Many United States companies have, unfortunately, made the search for legal protection from import competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies "dumped" their products in the United States at "less than fair value." Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.

Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.

Internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a United States–owned company establishes an overseas plant to manufacture a product while its competitor makes the same product in the United States. If the competitor can prove injury from the imports—and that the United States company received a subsidy from a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the United States company's products will be uncompetitive in the United States, since they would be subject to duties.

Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC investigated allegations that Canadian companies were injuring the United States salt industry by dumping rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United States operations was crying for help against a United States company with foreign operations. The "United States" company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate, while the "Canadian'' companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.


The passage is chiefly concerned with


arguing against the increased internationalization of United States corporations

warning that the application of laws affecting trade frequently has unintended consequences

demonstrating that foreign-based firms receive more subsidies from their governments than United States firms receive from the United States government

advocating the use of trade restrictions for"dumped" products but not for other imports

recommending a uniform method for handling claims of unfair trade practices

考题讲解

此讲解的内容由AI生成,还未经人工审阅,仅供参考。

正确答案是 B:警告申请影响贸易的法律经常会产生意想不到的后果。

这道题的答案应该选择B,因为文章中的例子展示出,即使有不公平的行为被指控,单凭一个行业受到进口损害的简单声明也足以寻求赔偿。此外,文章还指出,随着跨国公司的发展,他们可能会面临企业集团内所有部门战略目标无法满足的可能性,从而造成受保护的公司更受损害。最后,文章还提到了一个荒谬的案例,在此案例中,由美国公司提出的报复性指控竟然是一家外国企业对另一家有着海外运营的美国公司的指控。这些例子都证明了申请影响贸易的法律经常会产生意想不到的后果,所以答案是B。

展开显示

登录注册 后可以参加讨论

快来第一个发言吧
OG12-RC