombardier CSeries entirely, not just block it from the US market, people familiar with the strategy tell LNC.

        https://leehamnews.com/2017/10/12/kill-better-bird/

  9. Bombardier has been held to the rules as by the department of commerce. A different set of rules is the Washington state constitution and the McCleary case to fully fund education. If the state legislature does not come up with a fix, will the supreme court act against tax breaks for Boeing? The department of commerce ruling might embolden the courts to act more aggressively. If the federal government can give out a 7 billion dollar tariff, will the state government revoke an 8 billion dollar tax break?

        • Well said. Picking and choosing the rules that you abide by is unfortunately the problem. The USA has its own definition of a subsidy. It goes something like this:

          US Government money to support industry in the USA is not a subsidy. Foreign government money to support industry in their own country is a subsidy.

          The US government has been subsidising industry in the USA at least since FDR (the great depression) and probably even before. My own view is that government subsidy was invented in the USA

          • Do some homework- Look up GATT92 ( now known as WTO ) to grasp just what the international rules really are-were agreed to by various nations.

          • @Don

            The 1992 agreement was a bilateral agreement between the EC (now EU) and the US on trade in Large Civil Aircraft (LCA) — i.e. it was not negotiated through GATT.

            EU – US Agreement on Large Civil Aircraft 1992: key facts and figures

            The 92 EU-US Agreement

            Until the late 70s the US enjoyed almost a de facto monopoly in the Large Civil Aircraft (LCA) sector. The Airbus consortium (created in 1969) started competing effectively in the 80s. At that stage the US became concerned about the European competition and the alleged subsidies paid by the European governments for the developments of the early models of the Airbus family. This became a major issue of contention, as the European side was equally concerned by subsidies accruing to US LCA manufacturers through NASA and Defence programmes.

            The EU and the US started bilateral negotiations for the limitation of government subsidies to the LCA sector in the late 1980s. Negotiations were concluded in 1992 with the signature of the EC-US Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft which imposes disciplines on government support on both sides of the Atlantic which are significantly stricter than the relevant WTO rules: Notably,. the Agreement regulates in detail the forms and limits of government support, prescribes transparency obligations and commits the parties to avoiding trade disputes.

            Disciplines on EU and US support

            On the one hand, the agreement puts a ceiling on the amount of direct government support (33% of the total development costs) for new aircraft programmes. It establishes that such support (granted in the form of launch investments, which are repayable royalty-based loans) will be repaid at an interest rate no less than the government cost of borrowing and within no more than 17 years. Basically, this discipline applies to the form of government support mainly in use in Europe.
            On the other hand, the agreement establishes that indirect support ( e.g. benefits provided for aeronautical applications of NASA or military programmes) should be limited to a 3% of the nation’s LCA industry turnover. This discipline is primarily targeted at the support system in use in the US. In contrast to the European system of repayable launch investment there is no requirement for indirect support to be reimbursed and the generous ceiling of 3% is calculated on the larger basis of the turnover of the LCA industry and applies per individual year.

            European Government Support

            European governments provide repayable launch investment – not grants – to Airbus at the time of program launch. European government investments support the European technology research & development sector, just as US government R&D schemes have sought to do, through NASA, FAA, Department of Defence (DoD) and export tax relief programs. However, the EU governments spend three times less on aerospace R&D than the US government.

            All European government loans for Airbus programs have been made entirely within the letter and the spirit of the 1992 US-EU Agreement on Trade in Large Civil Aircraft since its entry into force and this will continue to be the case for all future Airbus programs. The US have not disputed this fact.

            Of the eight Airbus aircraft launched since 1990, only three programs have been launched with government investment.

            Airbus pays royalties to governments over the entire life of the aircraft programs. Interest and principal is repaid on deliveries, even before the programs break-even and irrespective of the sale price

            U.S. Government Subsidies

            U.S. government subsidies, mostly in the form of military and NASA contracts, research and development expenditure and tax subsidies have enabled the U.S. aerospace industry to maintain its global dominance for more than 50 years.
            Unlike European launch investment, none of this support has to be repaid – and in fact is not repaid
            Since 1992, Boeing has received around $ 23 billon in subsidies from the U.S. government.

            The total U.S. Government indirect support of the U.S. LCA industry in FY 2003 alone was up to $2.74 billion. This represents around 11.9% of the FY 2003 commercial turnover of the U.S. LCA industry.

            Since 1990, Boeing has outsourced increasingly large shares of its civil aircraft programmes to other countries, e.g. Japan (more than 60% of the 7E7). The governments of these countries subsidize these shares, such that Boeing’s programs also receive substantial foreign subsidies.

            Since 1990 Boeing has avoided paying around more than $1.2 billion in federal taxes through the use of off-shore Foreign Sales Corporations (FSC). This is a direct (and illegal) government subsidy prohibited by international rules.

            The real issue is one of competitiveness: From 2001 to 2003, Boeing has invested only $2.8 billion of its own funds in commercial aircraft R&D and capital expenditure compared to $9.4 billion by Airbus. Lack of R&D and capital investment, has meant that Boeing has not launched any new programs since 1990.

            US subsidies in the form of Defence Procurement

            There are massive benefits accruing to Boeing’s large civil aircraft business from military R&D programmes and overpriced DoD contracts, e.g. sales of subsequently converted civil airplanes to the US Department of Defence at inflated prices. Recent examples include:

            Regarding the possible sale of B-767 refuelling “tanker” aircraft, a 2003 Morgan Stanley report establishes a subsidy margin of 9% or $1.6 to $2.3 billion in profits for Boeing. The report argues that the lease deal is the equivalent “at least 700 firm deliveries of Boeing 737s”, that the normal profit margin for the 767 is 6% and that the Pentagon plans to give Boeing up to 15%.
            On 14 June 2004, the US Navy awarded Boeing a contract worth potentially about $44 billion until 2030 for the production and maintenance of 108 civil B-737 and their conversion into long-range submarine hunter Multi-Mission Aircraft. It appears that airplanes will be built at Boeing’s civil plants in Wichita, Kansas, and Renton, Washington.

            US subsidies in the form of R&D expenditure

            Boeing’s large civil aircraft business benefits significantly from NASA and DoD R&D programmes. In 2003 alone, Boeing received US$ 2.74 bn in subsidies, including around US$ 2 bn from the US Department of Defence and more than US$ 600 million from NASA.

            The largest part of funds spent by the Government in R&D for a specifically aeronautical product constitutes a reduction in R&D expenses for the main potential user of the technology, i.e. Boeing. This is the case even if the R&D is eventually not successful.

            http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-04-232_en.htm?locale=en

          • Geezde Ov99- you are being very picky- as to ‘ thru’ or ” with” or ” during ” GATT- as portion of which became later known as WTO. I suggest if you read closely- you will ind ( as I recall ) that the term LCA ( large commdecial aircraft ) was really not defined as to capacity minimums or maximums – although it seemed obvious a piper j4 cub size was not in that category. A good friend o mine- since deceased over a decade ago-was present during the gatt 92 ‘ conference” and had very good relationships with various U.S govt types at the highest levels- including testimony berfore congress committes, etc.

            He had a copy of the pertinent parts on his desk- and couldquote chapter and verse the various features– but that in no way makes me an expert on all the neat little nuances. I did spend many hours in conversdation and guidance from him whil prepasring a CVD petition re Airbus in the late 90’s early 2000, which got ‘ dropped” due to 911- and that included a few communications and FOIA issues with appropriate Gubbermint. BA later used some of that data in their formal complaint.

            Pleasze relax and watch the blinking lights

            Don

          • @Don

            When you suggest that other people should do their “homework”, at least you’d expect that you’d done yours.

