1000 RC

This topic has expert replies
Senior | Next Rank: 100 Posts
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 1:57 am
Thanked: 4 times

1000 RC

by rashmi.kaushal » Sun Aug 29, 2010 4:16 am
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.



1. According to the passage, companies have the general impression that International Trade Commission import relief practices have
(A) caused unpredictable fluctuations in volumes of imports and exports
(B) achieved their desired effect only under unusual circumstances
(C) actually helped companies that have requested import relief
(D) been opposed by the business community

OA-C

(E) had less impact on international companies than the business community expected
2. According to the passage, the International Trade Commission is involved in which of the following?
(A) Investigating allegations of unfair import competition
(B) Granting subsidies to companies in the United States that have been injured by import competition
(C) Recommending legislation to ensure fair

OA- A
(D) Identifying international corporations that wish to build plants in the United States
(E) Assisting corporations in the United States that wish to compete globally
Source: — Reading Comprehension |

User avatar
Legendary Member
Posts: 1309
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2010 11:41 pm
Thanked: 33 times
Followed by:5 members

by pradeepkaushal9518 » Mon Aug 30, 2010 4:37 am
1.

Contrary to the general impression, this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped.

this means those companies want import relief they wont get any benefit from this relief rather those companies were benefited against whom the import relief was demanded.

"internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect."

hence C is correct

2.
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,



this states that JOB OF ITC IS INVESTGATING ALLEGATIONS OF UNFAIR IMPORT COMPETITION

HOPE THIS HELPS MADAM
A SMALL TOWN GUY