The dreaded, seemingly never-ending, Canada / US softwood lumber dispute has again reared it’s ugly head in the form of an “administrative review” request to the US Commerce Department. This could be considered a regular bureaucratic function of any trade dispute. It could also, unfortunately, be used as a information-sucking mechanism; handled a certain way the data request contained within the “Certain Lumber Products From Canada: Request for Administrative Review” can cast a net so wide as to encompass operators not remotely captured within the definitions of the softwood lumber dispute.
Madison’s has obtained the more than 90-page appendix, which in fact cites the entire “yellow pages” of Canadian lumber and wood products industry. Hardwood sawmills. Specialty remanufacturers (not construction framing). Those who don’t even export to USA. Those who don’t do lumber, only residuals! Because this action cites Madison’s information in generating the list of respondents, we —as always —dig deeper into the situation and bring the best information immediately
Don’t miss out, keep up on changes and happenings with the North America softwood lumber market and US home building industries: Madison’s Weekly Lumber Price Update
Certain Lumber Products From Canada: Request for Administrative Review
The Administrative Reviews compare the past year to what the US Department of Commerce estimated when launching the dispute. As Madison’s understands it, companies exporting softwood lumber to the US ask for an Administrative Review if they want to be subject to this recalculation.
It seems, those who don’t request an Administrative Review could:
- 1) have their ‘deposits’ paid so far liquidated and dropped into the US Treasury, making them unavailable for potential refunds in the event of a litigated victory or a negotiated settlement.
- 2) since the petitioner used a list of every company in Canada that might possibly have exported dutiable lumber to the US and requested an Administrative Review on their behalf, anyone not responding would lose deposited dollars to US Treasury, where they become non-refundable.
The second of these reasons could be why hardwood operators got these notices. Madison’s has the 4-page submission, which is available publicly. Please contact our office any time for more information.