            Public support and subsidies are the most contentious issues in the LCA industry. Historically, there have been four main international legal arrangements to regulate LCA industry subsidies: (i) the 1978 OECD Consensus on Export Credits specifically, the LCA Understanding), (ii) the 1979 GATT Agreement on Civil Aircraft, (iii) the 1992 EU-US Bilateral Agreement on Trade in LCAs, (iv) the 1994 WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM). Currently, the LCA industry is mainly subject to the 1994 SCM Agreement, although more specific multilateral rules exist regarding forms of government support. This section chronologically summarizes these and other international arrangements to clarify the legal and historical roots of the dispute.

            http://www.onlinedergi.com/makaledosyalari/51/pdf2010_4_2.pdf

          • So you disagree with my ‘ cliffs notes’ version? Anything specific wrong with what I posted? Do you knosw how many peopl or what sized company is needed to file a trade case ? Do you know what is or is not available thru FOIA? Have you read the approx 15 to 20 page pertition form needed to file a CVD or similar complaint ?

            IOW Just what do you claim I misstatted ?

          • try fro example instead o an analysis paper the factual requirements for filing

            Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Petition Counseling and …
            enforcement.trade.gov/petitioncounseling/
            Sep 22, 2015 – Antidumping (AD) and Countervailing Duty (CVD) … Some examples of how the AD/CVD Petition Counseling and Analysis Unit may be able to help you include: … as amended, (19 U.S.C. 1671-1671h, 1673-1673h) and the related regulations in Title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
            Frequently Asked Questions . FAQs . AD/CVD Petition Counseling and …
            enforcement.trade.gov/petitioncounseling/pcp-faq.html
            Sep 29, 2015 – How does an AD/CVD investigation proceed? … Are the services offered by the Petition Counseling Office free of charge? … Can anyone file an antidumping/ countervailing duty petition?
            ‎What are the differences … · ‎Is it necessary that I be …
            [PDF]Guidelines for Countervailing Duty Petitions – Enforcement and …
            enforcement.trade.gov/petitioncounseling/Guidelines-for-CVD-Petitions-09-30-2015….
            Furthermore, those completing and submitting a CVD petition … requirements must be filed manually (i.e., in paper form) with the APO/Dockets Unit in Room.
            [PDF]Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Handbook – USITC
            https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/documents/handbook.pdf
            the filing of an antidumping or countervailing duty petition and the ….. Law” (form ITA-357P) and the “Petition Format for Requesting Relief Under U.S. …
            Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigations | USITC
            https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations.htm
            Active investigations are Commission import-injury proceedings that are pending a Commission determination or have been recently completed (typically within …
            AD/CVD Handbook | USITC
            https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/adcvd_handbook.htm
            The purpose of this handbook is to provide informal guidance to the public concerning the filing of an antidumping or countervailing duty petition and the …

            ben there dun that

          • @Don

            I do do my homework. The attack on Bombardier has no merit whatsoever. The attack is subjective. It starts with the CS series won’t make a profit. Subjective. Then subjective assumption after subjective assumption is piled on top. It ends with the judgement of subsidy. But not a shred of evidence is produced for all programes make a lose at the beginning. The 787 being an eample.

            It is LEGAL for governments to support industry as the WTO has so often ruled.

            To generalise, the first duty of government is the security of the people. FDR did nothing wrong. The Canadian government have done nothing

          • ” The attack on Bombardier has no merit whatsoever. ”

            Please inform the reponsible authorities of your unquestionable analysis so as to save both governments a lot of money and time with such a trival matter so that they can now turn to other more important issues. I’ll look for the necessay orms to nominate you for tthe next ignoble piece prize .

          • @Don

            I know you don’t understand.

            The CS series has just as much chance of making a profit as the 787 series. But you will say otherwise. Put your crystal ball away. The US government should also put their crystal ball away. Law is based on evidence not on crystal balls.

          • Gosh- I dont recall making such a determination in any of my posts-but I have tried to steer the bloviating into at least partially factual statements of the process via cliff notes style comments. Everyone is entitled to their opinion- but NOT thier own facts.

          • @Don

            Anything specific wrong with what I posted?

            Again,by suggesting that other people should do their “homework”, one would at least expect that you’d done yours (i.e. as in getting your facts straight).

            As for the issue in hand, the fact of the matter is that anti-dumping measures are open to protectionist abuse – a fact widely recognised by trade economists.

            Now, when it comes to unfair trade, Article VI (5) of GATT states that no one product from any one country can be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties.

            Interestingly, the US Department of Commerce clobbered Bombardier with not only a 219 per cent countervailing duty on the CSeries on September 26, but followed up with a 79.82 percent anti-dumping duty on October 6 — clearly in violation of Article VI (5) of GATT.

            So, what the the US under Trump is really telling the rest of the world is: “Do as we say, not as we do”!

            However, now that the rest of the world know that Boeing is set out to destroy the CSeries in the global market — i.e. that they’re not just trying to protect their home market using tried and tested mercantilist methods — the pathetic GATT treaty-violating action of the US Commerce Department is just confirming that the United States is now essentially an untrustworthy nation.

          • @Don

            You are getting there. There are no facts.

            The only facts we have is that the CS series as lost $6billion, the 787 series as lost $28billion. Both are being supported by their respective governments. Why is one a subsidy and the other not?

            The reason given by the US government is that the CS series will never make a profit. So it’s a subsidy. The US government can’t prove that judgement. It is pure speculation

            The bottom line is that the CS series is a lot better than Boeing’s offering. So unless Boeing stop it Bombardier will make a wacking profit at the cost of Boeing. Yes, speculation but then nobody has a crystal vall!

          • ..” You are getting there. There are no facts…” ???

            When a petition such as CVD is filed, the petitioner is obligated to provide such facts as are available an revelant supporting data. While on can also present an analyis based on facts ,, credibility is also expected.

            So your statement and conflation of 787 to the issue is a non starter- due to size and capacity differences. Any comparisons made as part of the petition/complaint have to be as near apples to apples as is reasonable. Which model of 787 are you comparing to the bombzrdier plane. Its got to be more than both have two engines, wings, and body. Following your method- we would use the 747 (No subsidy or loans ) to the Bomardier plane ? – thus proving BA point ?? Riiiiighhttt !!

          • @Don

            Perhaps your not getting there. The petition has presented ‘facts’ for a programme in it’s infancy. The CS series is in its infancy. So tge US government have used a crystal ball to predict the future. The crystal ball says that the CS series won’t make a profit. ERGO, Canadian government support represents a subsidy

            Having said the above, we need to think of Area 51. Perhaps aliens are helping the US government predict the future

          • Hello OV-099,

            You made the following statement earlier in this thread.

            “Now, when it comes to unfair trade, Article VI (5) of GATT states that no one product from any one country can be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties. ”

            Here is Article VI (5) of GATT.

            “5. No product of the territory of any contracting party imported into the territory of any other contracting party shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties to compensate for the same situation of dumping or export subsidization.”

            It is very reasonable for someone without much of a legal background to interpret this article in the way you did; however, I believe that the notes that follow Article V make it clear that your interpretation and understanding of this article, is not the WTO’s interpretation and understanding of this article. What the article is actually saying, I believe, is that when you charge both CV and dumping duties, you can’t include a particular price effect in both calculations, i.e. you can’t double count an effect. See the quote below from the article notes, My apologies in advance to anyone who came hear to toss juvenile insults back and forth and finds this a level of detail and complexity that strains their reading comprehension, attention to detail, or attention span. This is the level of detail and complexity that in my experience one routinely encounters in multi-million dollar business transactions, in which any disputes that arise will be settled on the exact and precise meaning of the written contracts and applicable law. In order to avoid job ending expensive mistakes, I have had to learn to read mind numbingly long and complex things exactly and precisely.

