It is useful to compare Section 201 to the AD and CVD laws, since both sets of laws address imports and share some of the same procedural concepts. First, as stated above, there is no need under Section 201 to demonstrate that imports are somehow unfair (i.e. dumped or subsidized). There is a distinct requirement, however, that imports be increasing in absolute or relative terms over the period of investigation.

 

Second, Section 201 may provide more substantial relief from imports than remedies that might otherwise be available under United States AD and CVD laws. Rather than targeting specific countries, Section 201 import relief is generally global and can take the form of duties, quotas, a combination of the two, or other restrictions.

 

Third, the threshold for demonstrating a need for import relief under Section 201 is generally higher than under AD and CVD laws. In particular, Section 201 concerns itself with 'serious injury' whereas the AD and CVD laws address 'material injury'.

 

Fourth, any resulting import relief under Section 201 is typically the product of a more intensely political decision subject to far greater external influences. Unlike the imposition of AD or CVD duties, the President is the final arbiter and must be persuaded before import relief can be imposed under Section 201. Moreover, given the involvement of the President in the process, judicial review is limited.

 

Finally, in another important contrast to the AD and CVD laws, once import relief is secured, the domestic industry will often have to demonstrate that it is making a positive adjustment to import competition, or the relief may be terminated early. Other differences between Section 201 and the AD and CVD laws will also be addressed in this chapter, but these differences are among the most significant.

 

As an added consideration, important elements of the Section 201 statute, as well as practice and procedure under the statute, have been successfully challenged at WTO by trading partners of the United States. This creates some uncertainty regarding future practice under United States law, which may be subject to legislative amendment, possible practice and procedure revisions, and probably future WTO challenges, all of which could affect how Section 201 actions are handled.

 

Source: Business Guide to Trade Remedies in the United States: Anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguards legislation practices and procedures