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 warns of which of the following dangers?


Companies in the United States may receive no protection from imports unless they actively seek protection from import competition.

Companies that seek legal protection from import competition may incur legal costs that far exceed any possible gain.

Companies that are United States owned but operate internationally may not be eligible for protection from import competition under the laws of the countries in which their plants operate.

Companies that are not United States owned may seek legal protection from import competition under United States import relief laws.

Companies in the United States that import raw materials may have to pay duties on those materials.

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 C。原因是文章警告指出,当一家在美国拥有的公司在海外设立工厂生产同一种产品时,如果该公司的竞争对手可以证明受到进口伤害而且这家美国公司从一个外国政府得到补贴以在国外建厂,那么这家美国公司的产品将不受竞争,因为它们会面临关税。这意味着在美国拥有但在全球范围内经营的公司,它们可能在被这些法律保护时并没有资格享受保护。

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