            “Article VI:5

            480. In US — Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties (China), the Panel and Appellate Body considered a claim that concurrent application of anti-dumping duties calculated under a non-market economy (NME) methodology and of countervailing duties resulted in a double remedy for the subsidies concerned.

            As the Panel explained, the dumping margin calculated under an NME methodology ‘reflects not only price discrimination by the investigated producer between the domestic and export markets (“dumping”)’, but also ‘economic distortions that affect the producer’s costs of production’, including specific subsidies to the investigated producer of the relevant product in respect of that product. An anti-dumping duty calculated based on an NME methodology may, therefore, ‘remedy’ or ‘offset’ a domestic subsidy, to the extent that such subsidy has contributed to a lowering of the export price.(676) Put differently, the subsidization is ‘counted’ within the overall dumping margin. When a countervailing duty is levied against the same imports, the same domestic subsidy is also ‘counted’ in the calculation of the rate of subsidization and, therefore, the resulting countervailing duty offsets the same subsidy a second time. Accordingly, the concurrent imposition of an anti-dumping duty calculated based on an NME methodology, and a countervailing duty may result in a subsidy being offset more than once, that is, in a double remedy. Double remedies may also arise in the context of domestic subsidies granted within market economies when anti-dumping and countervailing duties are concurrently imposed on the same products and an unsubsidized, constructed, or third country normal value is used in the anti-dumping investigation. ”(677)

            481. The Panel had interpreted the reference to “export subsidization” in Article VI:5 as support for its findings that SCM Articles 19.3 and 19.4 do not address the issue of double remedies. The Appellate Body reversed the Panel, holding that:

            “Article VI:5 prohibits the concurrent application of antidumping and countervailing duties to compensate for the same situation of dumping or export subsidization. In our view, the term ‘same situation’ is central to an understanding of the rationale underpinning the prohibition contained in Article VI:5, which in turn sheds light on the reason why, in the case of domestic subsidies, an express prohibition is absent.

            We recall that, in principle, an export subsidy will result in a pro rata reduction in the export price of a product, but will not affect the price of domestic sales of that product. That is, the subsidy will lead to increased price discrimination and a higher margin of dumping. In such circumstances, the situation of subsidization and the situation of dumping are the ‘same situation’, and the application of concurrent duties would amount to the application of ‘double remedies’ to compensate for, or offset, that situation. By comparison, domestic subsidies will, in principle, affect the prices at which a producer sells its goods in the domestic market and in export markets in the same way and to the same extent. Since any lowering of prices attributable to the subsidy will be reflected on both sides of the dumping margin calculation, the overall dumping margin will not be affected by the subsidization. In such circumstances, the concurrent application of duties would not compensate for the same situation, because no part of the dumping margin would be attributable to the subsidization. Only the countervailing duty would offset such subsidization.

            To the extent that these assumptions hold true, then the presence, in Article VI, of an express prohibition on the concurrent application of duties to counteract the ‘same situation’ of dumping or export subsidization, along with the absence of an express prohibition in connection with situations of domestic subsidization, appears logical — at least when normal value is calculated on the basis of domestic sales prices. We note that Article VI:1(a) of the GATT 1994, like Article 2.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, provides that the usual method for calculating normal value will be based on the comparable price for the like product in the exporter’s domestic market. Thus, in anti-dumping investigations, normal value will typically be based on domestic sales prices and any domestic subsidy will have no impact on the calculation of the dumping margin. Nonetheless, Article VI:1(b), like Article 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, sets out exceptional methods for the calculation of normal value, which are not based on actual prices in the exporter’s domestic market. The second Ad Note to Article VI:1, which provides the legal basis for the use of surrogate values for NMEs in anti-dumping investigations, also authorizes recourse to exceptional methods for the calculation of normal value in investigations of imports from NMEs. In case of domestic subsidization, it is only in these exceptional situations that there is any possibility that the concurrent application of anti-dumping and countervailing duties on the same product could lead to ‘double remedies’.”(678)

            End of Quote

            I do appreciate that you are going to primary sources to try to verify your suspicions about the way things are going. I think that is a very wise and useful thing to do; however, in this case I believe that you misinterpreted the primary source.

            For anyone who would like to check the accuracy of GATT excerpt I posted above for themselves, here is a link to the full text of the GATT agreement.

            https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/gatt1994_04_e.htm#article6

          • RIGHT ON ROBERT ! ben there- dun that- way to many moons ago !

            Don

          • @AP_Robert

            The basic principle for the combined use of an anti-subsidy and anti-dumping duty is outlined in Article V(5) in the GATT (1994) Treaty. It states that “No product shall be subject to both anti-dumping and countervailing duties for the purpose of dealing with one and the same situation arising from dumping or from export subsidization”.

            The door is thus open for the use of a two- component duty, but the measures together may not over-compensate the injury. Detailed rules constrain the levels of an anti-dumping duty and an anti-subsidy duty in procedures which should target either a subsidy or a dumping behavior. However, by using an anti-dumping procedure, which addresses only one „misbehavior‟, it will be possible to impose a duty at the same level as a two-component duty that addresses both subsidy and dumping. It is therefore at first glance a puzzle why two investigations should be conducted in case of simultaneous subsidy and dumping.

            http://www.etsg.org/ETSG2011/Papers/Nielsen.pdf

            The point here is that anti-dumping and countervailing duties may not over-compensate the injury and that the total duty imposed in a combined duty from a double track anti-dumping and countervailing proceeding, shall not exceed the duty imposed from either an anti-dumping proceeding or a countervailing duty proceeding.

            I’m not surprised that you seem to be subscribing to the view that a 300 percent duty is a correct compensation, and not an over-compensation, for the injury Bombardier supposedly has inflicted upon Boeing — never mind that the US Department of Commerce seems to have a hodgepodge understanding of international trade law when they chose to arbitrarily impose a grotesquely large two-component duty on Bombardier.

            Now, I’m sure that a legal scholar, such as yourself, would know that there’s a difference in law between anti-dumping and countervailing measures, although they’re marginal. Laws regulating countervailing duties require more sufficient proof (e.g. the existence of subsidy must be shown) than anti- dumping law, and the procedure is often quicker. This is because governments perform the subsidisation. It is politically sensitive to bring a claim against another state; therefore, the requirements of evidence are more demanding than those for anti-dumping.

            Plain protectionism under the guise of the fight against unfair trade is also a reality that is all the more unexpected because it emanates from countries proclaiming themselves to be liberal. This protectionism has become all the more subtle and difficult to identify as dumping and subsidy calculation methods have become more complex and the standards of evidence almost unattainable.

            If the international trade regime shall function properly, it’s essential to ensure transparency of anti-dumping and countervailing proceedings and measures in order to ensure that these measures are used only when unfair trade occurs. The lack of transparency in anti-dumping and countervailing proceedings makes it easy to use anti-dumping and countervailing measures for protectionist aims.

          • Robert, be sure not to refer to double counting methodology here as your citation are to NME practice. Obviously, Canada is not a NME. Some might argue that Quebec should be a NME, but Commerce has not made that determination.

  10. My reading of this is that the meeting didn’t go all that well, nor are the negotiations going that well, but I wasn’t there and I can’t read minds. All I know is what I’m reading between the lines. The quote is from the Washington Post article at the link after the quote.

    “In his Oval Office comments, Trump added that “we have to protect our workers, and in all fairness, the prime minister wants to protect Canada and his people also. So we’ll see what happens with NAFTA.”

