Saturday, April 13, 2013

Dimension Lumber Case (Canada v. Japan) case brief

Dimension Lumber Case (Canada v. Japan) case brief summary

FACTS:
-Canada challenged that Japan had charged different tariffs for the same quality lumber.
-Specifically, it wanted the same 0% tariff on dimension lumber that Japan put on similar types of lumber, used for similar purposes.
Japan had different tariffs on different lumber, based on factors it claims made the lumber not “like”
products.

Canada Argued: Japan should treat all dimension lumber the same.

HOLDING:
Because Canada did not argue its case well, the panel found for Japan and held the lumber was not a “like” product.

ANALYSIS:
-Canada failed to prove “likeness”
-Canada likely didn’t argue likeness because it was worried about reciprocity – that it had all sorts of
distinctions in its code that it did not want abrogated.
-Japan’s Argument: Japan contended that it does not have a tariff classification for dimension lumber, and the panel found that Canada cannot invent new categories for Japan’s trade code – it must work within Canada’s trade code.

---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?



-->

No comments:

Post a Comment