    The president reiterated that “I’ve been opposed to NAFTA for a long time in terms of the fairness of NAFTA. I said we’ll renegotiate.” He said, “I think Justin understands that if we can’t make a deal, it will be terminated and that will be fine. They’re going to do well. We’re going to do well. But maybe that won’t be necessary. But it has to be fair to both countries.”

    Earlier Wednesday, during meetings with members of the House Ways and Means Committee, the Canadian prime minister stressed that he did not want negotiations to collapse.

    “He made it clear they don’t want to pull out. They want a successful renegotiation,” said Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), a member of the committee. Levin said Trudeau shared his concern about labor conditions and wages, saying he did not want the treaty to speed “a race to the bottom.”

    But Trudeau also told committee members that he was worried about “poison pills,” proposals the United States might make that were designed to kill, not repair, the NAFTA agreement.

    The Trump administration’s decision to impose 219 percent tariffs on Canadian aircraft — designed to block a Bombardier sale to Delta Air Lines that might otherwise go to Boeing — also inflamed tensions with Canada. Delta chief executive Ed Bastian said on an earnings call that Boeing’s case was weak and that he did not expect to pay the tariff, though he added that Delta’s 75-plane order could be delayed.

    Trudeau said he “highlighted” the dispute in his talks Wednesday. Switching to French, he added that “this was not an easy conversation but an important conversation.” He said Canada’s military might seek alternatives to Boeing for future fighter-jet purchases.

    Trump and Trudeau met one day after an interview was published in Forbes magazine in which Trump said that NAFTA had been “a terrible deal for our country.”

    “NAFTA has been a disaster for manufacturing in this country. We have lost so much of our car business to Mexico. NAFTA is a disaster as a deal,” Trump told the magazine. “Now we’re renegotiating it. I happen to think that NAFTA will have to be terminated if we’re going to make it good. Otherwise, I believe you can’t negotiate a good deal.”

    The fourth round of talks will extend to Tuesday.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/trudeau-fights-to-save-nafta-deal-but-trump-offers-little-hope/2017/10/11/1eadf4aa-aeb1-11e7-a908-a3470754bbb9_story.html?utm_term=.807c6b13c52f

  11. This is from the first document Scott noted:
    “Normally, the Department discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with a preliminary determination within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of preliminary determination in the Federal Register, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
    However, because the Department preliminarily applied total AFA to the individually examined company, Bombardier, in this investigation, in accordance with section 776 of the Act, and the applied AFA rate is based solely on the Petition, there are no calculations to disclose.”

    Correct me if I am wrong, but they boldly state here that any Information Bombardier supplies them, will be provided to Boeing, as part of their calculations.

    • You need to follow the context here. First, nothing gets revealed to the opposing party. Information is shared amongst the various attorneys representing the parties, but the parties will never see the confidential information of the other party.

      Second, there is nothing really to see in the calculations in this determination. Bombardier didnt provide any data (except for in Section A) so the calculations that Commerce performs are basically none. There was nothing to calculate!

    • Yes you are wrong. – Boeing and the publicmay get at best a summary – eg. Defendant did rerceive $$$$ from the following 3 sources totaling yyy$$$$ which were used improperly. instead of in accordance with rule zzz.333.444 .

      The equivanent of a ‘court ” will see the supporting data essentially ‘ in camera ” or under seal

      The public and Boeing gets the boilereplate answer plus the decision- all available under the FOIA which may include redactions of ceertain facdts and data.

      • The decision memo is right on the Import Administration’s web page. No need for FOIA request. The docket itself is available for anyone who has an “IA Access” account.

        • Correct re decision- my comment was about certain non proprietary supporting info involved- and normally available via FOIA.

          • This is a 15 year old copy of basic requirements – probably no significant changes-
            HERE IS BASIC PETITION GROUND RULES

            NOTE THIS IS A COPY OF A BLANK PETITION WITH THE GRAPHIC TABLE FORMS REMOVED. IT MAY BE MISSING A FEW LINES- IT IS SHOWN HERE ONLY FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES AND AS AN EXAMPLE.

            INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FORMAT FOR PETITION REQUESTING RELIEF
UNDER U.S. COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW
             
            The attached Format for Petition has been prepared in order to simplify the procedure for persons seeking to file a petition for relief under Title VII, Subtitle A, of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1671 (“the Act”)). The petition should contain, or be accompanied by, information set out below, to the extent it is reasonably available to you. Upon the receipt of this information, either in the accompanying format or in any other form you deem appropriate, the International Trade Administration (ITA) will be able to consider the initiation of a countervailing duty proceeding. Such proceeding is administrative in nature and may result in the imposition of special countervailing duties on specific imports. If any questions arise while completing the petition, please contact the Import Administration Office of Policy and Analysis at: (202) 482-4412.
            Imports of foreign merchandise are liable for special countervailing duties only after:
            (1) a determination is made by the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration that a countervailable subsidy is being provided with respect to the merchandise subject to the investigation; and
            (2) a determination is made by the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) that an industry in the United States is being injured, threatened with injury, or materially retarded by reason of imports of such merchandise. Please note that no injury investigation is required with respect to subsidized imports from a country which is not a Subsidies Agreement country.
            Before completing the attached Format for Petition, applicants should consult the Act, and, if necessary, discuss particular problems with an official of the ITA or the ITC at the addresses and telephone numbers noted below on page 2. While this Format for Petition is intended to elicit the basic information required by the DOC and ITC, under the law a petitioner may file a petition in any form suitable for presenting the data required. Where available, documentation and supporting information should be included. Furthermore, those completing and submitting a countervailing duty petition should clearly indicate if information requested by this questionnaire is unavailable and the reasons for such unavailability.
            
Information for which proprietary (confidential) treatment is requested must clearly be marked as such on the pertinent pages with “Business Proprietary Treatment Requested.” A nonproprietary summary or approximate presentation of the proprietary information should also be submitted, together with a statement of the basis for the proprietary treatment and, if necessary, why a summary or approximation cannot be prepared. A summary of figures regarded as proprietary should be provided and expressed in a range of not more than ten percent above or below the actual figures. An information sheet concerning proprietary information and administrative protective order release of proprietary information is attached. Any questions regarding the treatment of proprietary data should be directed to the Import Administration APO/Dockets Center at (202) 482-3354.
            Any information submitted in the petition, or in support thereof, which is in a foreign language, must be accompanied by an English translation unless DOC waives this requirement, following a request by the petitioner.
            A completed Format for Petition and cover letter should be furnished along with ten copies of the business proprietary version and five public versions, and should be addressed to:
            Assistant Secretary for Import Administration
U.S. Department of Commerce
14th Street & Constitution Avenue, NW
Import Administration Dockets Center, Room 1870
Washington, D.C. 20230
            ATTN:Assistant Secretary for
Import Administration
            FOR:Director for Policy and Analysis
(202) 482-4412
            Simultaneously, 14 copies of the completed guide (petition) and a cover letter that includes, if necessary, a request for proprietary treatment and a certification under oath that substantially identical information is not available to the public, should be sent to:
            Secretary
U.S. International Trade Commission
500 E Street, SW
Washington, DC 20436

            ++++

  12. This is from the second document Scott referenced:
    “We have considered the requests noted above. While the Department has the authority to define or clarify the scope of an investigation, it must exercise this authority in a manner which reflects the intent of the petition. Furthermore, the Department generally should not use its authority to
    define the scope of an investigation in a manner that would thwart the statutory mandate to provide the relief requested in the petition.24 Thus, absent an overarching reason to modify the scope in a petition, the Department accepts the scope as it is written.25 Accordingly, and for the
    reasons explained in the Preliminary Scope Memorandum, we have not made the changes to the scope advocated by Bombardier and Delta because the petitioner intended that the scope cover the specific products described therein and modifying the language of the scope in the manner that Bombardier and Delta request would not reflect the intent of the Petitions. For further discussion of the scope comments, see Preliminary Scope Memorandum.26”

    This all refers to Bombardier’s request that the 2,900 NM range criteria be removed and Delta’s request that the 100-150 seat range criteria be revised to 125-150. The US Dept of Commerce Internatinoal Trade Administration rejected These requests solely based on the fact that Boeing (the Petitioner) defined these criteria for the Petition and to change them would, naturally and naturally also left unsaid, render said Petition irrelevant.

    In other words, Boeing gets to define everything to suit themselves for this Petition.

    This is what is considered to be right and just?!

    • Its absolutely just and right. The petitioner brings the case and the government acts on that case. Why would a foreign party have a right to redefine the scope? Only out of self interest to avoid duties.

    • The US Department of Commerce is clear. I wonder what the Canadian Department of Commerce thinks about it.

  13. Looks like Jet airways want to buy another 75 single aisles. Was just wondering after the CS300 has been to India recently what is the chance……?

    Then the WTO is next…….!

  14. For a view of what is neededed and compasrisons used- here is a 17 year old first page/ summary/abstract of what data I used in preparing a CVD petition in 2000-2001. It was to be filed the second week in Sept 2001- Boeing a few years later filed essentially the same complaint. I’ve dumped most of the actual paperwork and forms used.- but I still have a few of excel files used.( I think )
    This extract is intended to show some of the background information used for the Countervailing Duties petition in more detail than is necessary for filing.

    All prices and average cost data by model are based on publicly available information from Boeing and Airbus.

    Comparisons of productivity and labor rates are those done by AECMA, the EU equivalent of the AIA ( Aircraft Industries Association ) for example :

    http://www.aecma.org/
    http://www.aecma.org/meta_stats.htm
    http://www.aecma.org/Stats/Stat1999.pdf
    http://www.aecma.org/Stats/Stat1998.pdf
    http://www.aecma.org/Stats/Stat1997.pdf

    OTHER INFORMATION SOURCES INCLUDE :
    http://www.finance.eads.net/erappo.html
    http://www.speednews.com/
    http://www2.airbus.com/home.asp
    http://www.boeing.com/commercial/prices/index.html

    Yearly and Total averages are weighted by delivered quantities of equivalent models

    Equivalent model comparisons between Boeing and Airbus are based on a Boeing News article published June 14 -21 -2001.

    Models 747 and 757 deliveries were excluded from all comparisons, since there are no ‘ equivalent’ Airbus models. In some cases, certain models have also been excluded for the same reasons.

    ” 40 Percent of Airbus made in U.S.”
    http://www2.airbus.com/media/media.asp July 2001
    “ . . . . Today Airbus spends more than $5 billion annually with American suppliers to its wide range of aircraft models. Up to 40 percent of an Airbus aircraft is made of components produced by several hundred American companies, McArtor said.“ [ Allan McArtor is Chairman of Airbus North America.]

    • It’s like football. You always win if you play by your own rules.

      I do respect the many Americans, including LNC, who understand that American industry is subject huge support from the American taxpayer.

      With regard to Boeing. It is struggling to compete in the world economy. There are two reasons. Its product line isn’t very good and its productivity isn’t very good.

      Getting rid of the competition using protective practices so prices can be raised isn’t the answer. Correcting the issues is the answer!

  15. The problem with a lot of the comments is that they assume the US government have proven their case. They haven’t. They are using the subjective as evidence. That is why Canada/UK and now Delta have rejected the decision outright

    • When BBD refuses to submit questionnaire data, what information is there to base your determination on. Again, BBDs dumping determination is wholly-self inflicted.

      US Government doesn’t have any case to prove – it is the investigating agency.

      • Some may find this old 2000-2001 data/summary of interest when the Boeing Union was preparing to file a CVD- the same week as 911 . . .

        I think it sums up a lot of the issues and data involved to file. And as mentioned the govt then investigates. At that time Boeing was NOT involved, and I can assure you whatever co-ordination between the committee nand govt agencies was strictly to assure dotting t’s and crossing I’s – as is typical for any dealings with a govt agency. Becaus of 911- the filing was delayed by about 4 months – Boeing then squelched the filing via some questionable methods. I wuz there !

        As to Bombardier issue – IMHO- nothing has really changed. When one side ( defendant ) does NOT play by the rules and gives the equivalent of a court or jury the finger- things can get very expensive..

        Boeing later fiuled almost the same issue- still going thru appeals

        The L&PA Committee has concluded filling out a very detailed petition requesting relief under U.S. countervailing duty law. The SPEEA Council authorized this investigation, with the goal being to determine whether such a filing could be reasonably supported by examination of publicly-available information from both Boeing and Airbus. Once this petition is filed, the International Trade Administration (ITA) within the Department of Commerce and United States International Trade Commission (USITC) will be able to consider the initiation of a countervailing duty proceeding. Such a proceeding is administrative in nature, and may result in the imposition of special countervailing duties on specific imports.

        In order to fill out the petition, the Committee gathered data from various sources, including: Boeing Annual Reports; the first European Aeronautic Defence and Space Company (EADS) (formerly France’s Aerospatiale Mantra, Germany’s DASA, Spain’s CASA, and Britain’s BAE Systems) Annual Report for 1999/2000; statistical surveys conducted by the European Aerospace Industry (EAI) for 1997 – 1999; information from both Boeing’s and Airbus’ websites; numerous press accounts; and informal discussions with industry representatives.

        The Boeing Company has neither helped nor hindered us, nor have we had access to any Boeing proprietary data. As SPEEA represents workers within the industry, and not the industry itself, actual sales prices, contract information, profit margins, discounts, and lease information are closely held by the respective companies and were not available to us; however, these can be requested by the ITA and ITC.

        The L&PA Committee has made the following observations which lead to our belief that Airbus, through a variety of methods, is effectively selling their products below cost. Raw material, engines, avionics, landing gear, and similar parts cost the same for Boeing and Airbus. Assembly techniques, automation, certification, process controls, and computer-aided design techniques are essentially the same, and have no inherent cost differences. Additionally, labor costs are higher for EU countries, with differences from 15% higher in 1995 to about 5% in 1998.

        Finally, the EADS annual report shows that for the year 2000, Airbus’ share of EADS net consolidated profit was zero.
        We then compared the published selling prices of Boeing and Airbus commercial airplanes from 1998 – 2000, omitting figures for the Boeing 747. For 1999, the average cost of all airplanes sold by Boeing was $59 million per plane, whereas the average cost for Airbus was $46.4 million per plane. We then compared two comparable models of aircraft, the A320 and the 737-800. Figures reflected an average 737-800 costing (conservatively) about 10% more than the A320.

        Therefore, how can Airbus, with equal material and subassembly costs, higher labor costs and arguably lower productivity, and admittedly zero profits, still undercut Boeing prices by at least 10 percent? Our determination is that Airbus is selling most, if not all aircraft models into the U.S. at 10 ­ 25% below cost. Note: this does not include special lease, financial, or maintenance agreements, which even further harm our workers.

        In conclusion, the overall affect of the governmental subsidization of Airbus has caused distortions in international trade that support United States governmental action. Therefore, the SPEEA L&PA Committee is recommending the SPEEA Council and Executive Board take action to file the petition for countervailing duty relief with the United States Department of Commerce and International Trade Commission.

      • Wrong. So wrong. The burden of proof lies with the accuser. The presumption of innocence is a basic right. Boeing have not proved their case. But then they can’t. The evidence isn’t there

        • Yo philip – suggest you read my previous post that starts- and the go to realt4ed govt sites for any updates to the basxic process.

          If you believe the rules asre wrong- complain to whomver and however you want- BUT unless you can come up with FACTS and credible sources/rulings, legal arguments and settled cases to suppoert your opinion- I suggest you relax and watch the blinking lights !!

          This is a 15 year old copy of basic requirements – probably no significant changes-since then
          HERE IS BASIC PETITION GROUND RULES

          NOTE THIS IS A COPY OF A BLANK PETITION WITH THE GRAPHIC TABLE FORMS REMOVED. IT MAY BE MISSING A FEW LINES- IT IS SHOWN HERE ONLY FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES AND AS AN EXAMPLE.

          INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
FORMAT FOR PETITION REQUESTING RELIEF
UNDER U.S. COUNTERVAILING DUTY LAW

          • @Don

            Dear me. I’ve read the material. BBD don’t have a case to answer. Boeing don’t have the evidence.

            To use what you have said when I addressed the $6b loss of the C series versus the $28b loss of the 787 series. You said they are not in the same market. Quite right. But then the C series is not in the same market as the 737 as pointer out by Delta

            Boeing have not proven their case. But then they don’t have to. BBD are being subject to the presumption of guilt not tge presumption of innocence.

            I’ve gone thought all of the US governments words. The bottom line is that they believe that the C series won’t make money so BBD are dumping to reduce their losses. I think the C series has a future

            Boeing have been dumping 787 all over the place to get market share. That is why they still have a loss of a $28b. They also dumped 18 777 on United to block the sale of A350s …and so on

            It is getting tedious repeating the facts. As I said it’s like football. You can always win if you play by your own rules. America as its own rules for football so America always wins. But the rest of the world plays a different gsme of football, a game that America is not good at

            I’ll watch the blinking lights. It’s far more interesting. But I do take the view that the world stsrts giggling when America tries to claim it does’t subdidise its industry.

          • BBD did not choose to reply or provide any answer or rebuttal. If you refuse to play by rules you signed on to- you lose. You ARE entitled to your opinion- but not your so called ” facts ” with zip supporting data. IF BBD has facts on their side or could make a reasonable rebuttal they probably would hav. While BA does NOT have access to the import paperwork for aircraft- such paperwok is available to the govt- and that includes a so called ‘ manufactures price ‘-

            Its also clear you have no concept of how subsidies are determined/priced/ or what certain subsidies can be legally used under specific trade agreements re LCA.

          • Regarding the 5th amendment and the right to remain silent, as Scott points out, that applies to criminal but not civil cases. See below for the fifth amendment in its entirety.

            Even in a criminal case, if you chose to remain silent, that does not prevent the case from going forward or prevent you from being convicted. If someone accused of a criminal case refused to testify or present a case, and the prosecution presented ten witnesses saying that the defendant committed the crime and a video showing them committing the crime, and the judge or jury decides that the prosecution’s evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, the defendant’s refusal to participate in the case would not stop them from being convicted and going to jail.

            “AMENDMENT V

            No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

            Regarding the first amendment , I don’t see what it has to do with the discussion here.

            “AMENDMENT I

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

            There is a long history of case law in the US about what type of speech is protected by the first amendment. Under this body of case law, some things, such as yelling “fire” in a theater, or insulting a judge or the court while court is in session, are not protected by the first amendment. See links to videos below.

            Six days in jail for disrespect of the court, not protected by the first amendment.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhNpIDp804c

            120 days in jail for disrespect of the court, not protected by the first amendment.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTbQLMXwlXM

            364 days in jail for disrespect of the court, not protected by the first amendment.
            WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE.

          • In my post above, I said the 1st amendment doesn’t allow you to yell “fire: in a theater, I should have said that it doesn’t allow you to yell “fire”in a theater when you know there isn’t actually a fire.

          • So, the burden of proof doesn’t exist in civil cases. Nice to know! Thanks for the heads up America.

            Out of interest can any of you give me an example of when the defence went first in a civil case in a US court. In other words, I do think the prosecution goes first for it must prove its case even in civil law. But give me an example, so I can be corrected

            But, thanks for quoting me the specific words with regard to the right to remain silent. But the words say EVEN IN A CRIMINAL CASE. The word ‘even’ is critical because it means civil cases are not excluded.

            So, give me an example when the defence went first in a civil case! Please

        • Hello Philip,

          Regarding presumption of innocence – In the US in civil cases in general, and also in trade cases, if one side fails to show up for the case, or fails to produce court ordered documents or briefs by court ordered deadlines, the other side wins by default. If you don’t show up to play the game, you forfeit to the other team. In criminal cases you won’t be declared guilty if you don’t show up for a court date, but you will have a bench warrant issued for your arrest, i.e. the judge will order the police, sheriff or marshals to arrest you and bring you to court, and quite likely have you jailed for failure to appear when law enforcement delivers you to the courtroom.

          The quotes below are from the link after the quote.

          “What is a Default Judgment?
          In a civil lawsuit, a defendant who does not respond to the suit papers in a timely manner is considered “in default.” When the plaintiff makes the required showing of default and offers proof to the court of the amount of money owed, the court will issue a default judgment in the plaintiff’s favor. (Learn more about Parties in a Civil Lawsuit.)

          At that point, the plaintiff will be entitled to pursue enforcement of the default judgment in accordance with the procedures of the particular jurisdiction where it was obtained — the rules of the county branch of the state’s civil court, for example.”

          http://research.lawyers.com/default-judgments-in-civil-lawsuits.html

          Boeing in their petition presents production cost estimates based on a production run of 2,085 C-Series aircraft over a 20 year period and allowing for a 32 million USD loss per aircraft for the first 50 aircraft produced. They then calculated a dumping margin from the difference between the average production cost over the production run of 2,058 aircraft over a 20 year period, and what they alleged Bombardier has sold the C-Series to Delta for. That seems to me to be far from “no evidence”. Bombardier could have presented rebuttal calculations or data, which would have then been considered by Commerce, but they chose instead to boycott the case with completely predictable consequences under US law, fail to show or fail to participate in a civil or trade case and you lose. Had they participated and then didn’t like Commerce’s decision, they could have appealed eventually to the US Federal Courts, but since they refused to submit requested information, the US Federal courts might very well now rule that they forfeited the case when they refused to submit requested documents.

          See pages 123 to 124 in the document below for details on Boeing’s dumping margin calculation based on a production run of 2,085 aircraft over a 20 year period.

          https://leehamnews-5389.kxcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/BBD-Complaint-042717.pdf

          • Your forgetting reasonable cause. There needs to be reasonable cause to start an investigation.

            BBD are taking the right attitude to Boeings behaviour. Boeing are making allegations without a shred of evidence. It’s important to oppose that behaviour. Moreover it it outragious that the US authorities are not challenging Boeing over its allegations before it challengers others.

            Specifically, the US government have accepted Boeings view of the market. We all have a view but a view it not evidence. A view is subjective. A view is not evidence.

            As you suggest you have legal expertise, you must understand the words ‘subjective law’. Subjective law is prejudice

            Keep watching football, I’ll watch the blinking lights

          • I’ll add to my previous comment.

            The world is watching this. But what they are watching is a US company making allegations without a shred of evidence, without challenge

            Boeing needs to challenged, especially with regard to their view of the market. Afterall the main US carriers don’t agree with Boeing’s view of the market, never mind anybody else. Boeing is trying to use the law to force the market to agree with their view. Well shall we say it won’t work.

          • In a post above, I wrote the following.

            “Bombardier could have presented rebuttal calculations or data, which would have then been considered by Commerce, but they chose instead to boycott the case with completely predictable consequences under US law, fail to show or fail to participate in a civil or trade case and you lose. Had they participated and then didn’t like Commerce’s decision, they could have appealed eventually to the US Federal Courts, but since they refused to submit requested information, the US Federal courts might very well now rule that they forfeited the case when they refused to submit requested documents.”

            Thinking about what I wrote, I realize that my language was not as precise as it should have been. The finding of non-coperation and obstruction was in the dumping case, therefore, in my non-expert opinion, Bombardier probably retains full appeal rights in the CVD case. Also, Commerce didn’t declare an across the board default in the dumping case, they only ruled that they would use Boeing’s dumping margin calculation since Bombardier had refused to submit either an alternative dumping margin calculation (perhaps no dumping margin at all?) or data that would allow Commerce to do its own independent dumping margin calculation. In my usual non-expert opinion, this may leave some narrow room to appeal issues other than the dumping margin calculation to the US Federal Courts in the dumping decision, but when it comes to the dumping margin calculation, the US Federal Courts will probably hold that Bombardier had their chance to present alternative dumping margin data, and missed it.

          • @Don and @AP_Robert

            The first and fifth amendment to the US CONSTITUTION please. The presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent without incriminating yourself

            The basic facts: Bombardier are subject to subsidy but so are Boeing. Bombardier sell airplanes at below cost but so do Boeing. Why is Bombardier illegal and Boeing legal

            The first amendment makes clear that the burden of proof lies with Boeing for they are the accuser. The fifth amendment makes clear that Bombardier have the right to remain silent without incriminating themselves.

            This then comes to the standard of proof provided by Boeing and/or by the US government. The now infamous ‘memo’ is waffle based on a single entirely subjective assumption. The subjective assumption is that the CS series won’t make profit. ERGO, the subsidy is illegal and the airplanes are being dumped because they are being sold at below cost.

            Subjective assumptions are not evidence. My understanding is you can’t convict anybody on the basis of the subjective under US law, although as far as I can see the US constitution doesn’t explicitly preclude it. Most other countries do explicitly preclude convictions based on the subjective.

            The bottom line is that Boeing and the US government needed to prove that Bombardier would not make a profit with the CS series. They didn’t.

            To give an example of the waffle in the memo. Bombardier would not get finance from the equity market. No airplane OEM does. Boeing don’t. Put another way, why haven’t Boeing funded the $8.7b tax breaks for the 777X on the equity market? Answer: They wouldn’t get the funds, but if they did get the funds the interest rates would be such that $8.7b would become $18b. The same with the $28b loss on the 787. Boeing would not get the funding or in the alternative the interest rates would be such that $28b become $60b. So if Boeing were forced to fund development and losses on the equity market they wouln’t make a profit either.

            So the memo creates a new rule, the ‘equity’ rule then applies it to Bombardier but not to Boeing. It’s an example of why everybody is saying that one set of rules apply to Boeing/other US airplane OEMs but another set of rules apply to airplane OEMs outside of the USA

            The history of justice is littered with this behaviour. It can be generalised as subjective law teaming up with the presumption of guilt. In simple terms, make an allegation that is opinion and therefotr not evidence and then say prove the allegation wrong. If the opinion is proven wrong then just change the rules to make the opinion right. So regardless you are guilty.

            So Bombardier are guilty. Of what. Producing a better airplane

            Anyway back to the US CONSTITUTION. My understanding is that it prohibits this behaviour. Specifically subjective law and the presumption of guilt are prohibited. If it doesn’t then I will worry for America for the history of this kind of justice is the history of racism and dictatorship.

            But to return to your primary point. Bombardier have been convicted because they didn’t defend themselves. My understanding is that the fifth amendment says you can remain silent without incriminating yourself. So, is this a new rule for us foreigners for I am sure it doesn’t apply to you americans?

            Boeing hasn’t proven its case, the waffle produced by the US government proves that!

          • @Philip: Nice arguments but they apply to criminal law (“beyond a reasonable doubt”), not civil law (“preponderance of evidence”). I agree with your underlying thesis, but you are mixing criminal and civil law.

          • Uhh Scott- You may have fallen into the same unwinnable arguments put out by ‘ ex sput “‘ pundits arguing from a strong position of ignorance. My self – i find it hard to believe that only Canada has agreed to follow the ‘ law” coses, put out as part of WTO and that U.S is not following the same code- treaty- whatever the techincal name is of the WTO ‘ agreement”

            For example

            http://205.193.86.99/eng/acts/W-11.8/FullText.html
            World Trade Organization Agreement Implementation Act
            S.C. 1994, c. 47
            Assented to 1994-12-15
            An Act to implement the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization

            • WTO Member means a Member of the World Trade Organization. (membre de l’OMC)

            • Marginal note:Publication of Agreement
(2) The Agreement shall be published in the Canada Treaty Series.
            Purpose
            Marginal note:Purpose
            3 The purpose of this Act is to implement the Agreement.
            Her Majesty
            Marginal note:Binding on Her Majesty
            4 This Act is binding on Her Majesty in right of Canada.

            +++

          • BTW- for a few facts- keeping in mind that for most of us- U.S. code IS ” law”, and not just a policy

            https://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/USC-Title_19_1671-1677.htm
            Part I–Imposition of Countervailing Duties

            Sec. 1671. Countervailing duties imposed
            Sec 1671a. Procedures for initiating a countervailing duty investigation
            Sec 1671b. Preliminary determinations
            Sec 1671c. Termination or suspension of investigation
            Sec 1671d. Final determinations
            Sec. 1671e. Assessment of duty
            Sec. 1671f. Treatment of difference between deposit of estimated countervailing duty and final assessed duty under countervailing duty orders
            Sec. 1671g. Effect of derogation of Export-Import Bank financing
            Sec. 167h. Conditional payment of countervailing duties

            Part II–Imposition of Antidumping Duties

            Sec. 1673. Imposition of antidumping duties
            Sec. 1673a. Procedures for initiating an antidumping duty investigation
            Sec. 1673b. Preliminary determinations
            Sec. 1673c. Termination of suspension of investigation
            Sec. 1673d. Final determinations
            Sec. 1673e. Assessment of duty
            Sec. 1673f. Treatment of difference between deposit of estimated antidumping duty and final assessed duty under antidumping duty order
            Sec. 1673g. Conditional payment of antidumping duty
            Sec. 1673h. Establishment of product categories for short life cycle merchandise
            Sec. 1673i. Repealed.Pub.L.98-573, title VI, Sec. 622(a)(1), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3039

            SXo one must be careful re countervailing duties and dumping and which LAW applies.

            back to my couch .. 🙂

          • @AP_Robert

            I will address the word rebuttal for you have said that Bombardier have the right of rebuttal.

            Delta have said that Boeing don’t compete in the CS100 market. Boeing says they do with the 737. But the 737 is only competitive if Bombardier are required to charge ~$80million per airplane.

            In other words Boeing are trying to fix the price of competing airplanes to make themselves competitive. Why? They are struggling to compete because they have a poor product line and poor productivity.

            In short, Boeing are trying to control the market. They think they can do it for as LNC say Boeing think they are invincible. I think not!

          • Scott. I’m aware of the difference and I nearly said it myself. But the US constitution doesn’t make the distinction. The civil code does offer a different standard of proof, the balance of probability versus beyond reasonable doubt for the criminal code. But the burden of proof still lies with the accuser regardless of the standard of proof.

            This is my guess as to what as happened.

            US lawyers acting for Bombardier and Delta said this is rubbish, Boeing are offering no hard evidence. The US government ignored them. So the US lawyers walked out, saying see you in court.

            In court, the prosecution must go first, regardless of whether it is a civil or criminal case.

            US lawyers acting for Bombardier and Delta turn the tables on Boeing by demanding answers to their subsidies and below cost sales.

            Boeing will then have to explain why Bombardier are any different. That they won’t be able to do. But I do accept that the standard of proof is the balance of probability.

            Will Bombardier have to mount a defence. I don’t know. If I was the judge, no. I’ve never read such rubbish in the whole of my life. But I’m not the judge

            The distinction you are making is arbitration. The WTO is a NON-BINDING court of arbitration not a civil or criminal court. In arbitration, both sides DO set out their arguments before decisions are made. It is non-binding because the US constitution makes clear that only US courts interpret US law. In other words, US courts can overturn WTO decisions. The US government also has the power to dismiss or not implement the findings of the WTO

            But no, even in civil courts the prosecution comes first, not the defence

          • Regarding the 5th amendment and the right to remain silent, as Scott points out, that applies to criminal but not civil cases. See below for the fifth amendment in its entirety.

            Even in a criminal case, if you chose to remain silent, that does not prevent the case from going forward or prevent you from being convicted. If someone accused of a criminal case refused to testify or present a case, and the prosecution presented ten witnesses saying that the defendant committed the crime and a video showing them committing the crime, and the judge or jury decides that the prosecution’s evidence proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, the defendant’s refusal to participate in the case would not stop them from being convicted and going to jail.

            “AMENDMENT V

            No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

            Regarding the first amendment , I don’t see what it has to do with the discussion here.

            “AMENDMENT I

            Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

            There is a long history of case law in the US about what type of speech is protected by the first amendment. Under this body of case law, some things, such as yelling “fire” in a theater, or insulting a judge or the court while court is in session, are not protected by the first amendment. See links to videos below.

            Six days in jail for disrespect of the court, not protected by the first amendment.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhNpIDp804c

            120 days in jail for disrespect of the court, not protected by the first amendment.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTbQLMXwlXM

            364 days in jail for disrespect of the court, not protected by the first amendment.
            WARNING: GRAPHIC LANGUAGE.

          • Here is a link that was missing from my post above.

            364 days in jail for disrespect of the court, not protected by the first amendment.

            GRAPHIC LANGUAGE WARNING>

          • In my post above, I said the 1st amendment doesn’t allow you to yell “fire: in a theater, I should have said that it doesn’t allow you to yell “fire”in a theater when you know there isn’t actually a fire.

          • Put my answer in the wrong thread. So I’m being told the buden of proof doesn’t exist in civil cases. Can I have an example where a civil court required the defence to go first for I’m happy to be corrected.

            This then comes to the words with regard to the right to remain silent. EVEN IN A CRIMINAL CASE. The word ‘even’ is important for it means criminal law is not excluded with regard to the right to remain silent. In other words the right to remain silent is universal. The same applies to the presumption of innocence. The presumption of innocence is universal.

            In other words the presumption of innocence and the right to remain silent are univeral rights. Very worrying if they aee not

  16. AP robert — You keep posting facts and or where to find them from credible sources – GREAT !!!- i UNFORTUNATELY IMHO – it is now obvious that some are willfully blind- or are trolls.

    I think I will just now sit on sidelines 🙂

  17. Damm – the following link I missed in my previous post

    http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1035&context=lsrp_papers

    suggest it is worth reading – authored by a genuwine person familiar with law !!

    ….

    In the United States even when an international agreement has direct effect it never has
    supremacy. A subsequent federal statute always overrides a prior self-executing (having direct
    effect) international agreement. The only way a form of supremacy could be given to an
    international agreement in the United States would be through a statute similar to the 1972
    European Communities Act or the 1998 Human Rights Act, both in the United Kingdom.2
    These acts rely essentially on an instruction to courts to interpret subsequent statutes as
    subordinate to European Community law and the European Human Rights Convention,
    respectively, unless the subsequent statute is explicit about its intent to contravene the relevant
    treaty. In today’s world it is unimaginable that any such act concerning WTO law could be
    enacted in the United States. Thus for all practical purposes, WTO supremacy is excluded as an
    option for the U.S. legal system. .

    Goes on

    • And here is the conclusion

      V. Conclusion
      As we have seen, the WTO rules function as rules within the U.S. legal system only to
      the extent Congress faithfully captures them in implementing legislation or executive agencies
      conform their interpretation of ambiguous statutes to comply with WTO requirements. Congress
      has blocked all direct effect for WTO law and arguably even all indirect effect—at least in
      judicial proceedings. Agencies may give weight to WTO rules, but not courts. In the courts
      Chevron trumps Charming Betsy, not the other way around.
      This pattern seems likely to persist in the near future. Surely neither the Appellate Body
      nor panels will declare WTO law a “new legal order.” Negotiated direct or indirect effect seems
      also implausible. The member states have so far not even committed themselves unambiguously
      to conform national law when a panel or the Appellate Body rules against them. In Joe Weiler’s
      terminology, “Selective Exit” is tolerated.111
      For integrated, thickly interdependent communities the rule of “hard law” is appropriate.
      But for less integrated, more loosely interdependent communities, such as the global trading
      system, a soft law regime more reliant for its effectiveness on the farsightedness and good will
      of the political branches—particularly the executive—in the leading countries (who have the
      most to gain and lose) seems inevitable. Formulating commitments in legal terms generates
      some level of “compliance pull,” and the pull is important; it is just not decisive. At least this is
      the author’s conclusion from a U.S. perspective.

      ++

      Cliff note version- in the U.S WTO rules do NOT trump federal code when push comes to shove ..

      In Canada – IMHO – is uncertain IF WTO trumps canadain Code- law-

      • So, if I understand correctly, the USA, who often complains about the toothlessness of the WTO, is actually an extremely large reason why the WTO is toothless.

  18. And upon hearing news of the mercy killing of the 1,000 years old (in aviation years, of course!) Boeing 737 by the far more comfortable, five abreast, 18+ inch wide seats found on Bombardier’s innovative & modern C-series, all at once in cities, towns & airports around the world, a cacophony of champagne corks popping & a thunderous roar of ecstatic passengers shouting “Hallelujah & good riddance” was heard in every language as they celebrated with an unbridled joy the prospect of a future increasingly free from facing the dread of being crammed into yet another butt numbingly hard, loathed & reviled 17” wide seat in a kneecap bruising 30-31” pitch row that would surely come as each hated 737 was finally retired, flown off to the boneyard for good, and replaced by Bombardier’s magnificent, 21st century, flying machine!!! 😉 Hehehe

    • of course you know that neither Boeing or Airbus make the seats, or control the pitch or width or number?

      • Don, let’s just repeat this for the nth time: The OEMs are responsible for the cross-section, and consequently the widths of the seats, while the airlines are responsible for the seat pitch — is that understood?

        Now, you can’t put wider seats (including armrests) in a 6 abreast 737. The fact of the matter is that Boeing has staked its future on 17″ to 17,2″ inch wide seats across its product line. It remains to be seen if this will turn into a competitive disadvantage going forward.

      • competitive economy of the airframe forces seat pitch ( and width )

        That is why you see very few 8 across 787.
        That is too expensive an arrangement.

  19. In light of the announcement that Airbus will acquire just over 50% stake in the C-series, I wonder a) Was this deal already in the pipeline, or b) Did Boeing’s actions precipitate the deal.

    If the answer is a), Well played Airbus, if b), Not very well played Boeing.

    Could we now see a CS-500, and perhaps CS-550 (or CS-600) to replace all of the A320 series with the exception of the A321, and could we see an A321Neo+ with a new wing, and perhaps a stretch to an A322.

    With BBD left alone to concentrate on a CS-500, this would allow Airbus designers to take a very good look at what the potential 797 will be, and get on, and build an even better MOM aircraft to enter the market at the same time as a potential 797.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *