This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-979 
entitled 'International Trade: Issues and Effects of Implementing the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act' which was released on 
September 26, 2005. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2005: 

International Trade: 

Issues and Effects of Implementing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act: 

GAO-05-979: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-05-979, a report to congressional requesters: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Between fiscal years 2001 and 2004, the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act (CDSOA) provided over $1 billion funded from import duties 
to U.S. companies deemed injured by unfair trade. Some supporters state 
CDSOA helps U.S. companies compete in the face of continuing unfair 
trade. Some opponents believe CDSOA recipients receive a large, 
unjustified windfall from the U.S. treasury. Also, 11 World Trade 
Organization (WTO) members lodged a complaint over the law at the WTO. 
This report assesses (1) key legal requirements guiding and affecting 
agency implementation of CDSOA; (2) problems, if any, U.S. agencies 
have faced in implementing CDSOA; and (3) which companies have received 
CDSOA payments and their effects for recipients and non-recipients; and 
describes (4) the status of WTO decisions on CDSOA. 

What GAO Found: 

Congress enacted CDSOA to strengthen relief to injured U.S. producers. 
The laws key eligibility requirements limit benefits to producers that 
filed a petition for relief or that publicly supported the petition 
during a government investigation to determine whether injury had 
occurred. This law differs from trade remedy laws, which generally 
provide relief to all producers in an industry. Another key CDSOA 
feature requires that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) disburse 
payments within 60 days after the beginning of a fiscal year, giving 
CBP limited time to process payments and perform desired quality 
controls. This time frame, combined with a dramatic growth in the 
program workload, presents implementation risks for CBP. 

CBP faces three key implementation problems. First, processing of 
company claims and CDSOA payments is problematic because CBPs 
procedures are labor intensive and do not include standardized forms or 
electronic filing. Second, most companies are not accountable for the 
claims they file because they do not have to support their claims and 
CBP does not systematically verify the claims. Third, CBPs problems in 
collecting duties that fund CDSOA have worsened. About half of the 
funds that should have been available for disbursement remained 
uncollected in fiscal year 2004. 

Most of the CDSOA payments went to a few companies with mixed effects. 
About half of these payments went to five companies. Top recipients we 
surveyed said that CDSOA had beneficial effects, but the degree varied. 
In four of seven industries we examined, recipients reported benefits, 
but some non-recipients noted CDSOA payments gave their competitors an 
unfair advantage. These views are not necessarily representative of the 
views of all recipients and non-recipients. 

Because the United States has not brought CDSOA into compliance with 
its WTO obligations, it faces additional tariffs on U.S. exports 
covering a trade value of up to $134 million based on 2004 CDSOA 
disbursements. Recently, Canada, the European Union, Mexico, and Japan 
imposed additional duties on various U.S. exports. Four other WTO 
members may follow suit. 

Five Companies Received about Half of All CDSOA Payments through Fiscal 
Year 2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends: 

In considering whether to keep, modify, or repeal CDSOA, Congress 
should consider whether the law is achieving its purposes of 
strengthening U.S. trade remedy laws, restoring conditions of fair 
trade, and assisting U.S. producers. If Congress decides to modify the 
law, Congress should also consider extending the time frame for 
disbursing payments. In addition, we recommend that CBP take several 
steps to improve processing of CDSOA claims and payments, verification 
of claims, and collection of import duties. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-979. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Loren Yager at (202) 512-
4347 or yagerl@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Key CDSOA Features Restrict Company Eligibility, Determine Share of 
Disbursements, and Set Tight Time Frame for Disbursing Payments: 

CBP Faces Three Key Problems Implementing CDSOA: 

CDSOA Payments Largely Concentrated on a Few Companies and Industries, 
with Mixed Effects Reported: 

Retaliation Against U.S. Producers Underway for U.S. Failure to Comply 
with WTO Ruling on CDSOA: 

Conclusions: 

Matters for Congressional Consideration: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Top CDSOA Recipient Companies: 

CDSOA Payments to the Top Recipient Companies: 

CDSOA Effects on Top Recipient Companies: 

Appendix III: CDSOA Recipient and Non-Recipient Companies in Seven 
Industries: 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients and Non-Recipients in the Bearings 
Industry: 

CDSOA Effects on Bearings Companies: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients in the Steel Industry: 

CDSOA Effects on Steel Companies: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients and Non-Recipients in the Candle 
Industry: 

CDSOA Effects on Candle Companies: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Views on CDSOA from Pasta Company Recipients and Non-Recipients Pasta: 

CDSOA Effects on Pasta Companies: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients in the DRAM Industry: 

CDSOA Effects on DRAM Companies: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients and Non-Recipients in Crawfish Industry: 

CDSOA Effects on Crawfish Processing Companies: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients and Non-Recipients in Softwood Lumber 
Industry: 

CDSOA Effects on Softwood Lumber Companies: 

Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix IV: Comments from Customs and Border Protection: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: CBP's CDSOA Program Staff, Responsibilities, and Workload: 

Table 2: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 CDSOA Distributions to Top Recipient 
Companies: 

Table 3: CDSOA Effects on Top Recipient Companies: 

Table 4: CDSOA Effect on Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Table 5: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Bearings CDSOA Recipients: 

Table 6: CDSOA Effects on Bearings Companies: 

Table 7: CDSOA Effect on Bearings Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Table 8: Top 10 Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Steel CDSOA Recipients: 

Table 9: CDSOA Effects on Steel Companies: 

Table 10: CDSOA Effect on Steel Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Table 11: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Candle CDSOA Recipients: 

Table 12: CDSOA Effects on the Candle Companies: 

Table 13: CDSOA Effect on Candle Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Table 14: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 CDSOA Pasta Recipients: 

Table 15: CDSOA Effects on Pasta Companies: 

Table 16: CDSOA Effect on Pasta Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Table 17: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 DRAM CDSOA Recipients: 

Table 18: CDSOA Effects on DRAM Companies: 

Table 19: CDSOA Effect on DRAM Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Table 20: Top 10 Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Crawfish CDSOA Recipients: 

Table 21: CDSOA Effects on Crawfish Companies: 

Table 22: CDSOA Effect on Crawfish Companies' Ability to Compete in the 
U.S. Market: 

Table 23: Top 10 FY 2003-2004 Softwood Lumber CDSOA Recipients: 

Table 24: CDSOA Effects on Softwood Lumber Companies: 

Table 25: CDSOA Effect on Softwood Lumber Companies' Ability to Compete 
in U.S. Market: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: CBP's and Treasury's Units Involved in CDSOA Efforts: 

Figure 2: Potential Fiscal Year 2004 AD/CV Duties Available for 
Distribution under CDSOA and Actual CDSOA Disbursements: 

Figure 3: FY 2001-2004 CDSOA Payments to the Top Five Companies and to 
the Remaining Companies: 

Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2001-2004 Distribution of CDSOA Payments to the 
39 Leading Recipient Companies: 

Figure 5: Top 24 Product Groups Receiving CDSOA Disbursements, FY 2001-
2004: 

Figure 6: Number of AD/CV Petitions Filed 1980-2004: 

Figure 7: Timeline of WTO-Related Events on CDSOA: 

Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2001-2004 CDSOA Disbursements by Industries: 

Abbreviations: 

AD: antidumping: 

CBO: Congressional Budget Office: 

CV: countervailing: 

CDSOA: Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act: 

CBP: Customs and Border Protection: 

EU: European Union: 

IG: Inspector General: 

NCA: National Candle Association: 

ITC: International Trade Commission: 

USTR: Office of the U.S. Trade Representative: 

WTO: World Trade Organization: 

Letter September 26, 2005: 

The Honorable E. Clay Shaw, Jr.: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Trade: 
Committee on Ways and Means: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Jim Ramstad: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Oversight: 
Committee on Ways and Means: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Judy Biggert: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John A Boehner: 
House of Representatives: 

The Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA)[Footnote 1] of 
2000 has provided over $1 billion[Footnote 2] to hundreds of U.S. 
companies in industries deemed to have been injured by unfair 
competition from dumped or subsidized imports. Before CDSOA's 
enactment, these funds, which come from duties (import taxes) imposed 
and collected on such imports, went to the Department of the Treasury's 
(Treasury) general revenue fund. Some of CDSOA's defenders argue that 
the law gives U.S. firms and their employees a reasonable chance to 
compete and invest, despite facing continued unfair trade from foreign 
competitors. However, since the act's enactment, various domestic and 
international interests have opposed its implementation. Some domestic 
opponents contend, among other things, that CDSOA recipients receive a 
large, unjustified windfall from the U.S. treasury. Also, several 
nations lodged a complaint over the law against the United States at 
the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 2001. Nevertheless, defenders of 
CDSOA say that U.S. trading partners have been unable to demonstrate 
they actually suffered adverse effects from the law. 

The President has proposed repealing the CDSOA three times.[Footnote 3] 
However, legislation recently introduced[Footnote 4] to do so faces 
strong bipartisan opposition. 

Given the pending legislation and disagreements over CDSOA's 
implementation and effects, you asked us to assess (1) what key legal 
requirements guide and have affected agency implementation of CDSOA; 
(2) what problems, if any, U.S. agencies have faced in implementing 
CDSOA; and (3) which U.S. companies and industries have received 
payments under CDSOA and what effects these payments have had for 
recipient and non-recipient companies; and to describe (4) the status 
of the WTO decisions on CDSOA. 

To identify legal requirements guiding and problems facing U.S. 
agencies in implementing CDSOA, we examined CDSOA legislation and 
regulations, obtained and analyzed agency documents such as procedures 
and disbursement reports, conducted field work at Customs and Border 
Protection's (CBP) Revenue Division in Indianapolis, and met with 
officials of CBP and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in 
Washington, D.C. To identify company recipients, we obtained and 
analyzed CBP disbursement data for fiscal years 2001 through 2004. To 
assess the effect of disbursements on companies, we relied upon the 
views of the top recipients of all CDSOA funds, and of selected leading 
recipient and non-recipient companies in seven industries via standard 
data collection questionnaires. A total of 24 of the 32 top recipient 
companies we contacted responded to our questionnaires. In the seven 
industries, a total of 92 of the 151 leading companies responded to 
structured questions we sent them,[Footnote 5] ranging from 2 to 25 
respondents per industry. The views of these companies are not 
necessarily representative of all recipient and non-recipient 
companies. To describe the current status of the WTO decisions, we 
analyzed official U.S., foreign government, and WTO documents. We also 
met with U.S. officials. We conducted our work from September 2004 
through September 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Appendix I contains a more detailed description of 
our scope and methodology. 

Results in Brief: 

CDSOA has the following three key features that guide agency 
implementation: 

* First, in passing CDSOA, Congress aimed to strengthen the remedial 
nature of U.S. trade laws, restore conditions of fair trade, and assist 
domestic producers. However, the law provides criteria restricting 
company eligibility for disbursements to a subset of domestic 
producers. Only those companies that filed or publicly supported 
petitions that resulted in an antidumping or a countervailing (AD/CV) 
duty order, while the government was conducting its investigation for 
injury, and remain in operation producing the product subject to the 
AD/CV order, are eligible for CDSOA disbursements. As a result, a 
number of U.S. companies, such as those that began production after 
orders covering their products came into effect, are ineligible. This 
means that CDSOA operates differently from trade remedies, such as 
AD/CV duties, which generally provide relief to all producers in an 
industry. 

* Second, the law identifies AD/CV duties collected as the source of 
funds for the disbursements and provides a pro rata formula for 
allocating disbursements so that those making the largest claims 
generally receive the largest payments. 

* Third, the law requires CBP to disburse all AD/CV duties collected in 
a given fiscal year within 60 days after the first day of the following 
fiscal year. CBP officials say this tight time frame means payments are 
sent to companies before the agency can complete all the desired 
quality controls. 

CBP has faced three major problems in implementing CDSOA: (1) 
processing CDSOA claims and payments, (2) verifying claims, and (3) 
collecting AD/CV duties. First, processing of CDSOA claims and payments 
is labor intensive and its associated workload is increasing; however, 
the agency lacks plans for managing and improving its CDSOA program's 
processes, staffing, and technology. Because CBP does not require 
companies to file claims using a standardized method (e.g., an 
electronic form), CDSOA program staff must review each claim to ensure 
it contains the required information, enter the data into a 
"standalone" database, and check for data entry errors. CBP uses 
complex procedures to manually calculate the amounts available for 
distribution and allocate disbursements among companies because its 
computer systems do not have the capabilities to produce these figures. 
CBP's CDSOA program is facing more than a 10-fold increase in its claim 
processing workload in fiscal year 2005. Second, although CBP has 
disbursed over $1 billion under CDSOA, CBP generally does not require 
companies to provide any claims-related supporting documentation. It 
has comprehensively verified the claims of only 1 of the 770 companies 
receiving disbursements. Even though this verification revealed 
significant problems, CBP does not plan to systematically verify CDSOA 
claims. Finally, CBP only distributed about half of the CDSOA money 
that should have been available for distribution in 2004 because it 
failed to collect about $260 million in applicable AD/CV duties. CBP 
has taken some steps to identify and address AD/CV duty collection 
problems, which undermine both the effectiveness of related trade 
remedies and the size of the amount available for disbursement under 
CDSOA. However, because its actions to date have not fixed these 
problems, CBP recently reported to Congress that it is working with 
other U.S. agencies to develop legislative proposals and other 
solutions by the end of 2005. 

Most of the $1 billion in CDSOA disbursements in fiscal years 2001-2004 
were concentrated in only a few companies and industries, with mixed 
effects reported. About half of all CDSOA disbursements in terms of 
value went to only 5 of the 770 recipient companies, and 80 percent of 
all disbursements went to 39 companies. Similarly, two-thirds of the 
payments went to three industries: bearings, candles, and steel. Top 
recipient companies that responded to our questions generally indicated 
that the CDSOA disbursements had beneficial effects on their companies 
and industries, but the degree varied from slight to substantial. 
Leading recipient and non-recipient companies we contacted in the seven 
industries also reported mixed effects. In two industries--steel and 
semiconductors--leading recipients we contacted reported positive 
effects. In four other industries--crawfish, candles, bearings, and 
pasta--recipients generally reported benefits, but some non-recipients 
said that disbursements to competitors were having negative effects on 
them. Several non-recipients complained that, although they would like 
to receive disbursements, they were ineligible to receive them. In the 
final industry, softwood lumber, both recipient and non-recipient 
respondents indicated that disbursements to date have been too small to 
have a discernable effect, but non-recipient respondents expressed 
concern about potential future adverse effects because disbursements 
might grow dramatically. Critics have expressed concerns that CDSOA may 
increase the number of AD/CV petition filings and the scope and 
duration of AD/CV duty orders. However, the available evidence is 
inconclusive. 

Some U.S. industries are facing the imposition of additional tariffs by 
key U.S. trading partners as authorized by the WTO because CDSOA does 
not comply with WTO agreements.[Footnote 6] In response to separate 
complaints about CDSOA by 11 WTO members, the WTO ruled in January 2003 
that CDSOA violated U.S. WTO obligations. The rationale for the WTO's 
ruling was that CDSOA was not among the allowed trade remedy responses 
to injurious dumping and subsidies specifically listed in the 
applicable WTO agreements. The United States pledged to comply with the 
adverse ruling, but it did not do so by the December 2003 deadline. 
Although the President proposed CDSOA's repeal, no change has been 
enacted by Congress. Three countries agreed to give the United States 
more time to come into compliance; the other eight members requested 
and received WTO authorization to retaliate by imposing additional 
tariffs on imports from the U.S. WTO arbitrators found that each of the 
eight members would be entitled to suspend concessions against U.S. 
exports in an amount equal to 72 percent of the CDSOA disbursements 
associated with AD/CV duties on that member's products each year. The 
total suspension authorized for 2005 could be up to $134 million based 
on the fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements. Specifically, for the 
fiscal year 2004 disbursements, the WTO arbitrators authorized the 
imposition of additional duties covering a total value of trade not 
exceeding $0.3 million for Brazil, $11.2 million for Canada, $0.6 
million for Chile, $27.8 million for the European Union (EU), $1.4 
million for India, $52.1 million for Japan, $20.0 million for Korea, 
and $20.9 million for Mexico. On May 1, 2005, Canada and the EU began 
the imposition of additional duties on various U.S. exports. On August 
18, 2005, Mexico began imposing additional duties on U.S. exports. On 
September 1, 2005, Japan began imposing additional duties on U.S. 
exports as well. The remaining four members say they might suspend 
concessions. 

This report contains matters for congressional consideration and 
recommendations to CBP. Specifically, given the results of our review, 
as Congress carries out its CDSOA oversight functions and considers 
related legislative proposals, it should consider whether CDSOA is 
achieving the goals of strengthening the remedial nature of U.S. trade 
laws, restoring conditions of fair trade, and assisting domestic 
producers. If Congress decides to retain and modify CDSOA, it should 
also consider extending CBP's 60-day deadline for completing the 
disbursement of CDSOA funds. If Congress retains the law, we also 
recommend that CBP take several steps to improve the processing of 
claims and payments, the verification of claims, and the collection of 
AD/CV duties. 

We received written comments on a draft of this report from CBP (see 
app. IV) indicating that it concurred with our recommendations. We also 
received technical comments on this draft from CBP, the ITC, and the 
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), which we have 
incorporated where appropriate. 

Background: 

The United States and many of its trading partners have long used laws 
known as "trade remedies" to mitigate the adverse impact of certain 
trade practices on domestic industries and workers, notably dumping 
(i.e. sales at below fair market value), and foreign government 
subsidies that lower producers' costs or increase their revenues. In 
both situations, U.S. law provides that a duty intended to counter 
these advantages be imposed on imports. Such duties are known as AD/CV 
duties. The process involves the filing of a petition for relief by 
domestic producer interests, or self-initiation by the U.S. Department 
of Commerce (Commerce), followed by two separate investigations: one by 
Commerce, which determines if dumping or subsidies are occurring, and 
the other by the ITC, which determines whether a domestic U.S. industry 
is materially injured by such unfairly traded imports. If both agencies 
make affirmative determinations, Commerce issues an order to CBP 
directing it to collect the additional duties on imports. These are 
known as AD/CV duty orders.[Footnote 7] No later than 5 years after 
publication of these orders, Commerce and the ITC conduct a "sunset 
review" to determine whether revoking the order would likely lead to 
the continuation or recurrence of dumping and/or subsidization and 
material injury. 

Congress enacted CDSOA on October 28, 2000, as part of the Agriculture, 
Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act to strengthen the remedial nature of U.S. trade 
laws, restore conditions of fair trade, and assist domestic producers. 
Congress noted in its accompanying findings that "continued dumping and 
subsidization . . . after the issuance of antidumping orders or 
findings or countervailing duty orders can frustrate the remedial 
purpose"[Footnote 8] of U.S. trade laws, potentially causing domestic 
producers to be reluctant to reinvest or rehire and damaging their 
ability to maintain pension and health care benefits. Consequently, 
Congress enacted the CDSOA, reasoning that "U.S. trade laws should be 
strengthened to see that the remedial purpose of those laws is 
achieved."[Footnote 9] CDSOA instructs Customs to distribute AD/CV 
duties directly to affected domestic producers. Previously, CBP 
transferred such duties to the Treasury for general government use. 

Two agencies are involved in CDSOA implementation. The law gives each 
agency--ITC and CBP--specific responsibilities for implementing CDSOA. 
The ITC is charged with developing a list of producers who are 
potentially eligible to receive CDSOA distributions and providing the 
names of these producers to CBP.[Footnote 10] CBP has overall 
responsibility for annually distributing duties collected to eligible 
affected domestic producers. CDSOA also makes CBP responsible for 
several related actions. Specifically, it charges CBP with establishing 
procedures for the distribution of payments and requires that CBP 
publish in the Federal Register a notice of intent to distribute 
payments and, based on information provided by the ITC, a list of 
affected domestic producers potentially eligible for the distribution. 

Both agencies had some start-up challenges and have made improvements 
in response to reports by their Inspectors General (IG). In September 
2004, ITC's IG found that the ITC had effectively implemented its part 
of the act but made several suggestions for enhancing the agency's 
CDSOA efforts.[Footnote 11] For example, it suggested that the ITC 
better document its policies and procedures for identifying and 
reporting eligible producers to CBP and improve its communication with 
companies regarding eligibility. In response, the ITC implemented these 
suggestions to, among other things, formalize and strengthen its 
procedures for identifying eligible producers, developing a list of 
potentially eligible producers, and transmitting the list to CBP. For 
example, the ITC updated its desk procedures, clarified certain 
responsibilities to support the staff responsible for maintaining the 
ITC list, and added additional guidance on CDSOA requirements to its 
website. 

In June 2003, the Treasury's IG issued a report finding several major 
deficiencies in CBP's implementation of CDSOA and made several 
recommendations.[Footnote 12] The Treasury's IG found that CBP was not 
in compliance with the law because it did not properly establish 
special accounts for depositing and disbursing CDSOA payments, did not 
pay claimants within the required time frame, and did not institute 
standard operating procedures or adequate controls for managing the 
program. Specifically, Treasury's IG noted that the absence of proper 
accounts, accurate financial data, and adequate internal controls had 
resulted in "overpayments of at least $25 million, and likely more." 
Treasury's IG also emphasized that several other issues warranted 
attention, including no routine verification of claims and significant 
amounts of uncollected AD/CV duties. In response, CBP consolidated the 
processing of claims and payments by establishing a CDSOA team in 
Indianapolis, Indiana; instituted procedures for processing claims and 
disbursements, and for conducting claim verification audits; and 
started proceedings to secure reimbursements from the companies that 
had received overpayments. Despite these efforts, CBP still faces 
issues raised by the Treasury IG, such as the issue of uncollected 
duties. 

The United States has an obligation that its trade remedy actions 
conform to its legal commitments as part of the WTO, an international 
body based in Geneva, Switzerland. The WTO agreements set forth the 
agreed-upon rules for international trade. The WTO provides a mechanism 
for settling disputes between countries, and serves as a forum for 
conducting trade negotiations among its 148 member nations and separate 
customs territories. WTO trade remedy rules involve both procedural and 
substantive requirements, and a number of U.S. trade remedies have been 
challenged at the WTO.[Footnote 13] WTO members that believe other 
members are not complying with their WTO obligations can file a dispute 
settlement case. The resulting decisions by a dispute settlement panel, 
once adopted, are binding on members who are parties to the dispute, 
and WTO rules create an expectation of compliance. Under WTO rules and 
U.S. law, however, compliance is not automatic. WTO dispute settlement 
panels cannot order the United States to change its law. Alternatively, 
the United States may choose not to comply with WTO agreements and 
instead may choose to offer injured members mutually-agreed upon trade 
compensation or face retaliatory suspension of trade concessions by the 
complainant members. A new round of global trade talks aimed at 
liberalizing trade barriers is now underway and includes discussions of 
possible clarifications and improvements to the WTO rules on 
antidumping and on subsidies and countervailing measures. U.S. trade 
with members of the WTO totaled $2.1 trillion in 2004, giving the 
United States a considerable stake in these WTO negotiations, which aim 
to liberalize trade in agriculture, industrial goods, and 
services.[Footnote 14]

Key CDSOA Features Restrict Company Eligibility, Determine Share of 
Disbursements, and Set Tight Time Frame for Disbursing Payments: 

Three key features of CDSOA guide and affect agency implementation. 
These features (1) determine company eligibility to receive CDSOA 
disbursements, (2) shape the allocation of CDSOA disbursements among 
companies based on their claimed expenditures, and (3) specify 
milestones that agencies must achieve when implementing the act, 
including a tight time frame for disbursing funds. 

CDSOA's Criteria for Company Eligibility Restricts Benefits: 

CDSOA establishes criteria that restrict eligibility for CDSOA 
disbursements. As guidance for agency implementation, these criteria 
raise issues because (1) two-thirds of the orders in effect predate 
CDSOA, (2) ITC investigative procedures were not designed to, and do 
not result in, collecting information on support of petitions from all 
industry participants, and (3) other factors further limit company 
eligibility. Some companies deemed ineligible regard these criteria as 
unfair, and several have initiated legal action to secure eligibility. 

CDSOA Restricts Eligibility: 

The law restricts eligibility to "affected domestic producers"--namely, 
any "manufacturer, producer, farmer, rancher, or worker representative 
(including associations of these persons)" that (1) petitioned[Footnote 
15] the ITC or supported a petition for relief to the ITC that resulted 
in an AD/CV duty order and (2) remains in operation. The law also 
requires the ITC to prepare a list of potentially eligible producers 
for CBP, which publishes it in advance of each annual distribution. The 
law only applies to orders in effect on or after January 1, 1999. CDSOA 
further specifies that support must be communicated to the ITC through 
a letter from the company or a response to an ITC questionnaire. 
Successor companies or members of an association may also be eligible 
for CDSOA distributions.[Footnote 16] Conversely, CDSOA deems as 
ineligible those companies that (1) opposed a petition, (2) ceased 
production of a product covered by an order, or (3) were acquired by 
companies that opposed a petition. 

Most Orders Predate CDSOA: 

These eligibility criteria create special problems when older AD/CV 
orders are involved. Our analysis of ITC data reveals that roughly two-
thirds of (234 out of 351) AD/CV duty orders in effect as of April 15, 
2005, precede CDSOA. The application of CDSOA to orders that predate 
the law's enactment raises concern. This is because, for AD/CV relief 
petitions that were investigated before CDSOA was enacted, producers 
had no way of knowing that their lack of expression of support for the 
petition would later adversely affect their ability to receive CDSOA 
disbursements. Moreover, firms that began operations or entered the 
U.S. market after the ITC's original investigation are not eligible to 
receive CDSOA distributions. For petitions that have been investigated 
since CDSOA was enacted, producers would likely be aware of this 
linkage. The ITC and CBP told us that in a recent case involving 
shrimp, industry associations reached out broadly to ensure producers 
were aware of the need to communicate support to the ITC. Similarly, 
officials from a law firm that works with importers told us they were 
aware of such industry association efforts in cases involving live 
swine. However, in examining seven industries, we spoke to several 
ineligible companies that were frustrated because they had not 
expressed support during, or in some cases had not even known about, 
AD/CV investigations conducted before CDSOA's adoption. 

ITC Sometimes Does Not Collect Data from All Industry Participants: 

The ITC relies on company data that is sometimes incomplete, and this 
further limits eligibility. CDSOA's criteria link companies' 
eligibility to a process the ITC has long followed in investigating 
AD/CV petitions by U.S. domestic industry interests for relief from 
unfair imports. However, the ITC's investigative process does not 
result in collecting information from all industry participants, 
because it is intended for purposes other than CDSOA. The ITC's primary 
role in AD/CV investigations is to define the scope of the industry 
that is affected by competition from imported goods and to determine 
whether the industry has suffered or been threatened with material 
injury as a result of dumped or subsidized imports. The ITC collects 
information from U.S. producers, primarily by surveying them. ITC 
officials told us that they generally strive to cover 100 percent of 
industry production in their surveys and usually receive responses from 
producers accounting for a substantial share of production. In 
situations with a relatively small number of producers, ITC officials 
said they often succeed in getting coverage of 90 percent of the 
domestic industry. However, in certain circumstances, such as with 
agricultural products, which have a large number of small producers, 
ITC surveys a sample of U.S. producers instead of the entire 
industry.[Footnote 17] In these situations, it is not uncommon for the 
share of production reflected in the ITC's questionnaire responses to 
account for 10 percent or less of production. 

Other Factors May Further Limit List of Eligible Producers ITC Provides 
CBP: 

The following four factors additionally define the list of eligible 
producers: 

* The questionnaires that the ITC sends to domestic producers during 
its investigations have only asked respondents to indicate their 
position on the petition since 1985. For cases prior to 1985, only 
petitioners and producers who indicated support of the petition by 
letter in the ITC's public reports or documents have been considered 
"affected domestic producers."

* The ITC considers the most recent answer a company provides as the 
one that determines eligibility. In its investigations, the ITC sends 
out both preliminary and final surveys in which producers are asked 
about support for petitions. Presently, producers have the option of 
checking one of three boxes: (1) support, (2) take no position, and (3) 
oppose. According to ITC officials, because the statute requires 
support, only those firms that check the "support" box are considered 
eligible. Moreover, ITC's practice has been to look to the most recent 
clear expression of a company's position on the petition to determine 
its CDSOA eligibility. For example, if a company's response was 
"support" on the preliminary survey but "take no position" on the final 
survey, the ITC interprets "take no position" as non-support, and 
considers the company ineligible for CDSOA disbursements. 

* The ITC limits its list of potentially eligible producers to those 
who indicate their support can be made public. The ITC is required by 
statute to keep company information, including positions on petitions, 
confidential, unless the company waives its confidentiality 
rights.[Footnote 18] CDSOA requires CBP to publish the list of 
potentially eligible producers; as a result, the list the ITC provides 
CBP only includes companies who have affirmatively indicated 
willingness (in the original investigation or after) to have their 
support be made public. 

* Because of CDSOA's interpretation of the phrase "support of the 
petition," the ITC only considers evidence of support during its 
initial investigation to satisfy CDSOA requirements. Once an 
investigation is over, a producer that has not communicated its support 
to the ITC cannot later become eligible for CDSOA disbursements, even 
if it supports the continuation of an existing order at the time of the 
5-year "sunset review."

Several Companies Have Challenged CDSOA's Eligibility Restrictions: 

Several companies have brought legal action challenging agency 
decisions that rendered them ineligible to receive disbursements, but 
none of these challenges have been successful. The following examples 
illustrate challenges to agency decisions: 

* A case was brought by candle companies to compel the payment of CDSOA 
distributions to them.[Footnote 19] The companies were not on the ITC's 
list of potentially eligible producers and did not file timely 
certifications with CBP. The companies asserted that the ITC had 
violated CDSOA by failing to include them on the list of affected 
domestic producers and that this omission excused their failure to 
timely file their certifications.[Footnote 20] A federal appellate 
court held that the ITC properly excluded the two producers from the 
list of affected domestic producers because the producers provided 
support for the AD petition in a response to a confidential 
questionnaire and failed to waive confidentiality.[Footnote 21] The 
court also held that when the ITC properly excludes a producer from the 
list, the producer still must file a timely certification with CBP to 
obtain retroactive consideration for CDSOA distributions.[Footnote 22] 
As a result, the court found that the firms were not entitled to CDSOA 
disbursements for the years in question. 

* Another set of candle companies, which had opposed the relevant 
petition and subsequently acquired companies in support of the same 
petition, brought a case seeking to obtain CDSOA disbursements on 
behalf of the acquired companies.[Footnote 23] An appellate court held 
that CDSOA bars claims made on behalf of otherwise affected domestic 
producers who were acquired by a company that opposed the investigation 
or were acquired by a business related to a company that opposed the 
investigation.[Footnote 24] The court also found that the acquired 
companies are also barred from claiming disbursements for 
themselves.[Footnote 25]

* A seafood producer brought a case seeking an evidentiary hearing 
and/or inclusion of affidavits in the agency record where the producer 
was excluded from the list of affected domestic producers because the 
ITC had no record of the producer's support for the petition.[Footnote 
26] The producer claimed that it had mailed a questionnaire response 
indicating support to the ITC on time and wanted to have its affidavits 
in support of the contention included in the agency's records.[Footnote 
27] The U.S. Court of International Trade held that because the 
producer failed to allege the proper reasons for amending the agency 
record, affidavits concerning the timely mailing of a questionnaire 
could not be added to the agency record and considered when reviewing 
the producer's eligibility for a CDSOA distribution.[Footnote 28]

Two other legal challenges are still pending and involve claims that 
CDSOA violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution ("free 
speech") by conditioning the distribution of benefits on a company's 
expression of support for an AD/CV relief petition.[Footnote 29]

Monies Collected on All Active Orders Fund Annual CDSOA Disbursements; 
Company Claims Determine Share of Disbursements: 

The second key CDSOA feature provides for CDSOA funding and a pro rata 
mechanism for allocating funds among the companies that claim 
disbursements based on a broad definition of qualifying expenditures. 
Partly as a result of the incentive this creates, company claims 
approached $2 trillion in fiscal year 2004. 

AD/CV Duties Fund CDSOA Disbursements: 

Each fiscal year's duty assessments on all AD/CV duty orders that were 
in effect for that year fund annual CDSOA disbursements. Each fiscal 
year, CBP creates a special account that acts as an umbrella over 
multiple holding accounts used to track collections by specific active 
AD/CV duty orders and deposits collected duties under an order into its 
respective account. Within these accounts, CBP indicates that the 
dollar amounts attributable to each specific case are clearly 
identifiable. For example, a total of 351 AD/CV duty orders were in 
effect as of April 15, 2005, covering 124 products from 50 countries. 
In other words, as of that date, CBP intended to allocate CDSOA 
disbursements not from "one CDSOA pie" but from "351 CDSOA pies." Each 
of these accounts constitutes a separate fund from which CBP makes 
annual distributions. After the fiscal year closes, CBP distributes the 
duties collected and interest earned under a given order that year to 
the affected eligible producers filing timely claims related to the 
specific order. 

The agency cannot distribute funds collected from one order to 
producers that were petitioners under other orders. For example, funds 
collected from the order on pineapples from Thailand cannot be used to 
pay producers covered by the frozen fish from Vietnam order. As a 
result, in fiscal year 2004, the one U.S. producer of pineapples 
received all the money collected under that order, but CBP did not make 
CDSOA disbursements to U.S. producers of frozen fish because the agency 
had not collected any funds under that order. 

CDSOA Has Broad Definition of Qualifying Expenditures: 

CDSOA's definition of expenses companies can claim is very broad. The 
law defines ten categories of qualifying expenditures, such as health 
benefits and working capital expenses, incurred during the production 
of the product under the order.[Footnote 30] According to CBP officials 
we spoke with, this broad definition means companies can include a wide 
range of expenses in their certifications. Moreover, CDSOA allows 
companies to claim any expenses incurred since an order was issued, a 
period that may span as far back as the early 1970s for some 
orders.[Footnote 31] Indeed, 68 of the 351 orders in effect have been 
in place for 15 years or more. Companies can also make claims under 
multiple AD/CV orders. For example, in fiscal year 2004, one of the top 
recipient companies filed claims for different products under 89 AD/CV 
orders. Finally, the law allows companies to submit claims for 
qualified expenditures that have not been reimbursed in previous fiscal 
years. However, CBP implementing regulations require that producers 
relate claimed expenditures to the production of the product that is 
covered by the scope of the order or finding. 

CDSOA Disbursements Are Proportional to Company Claims: 

CDSOA uses a pro rata formula to allocate disbursements under a given 
order among the eligible companies filing claims, with percentages 
determined according to the claims of qualifying expenditures 
submitted. If the amount collected under an order is insufficient for 
all claims to be paid in full, as is often the case, each company 
receives its pro rata share of the amount collected. This pro rata 
formula creates an incentive for producers to claim as many expenses as 
possible relative to other producers so that their share of the funds 
available under an order is as large as possible. CBP officials cited 
the increase in claims--from $1.2 trillion in fiscal year 2001 to just 
under $2 trillion in fiscal year 2004--as an indication of this 
incentive. 

CDSOA Sets a Tight Time Frame for Disbursing Payments: 

The third key feature of CDSOA is that it sets a strict deadline by 
which CBP must distribute payments for a fiscal year. Most disbursement-
related activities cannot begin until the fiscal year ends. As a 
result, CBP has a significant workload in October and November and 
cannot perform all the desired quality controls prior to disbursement. 

CDSOA gives CBP a flexible time frame for processing claims and the CBP 
has used its discretion to give itself more time. Specifically, the law 
directs CBP to publish a Federal Register notice of its intent to 
distribute payments, and the list of affected domestic producers 
potentially eligible to receive payments under each order, at least 30 
days before distributions are made. However, CBP has scheduled the 
publication, which is the first step in processing claims, at least 90 
days before the end of the fiscal year for which distributions are 
being made. For the fiscal year 2004 disbursements, CBP actually 
published the notice on June 2, 2004--about 120 days before the end of 
the fiscal year. CBP requires producer claims/certifications to be 
submitted within 60 days after this notice is published. The fiscal 
year 2004 deadline for submitting claims was August 2, 2004. This gave 
CBP the months of August and September to examine certifications, seek 
additional information from the producers, send acceptance or rejection 
letters to producers, and finalize a list of recipients. 

The law is not flexible in the time frame allowed for processing 
disbursements for a given fiscal year, specifying that payments must be 
made within 60 days after the first day of the following fiscal year. 
Because of the need to calculate funds available based on a completed 
fiscal year, CBP cannot commence these calculations until the following 
fiscal year. This tight time frame means that during October and 
November, CBP must perform the bulk of the tasks associated with 
calculating the funds available for disbursement under each order and 
the funds that will be distributed to each recipient company under an 
order. In discussions with us, CBP officials said CDSOA's 60-day time 
frame for disbursing payments was tight, posing the biggest risk 
associated with running the program. For instance, in fiscal year 2002, 
the program missed this deadline by about 2 weeks and, in the process, 
overpaid some producers. Efforts to collect these overpayments have 
yielded some results but are still continuing. An extension of 30 days 
in the disbursement deadline would give CBP additional time to 
undertake desired quality control measures before sending the 
instructions to Treasury and issuing payments. The present schedule 
does not allow sufficient time for quality control, forcing CBP to ask 
companies for repayment if errors are subsequently detected. 

CBP Faces Three Key Problems Implementing CDSOA: 

CBP faces three key problems in implementing CDSOA. First, despite some 
recent improvements, CBP's processing of CDSOA claims and disbursements 
is labor intensive, and the agency is facing a dramatic increase in its 
2005 workload. Second, the agency does not systematically verify claims 
and thus cannot be sure it appropriately distributes disbursements. 
Third, CBP disbursed only about half the funds that should have been 
available in fiscal year 2004 because of ongoing problems collecting 
AD/CV duties. 

Figure 1 depicts how the various units of CBP and Treasury interact 
when processing claims, verifying claims, and making payments. 
Following the consolidation of CBP's CDSOA program within the Revenue 
Division at Indianapolis in 2004, the division is now fully responsible 
for processing claims and disbursements. The division issues payment 
instructions for Treasury's Financial Management Service, which 
actually issues CDSOA disbursement checks to U.S. companies. CBP's 
Regulatory Audit Division may selectively perform claims verifications 
upon request of the CDSOA program. 

Figure 1: CBP's and Treasury's Units Involved in CDSOA Efforts: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In addition to these offices within CBP, the Office of Regulations and 
Rulings addresses legal matters, the Office of the Chief Counsel 
addresses litigation, the Office of Information Technology provides 
necessary reports, and the Office of Field Operations is responsible 
for liquidations. 

CBP's CDSOA Program Faces Problems Processing Claims and Payments: 

The CDSOA program's efforts to process claims and disbursements are 
cumbersome and likely to become more challenging with impending 
workload increases. The processing of claims and disbursements requires 
intensive manual efforts, in part because CBP does not require 
companies to file claims using a standardized form. Also, existing 
computer systems do not have the capabilities to produce the data 
needed to calculate amounts available for distribution. CBP's guidance 
for filing claims is not sufficiently specific and causes confusion, 
requiring extra effort by CBP staff to answer questions from companies. 
CBP officials are concerned that, despite recent staffing increases, 
the number and experience level of staff may not be sufficient to 
handle the dramatic workload increase in fiscal year 2005. Despite 
being aware of these problems, CBP's CDSOA program lacks plans for 
improving its processes, staff, and technology. 

Processing of Claims Is Labor Intensive: 

CDSOA claims processing is cumbersome and labor intensive. Through 
fiscal year 2004, CBP only received updates to the list of potentially 
eligible companies from the ITC in hard copy. As a result, CBP had to 
manually update its electronic database of potentially eligible 
producers. During the course of our review, ITC officials took the 
initiative to provide the list to CBP in hard copy and in electronic 
format to facilitate CBP's processing of this information. CBP 
officials noted that getting the file electronically was very helpful. 
However, because CBP still needed to perform considerable data re-entry 
to get the list into the format they preferred, ITC and CBP officials 
told us they are exploring whether to formalize and improve this file 
exchange in the future. Because CBP does not require companies to 
submit claims electronically using a standardized form, program staff 
scan all the documents received for electronic storage and subsequently 
archive all paper copies of the documents. CDSOA program staff must 
review each claim to ensure it contains the required information, 
contact claimants to clarify basic information, and send out letters 
concerning rejected claims.[Footnote 32] Staff must manually enter 
information from accepted claims into a "standalone" database, and 
perform repeated checks to ensure that they followed the prescribed 
procedures and that their data entries are valid and accurate. 

Gaps in Computer Systems Force Reliance on Manual Calculations of 
Disbursements: 

The payments processing component is also labor intensive because 
existing computer systems do not have the capabilities to provide 
precise information on the amounts available for disbursement under 
each order or the amounts to be disbursed to each claimant. CBP's CDSOA 
program continues to face a risk in this area because its staff must 
manually perform the calculations and any inaccurate calculations can 
result in over or underpayments. Multiple data elements are required to 
determine the amounts available for disbursement, and these come from 
different computer systems. In some instances, the computer systems 
produce conflicting information, and program staff must manually 
reconcile these differences. While internal control procedures are in 
place to ensure the validity and accuracy of the calculations, the 
process is nonetheless subject to human error. Program officials told 
us that the new computer system being implemented agencywide will not 
have the financial component needed to perform this task for several 
more years. 

Guidance to Companies Generates Questions to CBP and Uncertainty by 
Companies: 

Claims processing is further complicated because the guidance about how 
to file CDSOA claims is very general and open to interpretation. As a 
result, CDSOA program staff field many phone calls from claimants 
regarding their claims, including clarification questions on how to 
file claims. Respondents to GAO's questions generally praised CBP for 
its handling of these calls. However, a recent CBP verification of a 
company's claims raised various claims-related questions. For example, 
CDSOA provides that companies can receive disbursements for qualifying 
expenditures not previously reimbursed, but officials involved in the 
verification said it was not clear whether companies must subtract all 
past disbursements when making claims under multiple orders, or only 
those disbursements related to a particular order. Also, one CDSOA 
recipient company reported that, because of uncertainty about whether 
cumulative expenses could be claimed, it claimed only 1 year's 
expenses. As a result, it received a much smaller share of 
disbursements than it otherwise could have. 

CDSOA Program Has Increased Staff but Faces Dramatic Growth in 
Workload: 

Although the number of staff assigned to process claims and payments 
has grown, program officials noted that this increase may not be 
sufficient to handle the dramatic workload increase expected in fiscal 
year 2005. Specifically, the number of eligible claimants has grown by 
500 percent between fiscal years 2004 and 2005, and the number of 
claims might increase more than 10-fold, from 1,960 to over 29,000. 
This growth is largely due to AD duty orders on certain warm-water 
shrimp or prawns recently coming into effect. Table 1 shows the number 
of program staff for fiscal years 2003-2005 and the program's 
responsibilities and workload during those years. 

Table 1: CBP's CDSOA Program Staff, Responsibilities, and Workload: 

Fiscal year: 2003; 
Number of staff: 4; 
Responsibilities: Process payments forwarded by CBP's Office of 
Regulations and Rulings; Prepare for consolidation of the program; 
Workload: 
* Eligible claimants-1,000; 
* Claimants that filed-545; 
* Claims filed-2,196; 
* Claims per staff-549. 

Fiscal year: 2004; 
Number of staff: 7; 
Responsibilities: Process CDSOA claims and payments; 
Workload: 
* Eligible claimants-1,100; 
* Claimants that filed-493; 
* Claims filed-1,960; 
* Claims per staff-280. 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Number of staff: 9; 
Responsibilities: Process CDSOA claims and payments; 
Workload: 
* Eligible claimants-5,400; 
* Claimants that filed-unknown; 
* Claims to be filed (est.)-29,300; 
* Claims per staff (est.) 3,255. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

[End of table]

Program officials are concerned about fiscal year 2005 processing 
activities because only about half of the staff has processed claims 
and payments before. The rest are new and not experienced with the 
procedures. Moreover, if the workload becomes unmanageable, CBP may be 
unable to quickly bring new staff on board and up to speed. This is 
because new employees must undergo a 4 to 6 month background check and 
initial training of entry-level college graduates takes 3 to 4 months. 
New staff attains full proficiency only after they complete a full 
annual cycle of processing claims and payments. 

Despite these challenges, the CDSOA program does not have formal plans 
for improving its processes, technology, and staff. In our efforts to 
help improve the federal government's performance, we regularly 
emphasize that processes, staff, and technology are vital to agency 
performance and that planning is central to managing and improving 
these three organizational components.[Footnote 33] For instance, our 
work on human capital issues throughout the government has revealed the 
importance of having a human capital plan in place to address problems, 
such as those faced by the CDSOA program, and ensure that staff with 
the right skills and abilities is available continuously and can meet 
changing organizational needs.[Footnote 34]

CBP Has Not Verified Claims Systematically: 

Claims verification poses another implementation problem for CBP. 
Companies are not held accountable for the claims they file because CBP 
does not require them to provide any supporting documentation for their 
claims and does not systematically verify company claims. The only 
comprehensive verification conducted to date found significant issues. 
Although CBP has put in place procedures for verifying CDSOA claims, it 
does not plan to implement them on a systematic or routine basis. 

Program officials told us they basically accept the information in 
company claims and rely on complaints from competitors to initiate 
verifications. In reviewing certain claims and CBP's procedures, we 
found that claims are generally not questioned even though top CDSOA 
recipient companies have claimed over $2 trillion since fiscal year 
2001 (see app.II). CBP normally does not take steps to determine that 
companies are still in business and producing the item covered by the 
order under which they are making a claim. Neither CDSOA nor CBP 
require companies to explain their claims, provide supporting 
documentation about their claims, or follow a format when listing their 
qualifying expenditures. For example, in reviewing the 2004 claims 
filed by top CDSOA recipients, we found that most companies did not 
provide any details about their claimed expenditures. Indeed, one 
company listed all of its claimed expenditures under the category of 
raw materials. CDSOA and CBP do not require that companies have their 
claims reviewed by a certified public accountant or a party outside of 
the company. 

CBP has only verified the claims of a handful of claimants. One of 
these verifications was comprehensive and revealed significant 
problems. In the first 3 years of the CDSOA program, staff in CBP's 
Office of Regulations and Rulings conducted four, 1-day site visit 
verifications that revealed no substantive issues. Subsequently, CBP's 
Regulatory Audit Division decided to conduct a fifth verification using 
the detailed verification procedures the division developed in mid-
2004. This verification, which took about a year and was completed in 
June 2005, revealed significant problems, including substantial 
overstatement of claimed expenses. According to CBP, the primary cause 
of the CDSOA expenditure overstatement was the company's failure to 
maintain an internal control system to prepare and support its CDSOA 
claims. This prevented the company from identifying the non-qualifying 
products and costs associated with them. As a result, the company 
included expenditures incurred in the production of products not 
covered by the scope of the AD/CV orders. The company acknowledged that 
it had wrongly claimed expenditures and subsequently took corrective 
action. 

CBP does not plan to change its present reactive approach or to 
systematically target more companies for verifications. Although the 
law does not require verification of claims, CBP has recognized over 
time the need for them but has always stopped short of implementing a 
systematic verification plan. In the third year of CDSOA 
implementation, a CBP working group under the direction of the Deputy 
Commissioner's office developed a statement of work to, among other 
things, verify claims according to a risk-based plan. However, CBP does 
not have any evidence that this plan was ever developed or implemented. 

Despite having new claim verification procedures in place and having 
performed an in-depth verification as a prototype review to determine 
the extent of work involved in the verification, Regulatory Audit 
Division officials told us they do not plan to verify claims 
systematically or on a routine basis. Instead, CBP will continue to 
rely on complaints from competitors to select companies for 
verification. According to CBP officials, this approach is logical 
because the pro rata formula for allocating disbursements among firms 
creates an incentive for other companies to police their competitors. 
Although CBP has an agencywide risk-based plan for targeting companies 
for audits, this plan does not target the CDSOA program's recipients 
because the agency does not consider the program a high risk to revenue 
or a high priority for policy reasons. 

CBP's current position is at odds with its own Inspector General's (IG) 
position and our work on financial management, which highlights the 
importance of verifying claims. In its audit of the CDSOA program, 
Treasury's IG emphasized the need for more robust claim verification. 
In the report, the IG questioned why CBP was not reviewing CDSOA claims 
on an annual basis, and particularly the expenditures claimed. The IG 
went on to note that certifications are legally subject to verification 
and that these certifications would serve as a deterrent against the 
submission of deceptive claims. Moreover, it emphasized that untimely 
verifications could result in the loss of revenue for other deserving 
companies if, in fact, deception was later discovered. Our overall work 
on claims and disbursements throughout the government shows that the 
systematic verification of claims before they are processed (or after 
they are paid) is key to ensuring the validity of transactions and to 
avoid disbursement problems such as improper payments.[Footnote 35] 
This work also reveals the importance of internal controls, such as 
verification, to ensure that only valid transactions are initiated in 
accordance with management decisions and directives. 

CBP's Problems in Collecting AD/CV Duties Worsen: 

Collecting AD/CV duties has been another problem for CBP, compromising 
the effectiveness of AD/CV trade remedies generally and limiting 
funding available for distribution under CDSOA. CBP reported that the 
problem has grown dramatically in the last couple of years. For 
example, it distributed about half of the money that should have been 
available under CDSOA in fiscal year 2004. CBP's efforts to date to 
address the causes of its collections problems have not been 
successful, leading CBP to pledge further steps in a July 2005 report 
to Congress. 

Customs collections problems have been evident since mid-2003 and have 
two distinct components. Specifically, the 2003 report on CDSOA by 
Treasury's IG highlighted CBP's collections problems, raising 
particular concerns about the following two AD/CV collection issues: 

* Unliquidated entries make the eventual collection of duties owed less 
certain. Liquidation is the final determination of duties owed on an 
import entry. Liquidation of import entries subject to AD/CV duties 
only occurs after Commerce issues a final order, determines final 
dumping margins or final net countervailable subsidies (i.e. duty), and 
issues liquidation instructions to CBP. Upon receipt of liquidation 
instructions, CBP calculates and seeks to collect the actual duties 
owed. In some cases, such as softwood lumber, liquidation is being 
suspended due to ongoing litigation. While neither Commerce nor CBP can 
hasten collection of duties tied up in litigation, Treasury's IG report 
found that, in some cases, CBP was not collecting duties because 
Commerce had failed to issue proper liquidation instructions to CBP. In 
other cases, the report said CBP had overlooked Commerce liquidation 
instructions. The report said clearing up the liquidation backlog 
should be given a high priority given the substantial dollars involved-
-about $2 billion in 2003. Clearing the backlog is also urgent because 
discrepancies between unliquidated duties and final duties often means 
that CBP must attempt to collect additional sums from producers that 
did not expect to pay more, or that went out of business.[Footnote 36]

* Open (unpaid or uncollected) duty bills are liquidated entries for 
which final bills have been issued but not paid. The Treasury's IG 
report expressed concern that CBP had not collected $97 million in 
duties owed and said that the agency might not be able to recover some 
of these funds. Treasury's IG said its discussion with CBP personnel 
suggested recovery could be difficult because: (1) port personnel are 
accepting bonds that are not sufficient to cover the duties owed plus 
interest when the entry is liquidated, and (2) the length of time 
between entry and liquidation is often several years, and in that time, 
some importers go out of business, leaving CBP with no way to go back 
for collection of additional duties. 

In response, CBP and Commerce took steps to identify and address the 
causes of CBP's collections problems. CBP attributes the uncollected 
duties problem largely to "new shippers" with little import 
history,[Footnote 37] a problem that is particularly prevalent in the 
agriculture and aquaculture industries. According to CBP, one of these 
new shippers accounted for $130 million in uncollected duties in fiscal 
year 2004. To address this problem, in 2004, Commerce changed its new 
shipper review process and listed several steps it has taken to 
strengthen it. These included steps such as making the bondholder 
liable for duties owed on each import entry, and formalizing a 
checklist to ensure the legitimacy of new shippers and their sales. 
Subsequently in 2004, CBP announced an amended directive to help ensure 
that duties on agriculture and aquaculture imports were collected 
properly by reviewing and applying a new formula for bonds on these 
imports, effectively increasing these bonds by setting them at higher 
rates. 

Nevertheless, since the problem and its basic reasons became known in 
2003, the size of CBP's collections problem has more than doubled. As 
figure 2 shows, according to CBP data, $4.2 billion in AD/CV duties 
remained unliquidated and $260 million in AD/CV duties were unpaid at 
the end of fiscal year 2004. According to CBP, a large amount of the 
unliquidated entries involves duties on softwood lumber from Canada 
(about $3.7 billion). In February 2005, CBP reported to Congress that 
it had developed a plan to isolate suspended entries that were beyond 
the normal time frames of an AD/CV case and then worked with Commerce 
to obtain liquidation instructions, reducing the inventory of one 
million suspended entries by 80,000. However, many unliquidated entries 
remain and some of the unliquidated entries are still due to problems 
within CBP's and Commerce's control. CBP estimates that over 90 percent 
of all unliquidated AD/CV entries are awaiting Commerce instructions 
for liquidation. Regarding unpaid duties, a large percentage pertains 
to imports from China. Specifically, nearly two-thirds of these unpaid 
duties (about $170 million) relate to an AD order on crawfish tail meat 
from China. The second largest amount (about $25 million) relate to an 
AD order on fresh garlic from China. 

Figure 2: Potential Fiscal Year 2004 AD/CV Duties Available for 
Distribution under CDSOA and Actual CDSOA Disbursements: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

CBP's continued collections problems have led to calls for more drastic 
measures. Several industry groups, including representatives of the 
garlic, honey, mushroom, and crawfish industries, have advocated for 
elimination of the new shipper bonding rules in favor of cash deposits 
on entries for new AD orders. Most crawfish and some steel recipients 
responding to our questionnaire also raised concerns about CBP's 
collection efforts and quality of communication about ongoing problems. 

As a result, CBP is pursuing additional measures. In a February 2005 
report to Congress, CBP said it is working with Treasury to address 
financial risks associated with bond holders' insolvency and monitoring 
of agriculture/aquaculture importers' compliance with its new bonding 
requirements on a weekly basis. In its July 2005 report to Congress, 
CBP highlights that it has begun working with other U.S. agencies to 
develop legislative proposals and other solutions to better address 
AD/CV duty collection problems. CBP notes that it plans to forward the 
results of this interagency effort to Congress by December 2005. 
Meanwhile, Congress is considering legislation that would change new 
shipper privileges.[Footnote 38]

CDSOA Payments Largely Concentrated on a Few Companies and Industries, 
with Mixed Effects Reported: 

Most CDSOA payments went to a small number of U.S. producers and 
industries, with mixed effects reported. Top recipient companies 
reported that the payments had positive overall effects, although their 
assessments of the extent of the benefits varied. Leading recipient 
companies within the seven industries we examined also reported varying 
positive effects. In four of these industries--bearings, candles, 
crawfish, and pasta--recipients we contacted reported benefits, but 
some non-recipients said that CDSOA payments were having adverse 
effects on their ability to compete in the U.S. market. Although some 
have argued that CDSOA has caused increases in the number of AD/CV 
petitions filed and in the scope and duration of AD/CV duty orders, the 
evidence to date is inconclusive. 

A Few U.S. Producers and Industries Received the Bulk of CDSOA 
Payments: 

From fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2004, CBP has distributed 
approximately $1 billion in CDSOA payments to 770 companies from a 
broad range of industries. These payments have been highly concentrated 
in a few companies. Figure 3 shows the share of payments going to the 
top five companies and the share received by the remaining CDSOA 
recipients. One company, Timken, a bearings producer, received about 
twenty percent of total distributions, approximately $205 million, 
during fiscal years 2001-2004.[Footnote 39] Five companies, including 
Timken, received nearly half of the total payments, or about $486 
million. 

Figure 3: FY 2001-2004 CDSOA Payments to the Top Five Companies and to 
the Remaining Companies: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Figure 4 shows the distribution of payments to the top 39 recipient 
companies that have received 80 percent of total CDSOA disbursements. 
These top recipient companies included several producers of steel, 
candles, and pasta. They also included producers of cement, chemicals, 
cookware, pencils, pineapples, and textiles. 

Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2001-2004 Distribution of CDSOA Payments to the 
39 Leading Recipient Companies: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: 

[A] The data for Torrington reflects the payments it received for 
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, prior to its acquisition by Timken. 

[B] In 1972 Candle-lite was acquired by Lancaster Colony Corporation of 
which it remains a division today. For fiscal years 2001-2003, 
Lancaster Colony received CDSOA distributions under the name Candle-
lite. The amount paid to Candle-lite and Lancaster Colony should be 
added together for an accurate account of CDSOA distributions made to 
the Candle-lite Division of Lancaster Colony Corporation. Total fiscal 
year 2001-2004 distributions equal $82,985,544 or 58.21 percent of 
total distributions to the candle industry. 

[C] New World Pasta acquired Hershey Foods Corporation in 1999. CBP 
also made CDSOA distributions to New World Pasta. The amount paid to 
Hershey Foods (New World Pasta) does not include these separate 
distributions to New World Pasta, which were $3,584,898. 

[D] Eramet Marietta is included in this figure as a top recipient 
company because it is listed by CBP as having received CDSOA funds for 
fiscal year 2002. After contacting this company, we discovered that it 
was required to send back its CDSOA money to CBP due to a CBP 
overpayment error. 

[End of figure] 

For most of the top recipient companies responding to our 
questionnaire, the ratio of CDSOA payments to sales was less than 3 
percent. Specifically, the ratio of payments to sales ranged from less 
than 1 percent to over 30 percent. The ratio was generally the smallest 
for steel companies and the largest for candle companies. 

In analyzing CDSOA distributions by industry, or product group, the 
payments are similarly concentrated among only a few industries or 
product groups. For example, approximately two-thirds of total CDSOA 
distributions went to three product groups--bearings, candles, and iron 
and steel mills--which recieved approximately 40 percent, 14 percent, 
and 12 percent respectively. Also, 95 percent of all total payments 
went to 24 out of the 77 product groups. Figure 5 shows the leading 
industries or product groups that received CDSOA distributions. 

Figure 5: Top 24 Product Groups Receiving CDSOA Disbursements, FY 2001-
2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Companies Report Mixed Effects from CDSOA Payments: 

Top Recipients of CDSOA Payments Reported Varying Positive Effects: 

As detailed in appendix II, the 24 companies that responded to our 
survey of top CDSOA recipients indicated that the CDSOA disbursements 
had positive effects, but the extent of benefit varied from slight to 
substantial.[Footnote 40] We asked these companies to assess CDSOA's 
effects at both the industry and company level on a number of different 
dimensions including prices, investment, employment, and ability to 
compete. The top recipients reported that CDSOA had the most positive 
impact in areas such as net income and employment. For example, one 
company commented that CDSOA payments have allowed for substantial 
investments in its factory and workers, providing, among other things, 
supplemental health care benefits. Another company reported that CDSOA 
payments have been helpful in justifying continued investment during 
periods when prices are depressed, due to dumping or subsidization. The 
top recipients reported that CDSOA had less of an effect in other areas 
such as prices and market share. For example, a company commented that 
disbursements have had little or no effect on prices for its CDSOA 
product because such prices are ultimately determined by market forces. 

Companies in Seven Industries Reported a Mix of Positive and Negative 
Impacts: 

As detailed in appendix III, in our examination of seven industries 
that received CDSOA payments--bearings, steel, candles, pasta, dynamic 
random access memory (DRAM) semiconductors, crawfish, and softwood 
lumber--leading recipients we contacted generally reported benefits to 
varying degrees, and the non-recipients we contacted either complained 
about being disadvantaged or did not report effects.[Footnote 41] In 
four industries--bearings, candles, crawfish, and pasta--recipients 
generally reported benefits, but some non-recipients complained that 
the disbursements were having negative effects on them. These 
industries all involve cases that predate CDSOA. In general, the non-
recipients that complained of negative effects are ineligible for 
disbursements and several complained about their ineligibility. 

* Bearings. The leading domestic producer of bearings is eligible for 
CDSOA disbursements, but several large foreign-owned companies with 
longstanding production in the United States are its major competitors 
and ineligible. Three bearings recipient companies commented that CDSOA 
has had positive effects, although they varied in their assessments of 
the extent of the benefit. One company stated that the disbursements 
helped it to replace equipment and enabled it to recover to the 
position it had held prior to being injured from dumping. Another 
recipient commented that, while the CDSOA disbursements were helpful, 
they were distributed several years after the initial injury and did 
not fully compensate the company for lost profits due to unfair trade. 
Two non-recipients provided views. One non-recipient commented that 
CDSOA harms global bearings companies because the antidumping duties 
they pay are transferred directly to a competitor. It further commented 
that not only is it forced to subsidize competitors through CDSOA, but 
the money it is paying in duties limits its ability to invest in and 
expand its U.S. operations. The other said it is too early to know what 
injurious effect CDSOA disbursements would have on non-recipients. 

* Steel. In this industry, the largest U.S. producers are CDSOA 
recipients.[Footnote 42] Recipient companies reported that payments--
though small relative to company size and the challenges they face in 
their capital-intensive industries--had positive effects. Steel 
accounts for the single largest industry share of outstanding dumping 
orders, and most major U.S. producers receive CDSOA payments under 
numerous AD/CV orders on different products. Steel recipients we 
contacted varied in their assessments of CDSOA's effects, but generally 
agreed that the program benefited them by providing greater 
opportunities for making needed capital investments in their plant and 
equipment. Steel recipients also commented, though, that CDSOA has not 
been a complete solution to the serious problems they faced. When the 
Asian financial crisis spawned rising imports, falling steel prices, 
and consolidating of firms, the receipt of CDSOA disbursements did not 
prevent several steel producers from joining numerous others in the 
industry in filing for bankruptcy.[Footnote 43]

* Candles. Ten of the estimated 400 U.S. candle companies are eligible 
and receive CDSOA disbursements. A number of recipients contended that 
distributions have helped keep them in business, enabling them to 
develop newer, better, and safer candles through investment in 
equipment and research and development. One recipient stated that it 
has been able to offer employees more consistent and comprehensive 
benefits packages due to CDSOA. Several large candle producers that are 
comparable in size to leading recipients complained that they are in 
favor of the order but are ineligible to receive CDSOA disbursements. 
Some non-recipients argue that recipients have an unfair advantage in 
their ability to keep prices lower than they otherwise would. For 
instance, a major non-recipient company has closed two of four of its 
domestic manufacturing facilities and has reduced shifts at others. A 
smaller non-recipient company contended that when it matched its 
competitors' lower prices, it was not able to make a profit. As a 
result, the company stated that it was forced to exit this segment of 
the candle business and release some workers. 

* Crawfish. About 30 small, family-owned crawfish processors have 
received CDSOA disbursements.[Footnote 44] Recipients said CDSOA 
payments provided the industry with its first effective relief against 
dumped imports in several years and enabled them to buy and process 
more crawfish, make long-needed repairs and investments, hire more 
employees, and pay off debts. In June 2003, the ITC reported that CDSOA 
disbursements to some domestic producers had converted an industrywide 
net loss into net income.[Footnote 45] The 16 crawfish tail meat 
processors who received CDSOA distributions that we spoke with 
generally believe that the program has had positive effects on the 
industry and their companies, keeping businesses open and employees 
working. Non-recipients we spoke with in this industry said that CDSOA 
had helped recipient companies---but had put them at a competitive 
disadvantage. These companies want to be eligible for CDSOA 
disbursements and several reported they had contacted certain 
government and congressional sources to try to address their 
eligibility status, but were told they did not meet the law's 
eligibility requirements regarding the expression of support during the 
investigation. As discussed previously, two of these companies brought 
legal action to challenge agency decisions on their eligibility status. 
Because they also have to compete against cheap Chinese imports, these 
non-recipients viewed the application of the law as unfair. In 
addition, several said they were not able to compete with recipient 
companies that offer processed tail meat at prices below their cost of 
production and appear to be able to do so because the recipients' CDSOA 
disbursements will compensate them for any losses. In such conditions, 
some non-recipients said they cannot operate profitably and some 
decided to stop processing tail meat. 

* Pasta. Three of the four leading U.S. pasta makers received CDSOA 
disbursements, but the fourth producer is ineligible. The top two CDSOA 
recipients in this industry did not respond to our questions, and one 
of them has filed for bankruptcy. The four CDSOA recipients that 
responded said they had used the funds to increase or upgrade 
equipment, invest in research and product development, defray 
manufacturing costs, and expand production capacity. Nevertheless, 
CDSOA payments, while not insignificant, were not large relative to 
sales or enough to offset other problems that the industry faces, such 
as decreased demand for pasta due to low-carbohydrate diets and low 
margins. Most non-recipients we contacted said CDSOA had no effect, but 
a few non-recipients said that the funds had created an uneven playing 
field and decreased their ability to compete in the marketplace. 
Several of these companies tried to file for CDSOA funds, but were 
found ineligible. The large non-recipient company said the money it 
pays in duties transferred to its competitors could have been used for 
product development, capital investment, and expansion of its new U.S. 
operations. 

* DRAMs. All four major DRAM producers in the United States currently 
have production facilities in the United States as well as abroad; 
however, three of these companies are U.S. subsidiaries of foreign 
producers and have entered the market within the last decade. A CV 
order is in effect for DRAMs produced by one Korean company 
only,[Footnote 46] but the bulk of the distributions were made under an 
AD order on DRAMs of one megabit and above from Korea issued in 1993 
and revoked in 2000, as well as on an AD order on SRAMs (static random 
access memory chips) issued in 1998 and revoked in 2002. A leading 
CDSOA recipient was the sole recipient of duties on these revoked 
orders. Fabrication facility costs are high and require complete 
replacement every few years. The DRAM industry is cyclical in nature 
and subject to "booms and busts," where demand is driven by investments 
in computers and other end products. Both CDSOA recipients reported 
some net losses. One company reported benefits from receiving payments 
and another reported fewer effects; both payments were small relative 
to their net sales. 

* Softwood Lumber. Both CDSOA recipients and non-recipients include 
leading softwood lumber producers. Recipients and non-recipients that 
we contacted indicated that disbursements to date have been too small 
to have a discernable effect. However, non-recipients expressed concern 
about potential adverse effects in the future, should the $3.7 billion 
in AD/CV duties being held on deposit pending liquidation ever be 
distributed. These duties are presently in escrow pending the outcome 
of litigation by Canadian interests against the U.S. duties. 

Effects of CDSOA on the Number of AD/CV Relief Petition Filings Not 
Clear: 

Current evidence does not clearly demonstrate that CDSOA is linked to 
an increasing number of AD/CV petition filings. Critics have raised 
concerns that, by awarding a portion of the tariff revenue that results 
from successful petitions, CDSOA could potentially lead to more AD/CV 
petition filings and thereby more restrictions on imports, to the 
detriment of the U.S. economy. However, the evidence we analyzed was 
inconclusive. 

Because CDSOA provides direct financial benefits to firms participating 
or supporting AD/CV petitions by awarding them a proportion of the 
tariff revenue, some analysts have warned that CDSOA could lead to more 
petitions and to more companies supporting the filings because only 
companies who supported the petition would receive 
disbursements.[Footnote 47] A report by the Congressional Budget 
Office[Footnote 48] (CBO) supports this view, arguing on economic 
incentive grounds that CDSOA encourages more firms to file or support 
petitions and discourages settling cases. CBO also argues that firms 
may resume production or increase their output due to CDSOA, which 
would result in inefficient use of resources and would be harmful to 
the U.S. economy and consumers. 

Our examination of the actual number of filings shows that there is no 
clear trend of increased AD/CV petition filings since CDSOA.[Footnote 
49] Figure 6 shows that since the passage of CDSOA in 2000, the number 
of petitions spiked in 2001 and then sharply declined over the next 
three years. Moreover, this fits the historical pattern of the number 
of AD/CV petition filings, which also do not show a clear upward trend. 
The number of AD/CV petitions filed each year has fluctuated widely, 
ranging from a maximum of 120 in 1985 to a minimum of 16 cases in 1995. 
Economists have found evidence that the number of antidumping filings 
is closely linked to macroeconomic conditions and real exchange 
rates.[Footnote 50]

Figure 6: Number of AD/CV Petitions Filed 1980-2004: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Our analysis of company responses to our case study questions similarly 
reveals mixed evidence but no trend. In general, companies told us 
CDSOA had little impact on their decision whether to file AD/CV relief 
petitions. Most companies that responded to our questions said that 
filing and winning new cases was too expensive, and the receipt of 
CDSOA payments was too speculative, for CDSOA to be a major factor in 
their filing decision. For example, producers accounting for a sizeable 
share of U.S. softwood lumber production freely chose not to support 
the case, despite being aware of the prospect of sizeable CDSOA 
disbursements. However, bearings companies that had not supported 
earlier cases subsequently supported a later case on China brought 
after CDSOA's passage. 

Effects of CDSOA on Scope and Duration of AD/CV Duty Orders Also Not 
Clear: 

In addition to the number of filings, our interviews and responses from 
companies in the seven industries we examined revealed a few 
allegations that CDSOA resulted in orders that cover imports of more 
products for longer periods--that is, through wider-than-necessary 
product scopes of AD/CV duty orders and longer-than-warranted retention 
of existing orders. However, these allegations contradicted other 
examples, and we could not independently verify them.[Footnote 51] One 
steel user, for example, complained that CDSOA disbursements were a 
factor in the denial of its request for narrowing the scope of an order 
and claimed the result has been to put certain U.S. fastener makers at 
a disadvantage. In contrast, one steel company noted that the domestic 
industry has no incentive to overly broaden the scope of an AD/CV 
relief petition because doing so could undermine its ability to prove 
injury and to obtain an order in the first place. Bearings recipient 
companies similarly responded that CDSOA has not affected the scope or 
duration of AD/CV duty orders and said regular "sunset" reviews should 
ensure the government terminates unwarranted orders. Bearings non-
recipients, on the other hand, drew a connection between the main CDSOA 
beneficiary within the industry and its support for continuance of 
orders. In the candle industry, companies universally reported that 
they are united in supporting retention of the existing order, but 
divided over efforts by some candle firms to expand its scope. 

Retaliation Against U.S. Producers Underway for U.S. Failure to Comply 
with WTO Ruling on CDSOA: 

After finding the CDSOA inconsistent with WTO agreements and after the 
United States' failure to bring the act in compliance with the 
agreements, in 2004 the WTO gave 8 of the 11 members that complained 
about CDSOA authorization to suspend concessions or other WTO 
obligations owed to the United States. Canada, the European Unian (EU), 
Mexico and Japan have consequently applied additional tariffs to U.S. 
imports, and others are authorized to follow. 

WTO Rules CDSOA Not in Compliance with U.S. WTO Obligations: 

In 2003, the WTO found the CDSOA inconsistent with U.S. obligations 
under WTO agreements and asked the United States to bring the act into 
conformity with WTO Agreements.[Footnote 52] Eleven members had brought 
complaints about the CDSOA to the WTO and prevailed in their claims 
that the CDSOA is inconsistent with WTO agreements. [Footnote 53] The 
WTO found that CDSOA was not consistent with U.S. WTO obligations 
because it was not one of the permitted specific actions against 
dumping and subsidization specifically listed in applicable WTO 
agreements.[Footnote 54]

The United States Pledges to Comply, but Has Not Yet Done So: 

The following the ruling, the United States indicated its intention to 
comply. WTO gave the United States until December 27, 2003, to bring 
the CDSOA into conformity with the organization's pertinent agreements. 
However, all efforts to repeal the law have thus far been unsuccessful. 
Meanwhile, the United States is also pursuing negotiations at the WTO 
to address the right of WTO members to distribute AD/CV duties. 

The President proposed repealing CDSOA in his fiscal year 2004, 2005, 
and 2006 budget submissions. Senate Bill 1299[Footnote 55] was 
introduced in Congress in 2003 to amend the CDSOA and House Bill 
3933[Footnote 56] in 2004 to repeal the CDSOA. Neither of these efforts 
succeeded during that legislative session of Congress and thus expired. 
In a March 10, 2005, status report to the WTO, the United States 
reaffirmed its commitment to bringing the CDSOA into conformity with 
WTO agreements.[Footnote 57] The United States also reported that House 
Bill 1121[Footnote 58] had been introduced on March 3, 2005, to repeal 
CDSOA and that it had been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. 
Also in 2005, Senator Grassley introduced Amendment 1680 to the 
Departments of Commerce and Justice, Science and Related Agencies 
Appropriations bill to prohibit any further CDSOA distributions until 
the USTR determines that such distributions are not inconsistent with 
U.S. WTO obligations.[Footnote 59] However, as of the date of 
publication of this report, Congress has not passed House Bill 1121 and 
the Senate Committee on Appropriations has not adopted Amendment 1680. 

Since late 2001, the United States has been engaged in WTO negotiations 
at the Doha Round, which may include changes to the WTO agreements 
under which CDSOA was challenged. Following a congressional mandate to 
the USTR and Commerce that negotiations shall be conducted within the 
WTO to recognize the right of its members to distribute monies 
collected from antidumping and countervailing duties,[Footnote 60] the 
United States submitted a paper to the WTO Rules Negotiating Group 
stating that "the right of WTO Members to distribute monies collected 
from antidumping and countervailing duties"[Footnote 61] should be an 
issue to be discussed by the negotiating group. USTR officials told us 
that, to date, the U.S. proposal has not attracted support from any 
other WTO member. 

WTO Authorizes Eight of Its Members to Retaliate; Canada, the European 
Union, Mexico, and Japan Have Imposed Additional Tariffs: 

In January 2004, 8 of the 11 complainants--Brazil, Canada, Chile, the 
EU India, Japan, Korea, and Mexico--sought and secured authorization to 
retaliate against the United States. As a result of binding arbitration 
regarding the level of authorized retaliation, the eight members 
received authorization to impose an additional import duty on U.S. 
exports covering a total value of trade up to 72 percent of the total 
of disbursements made under the CDSOA for the preceding year relating 
to AD/CV duties on that member's products each year.[Footnote 62] The 
total suspension authorized for 2005 could be up to $134 million based 
on the fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements. Specifically, for fiscal 
year 2004 disbursements, the WTO arbitrators authorized the imposition 
of additional duties covering a total value of trade not exceeding $0.3 
million for Brazil, $11.2 million for Canada, $0.6 million for Chile, 
$27.8 million for the EU, $1.4 million for India, $52.1 million for 
Japan, $20.0 million for Korea, and $20.9 million for Mexico. On May 1, 
2005, Canada and the European Communities began the imposition of 
additional duties on various U.S. exports. In particular, Canada has 
imposed a 15 percent tariff on live swine, cigarettes, oysters, and 
certain specialty fish (including live ornamental fish and certain 
frozen fish) and the EU have imposed a 15 percent tariff on various 
paper products, various types of trousers and shorts, sweet corn, metal 
frames, and crane lorries. On August 18, 2005, Mexico began imposing 
additional duties on U.S. exports such as chewing gum, wines, and milk-
based products. On September 1, 2005, Japan began imposing additional 
duties on U.S. exports such as steel products and bearings. The 
remaining four members say they might suspend concessions. 

The three members that did not request authorization to retaliate--
Australia, Indonesia, and Thailand--have agreed to extend the deadline 
for requesting authorization indefinitely.[Footnote 63] As agreed, the 
countries will give the United States advance notice before seeking 
authorization to retaliate. In return, the countries retain the ability 
to request authorization to retaliate at any point in the future, and 
the United States agreed not to seek to block those requests. See 
figure 7 for a timeline of events related to the WTO decision on CDSOA. 

Figure 7: Timeline of WTO-Related Events on CDSOA: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Conclusions: 

Congress' stated purposes in enacting CDSOA were to strengthen the 
remedial nature of U.S. trade laws, restore conditions of fair trade, 
and assist domestic producers. Our review suggests that the 
implementation of CDSOA is achieving some objectives more effectively 
than others. One reason is that, as a result of some of the key 
features of CDSOA, the law in practice operates differently from trade 
remedies. For instance, while trade remedies such as AD/CV duties 
generally provide relief to all producers in a particular market, the 
eligibility requirements of CDSOA limit relief to only a subset of 
domestic producers--only those that petitioned for relief or that 
publicly supported the petition by sending a letter to the ITC or 
filling an ITC questionnaire while the agency was conducting its 
original investigation and remain in operation. Our analysis of CDSOA 
disbursement data and company views on the effects of CDSOA indicate 
that CDSOA has provided significant financial benefits to certain U.S. 
producers but little or no benefits to others. As a result, CDSOA has, 
in some cases, created advantages for those U.S. producers that are 
eligible and receive the bulk of disbursements over those U.S. 
producers that receive little relief or are ineligible, by choice or 
circumstance. Moreover, because the WTO found that CDSOA did not comply 
with WTO agreements, the EU, Canada, Mexico, and Japan recently 
retaliated against U.S. exports and this imposes costs on a number of 
U.S. companies exporting to those markets. 

In implementing CDSOA, CBP faces problems processing CDSOA claims and 
payments, verifying these claims, and collecting AD/CV duties. The 
CDSOA program's time frame for processing payments is already too tight 
to perform desired quality controls. The dramatic growth in the 
program's workload--an estimated 10-fold increase in the number of 
claims in fiscal year 2005 and the potential disbursement of billions 
of dollars from softwood lumber duties--heighten program risks. CBP's 
labor-intensive process for claims could be streamlined through steps 
such as regularly obtaining from the ITC electronic updates of the list 
of potentially eligible companies and having companies file CDSOA 
claims using a standard form and submit them electronically. CBP's 
recent comprehensive company claim verification effort also indicates 
that the agency needs additional guidance in place for filing claims. 
In addition, CBP lacks plans for managing and improving its CDSOA 
program's processes, staff, and technology. For instance, it needs a 
human capital plan for enhancing its staff in the face of dramatic 
growth in workload processing for both CDSOA claims and payments. 
Accountability for the accuracy of the claims is virtually non-existent 
and CBP has no plans to verify claims systematically or on a routine 
basis. Finally, CDSOA has helped highlight CBP's collection problems. 
Despite reports to Congress on its efforts to address these problems, 
CBP faced a doubling in the AD/CV collections shortfall in fiscal year 
2004, to $260 million. This shortfall not only reduces the amount 
available for disbursement under CDSOA, but also undermines the 
effectiveness of the trade remedies generally. 

Matters for Congressional Consideration: 

Given the results of our review, as Congress carries out its CDSOA 
oversight functions and considers related legislative proposals, it 
should consider whether CDSOA is achieving the goals of strengthening 
the remedial nature of U.S. trade laws, restoring conditions of fair 
trade, and assisting domestic producers. 

If Congress decides to retain and modify CDSOA, it should also consider 
extending CBP's 60-day deadline for completing the disbursement of 
CDSOA funds. Meeting this deadline has been a problem in the past, and 
may be even more difficult in the future given that the program is 
experiencing a dramatic growth in its workload. For instance, extending 
the deadline for processing payments for another 30 days would give the 
program's staff additional time for processing payments and for 
pursuing additional internal control activities. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To the extent that Congress chooses to continue implementing CDSOA, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the 
Commissioner of Customs and Border Protection to enhance the processing 
of CDSOA claims and payments, the verification of these claims, and the 
collection of AD/CV duties. Specifically, we recommend that: 

* To improve the processing of CDSOA claims, CBP should implement labor 
savings steps such as working with the ITC to formalize and standardize 
exchanges of electronic updates of the list of eligible producers, and 
requiring that company claims follow a standard form and be submitted 
electronically. This would also reduce data entry-related errors. 

* To further improve the processing of claims, CBP should provide 
additional guidance for preparing CDSOA certifications or claims. 

* To enhance the processing of claims and payments in the face of a 
growing workload, CBP should develop and implement plans for managing 
and improving its CDSOA program processes, staff, and technology. For 
instance, a human capital plan would help ensure that the CDSOA program 
has staff in place with the appropriate competencies, skills, and 
abilities. 

* To enhance accountability for claims, CBP should implement a plan for 
systematically verifying CDSOA claims. This plan should aim to ensure 
that companies receiving CDSOA disbursements are accountable for the 
claims they make. CBP should also consider asking companies to justify 
their claims by providing additional information on their claims, such 
as an explanation of the basis for the claim, supporting financial 
information, and an independent assessment of the claim's validity and 
accuracy. 

* To better address antidumping and countervailing duty collection 
problems, CBP should report to Congress on what factors have 
contributed to the collection problems, the status and impact of 
efforts to date to address these problems, and how CBP, in conjunction 
with other agencies, proposes to improve the collection of antidumping 
and countervailing duties. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the U.S. International Trade 
Commission, Customs and Border Protection, and the Office of the U.S. 
Trade Representative. We obtained written comments from CBP (see app. 
IV). CBP concurred with our recommendations. We also received technical 
comments on this draft from our liaisons at CBP, the ITC and USTR, 
which we have incorporated where appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees, the U.S. International Trade Commission, Customs and Border 
Protection, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. We will 
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-4347. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Loren Yager, Director: 
International Affairs and Trade: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

At the request of the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Trade, 
Committee on Ways and Means, as well as several House Members, we 
examined the implementation and effects of the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) of 2000. Specifically, we assessed (1) what 
key legal requirements guide and have affected agency implementation of 
CDSOA; (2) what problems, if any, U.S. agencies have faced in 
implementing CDSOA; and (3) which U.S. companies and industries have 
received payments under CDSOA and what effects these payments have had 
for recipient and non-recipient companies; and described (4) the status 
of the World Trade Organization (WTO) decisions on CDSOA. 

To determine the key legal requirements that guide and have affected 
agency implementation of CDSOA, we obtained and reviewed legislation 
and regulations establishing the requirements and procedures for the 
International Trade Commission (ITC) to determine company eligibility 
to receive CDSOA funds and for the Department of Homeland Security's 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to implement CDSOA. We discussed 
these requirements and their relationship to agency implementation with 
officials at the ITC and CBP that carry out the agencies' respective 
roles. We also reviewed judicial opinions and other documents 
associated with certain legal cases that have been brought to challenge 
key requirements of CDSOA, and incorporated the viewpoints expressed by 
some companies that we contacted in addressing our third objective, 
which illustrated the impacts of certain requirements. 

To assess the problems, if any, U.S. agencies have faced in 
implementing CDSOA, we first determined the agency roles and 
responsibilities that CDSOA established. We then obtained and analyzed 
ITC and CBP documents outlining their procedures for carrying out their 
CDSOA responsibilities and discussed with agency officials the actions 
the agencies have taken to implement CDSOA. We reviewed evaluations of 
CDSOA operations in both the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) and 
ITC conducted by the Inspectors General (IG) of those agencies. We also 
obtained from CBP a statement of work that had been developed for 
improving CBP's management of the CDSOA program. We discussed agency 
implementation of CDSOA with officials from the Departments of Commerce 
and Agriculture, as well as certain industry representatives, affected 
companies, and law firms that handle CDSOA-related actions for their 
clients. We also reviewed GAO's documents on human capital and 
disbursements[Footnote 64] for additional criteria to assess the 
agencies' implementation of CDSOA. Our work focused on certain problems 
at CBP: 

* To assess CBP's claims and payments processing procedures, we 
conducted field work at CBP's Revenue Division in Indianapolis where we 
met with officials and staff of the CDSOA Team. After they gave us a 
comprehensive briefing of their CDSOA operations, we observed these 
operations, reviewed documentation of their procedures, and discussed 
challenges they face in implementing the law. We discussed changes in 
the CDSOA Team's workload over time with these officials and obtained 
data on their workload and staff resources. We discussed the team's 
procedures for counting and recording eligible and actual claimants and 
claims, which included information they obtain from the ITC on eligible 
producers and internal controls the team applies to ensure accuracy in 
receiving and processing claims. We determined that their data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of analyzing the changing 
relationship between the team's workload and staff resources. 

* To assess CBP's approach to verifying claims, we discussed the 
approach and the extent of claim verification since the program's 
inception with CBP officials and we reviewed CBP procedures for 
verifying company claims that were developed in 2004. We also reviewed 
documentation of a comprehensive verification of one company's CDSOA 
claims that was conducted using these new procedures. Because this 
verification raised issues about the quality and consistency of CBP's 
guidance regarding claims submission, we examined the fiscal year 2004 
claim files for 32 top CDSOA recipients to ascertain the prevalence of 
these issues and also obtained the viewpoints of certain CDSOA 
recipients on CBP's claims guidance. 

* To describe CBP's efforts to collect the anti-dumping (AD) and 
countervailing (CV) duties that fund CDSOA, we obtained and reviewed 
data on CBP's annual CDSOA disbursements and AD/CV duty liquidations 
and collections. To assess the reliability of the data on unliquidated 
AD/CV duties, we compared them to data used by Treasury's IG in its 
2003 report and performed basic reasonable checks. We determined the 
data were sufficiently reliable to support the finding that there had 
been a substantial increase in unliquidated AD/CV duties since 2002. We 
also reviewed CBP reports to Congress in 2004 and 2005 that reported on 
AD/CV duty collections issues and problems and the section of the 2003 
Treasury IG report that addressed CBP's efforts related to liquidating 
and collecting AD/CV duties. Finally, we incorporated the viewpoints of 
certain companies and industry groups about the status of uncollected 
duties, and CBP's efforts to collect them. 

To determine which U.S. companies and industries have received payments 
under CDSOA and what effects these payments have had for recipient and 
non-recipient companies, we obtained and analyzed CBP's annual 
disbursement data for fiscal years 2001 to 2004 and collected 
information from top CDSOA recipients and from recipients and non-
recipients in seven industries. Specifically, we identified 770 
companies that had received disbursements at some point during fiscal 
years 2001 through 2004 and combined the multiple disbursements that 
companies may have received to calculate the total amount of 
disbursements made to each company during this period. Some companies 
received disbursements under different names or were acquired by, or 
merged with or were otherwise affiliated with, other companies on the 
list during this period. We did not make adjustments to the number of 
companies, but rather retained the company distinctions in the data as 
CBP provided it. We then identified 39 companies that had received the 
top 80 percent of the disbursements made during fiscal years 2001 
through 2004 and we reported information about these disbursements. 
Using this data, we also identified the top 24 product groups that 
received 95 percent of disbursements during fiscal years 2001 through 
2004, and we reported information about these disbursements. 

We assessed the reliability CBP's CDSOA disbursements data, and the 
related Harmonized Tariff Schedule data, and Census Bureau's data 
matching the Harmonized Tariff Schedule to the North American Industry 
Classification System by (1) performing electronic testing of required 
data elements, (2) reviewing existing information about the data and 
the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials 
knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To further determine the effects of CDSOA payments on recipients and 
non-recipients, we primarily relied on the views provided by top CDSOA 
recipient companies and of certain recipients and non-recipients in 7 
of the top 24 industries (bearings, steel, candles, pasta, DRAMs, 
crawfish, and softwood lumber) to which CDSOA payments have been 
made.[Footnote 65] We selected these industries based on a range of 
criteria including: the leading recipients of CDSOA funds; industries 
with the most AD/CV duty orders; industries receiving press coverage 
related to CDSOA; and industries considered by certain experts to have 
unique or noteworthy situations. In selecting these industries, we also 
considered including different types of industries and industries with 
differing numbers of CDSOA recipients. We consulted with experts at the 
ITC, the Departments of Commerce and Agriculture, and relevant trade 
associations to help define the industries and identify leading non-
recipients companies within them. In addition, we obtained industry 
background from ITC investigative reports and other official industry 
sources. 

To obtain these companies' views on CDSOA, we developed and sent out a 
questionnaire to top CDSOA recipient companies, and a set of structured 
questions to selected recipient and non-recipient companies in the 
seven case study industries. We developed and pretested the 
questionnaire between February and April 2005. Our structured questions 
were based on the items in our questionnaires. 

We sent surveys to 32 of the top 39 recipient companies we had 
identified.[Footnote 66] Twenty-four of these companies provided 
written responses to our questions. Their views are not necessarily 
representative of all CDSOA recipients. 

We selected non-probability samples of CDSOA recipients and non-
recipients that are U.S. producers for each of our seven case study 
industries.[Footnote 67] We selected recipient companies based 
primarily on the amount of CDSOA funds they had received between fiscal 
year 2001 and 2004. However, in certain industries with small numbers 
of recipients, including bearings, DRAMs, and candles, we sent 
structured questions to all recipient companies. We selected non-
recipient companies based on industry experts' views of the importance 
of the companies and recipient company views of their major non-
recipient competitors. We also considered available lists of companies 
by industry, but found that these lists had limitations in terms of 
coverage and could not be used to draw probability samples. Overall, we 
selected 69 recipient and 82 non-recipient companies in the seven 
industries. 

In total, we received 61 written responses from recipient companies and 
31 written responses from non-recipient companies. Appendix III 
provides details on how many companies we contacted and received 
information from for each industry. All recipient companies in the 
bearings, DRAMs, and candles industries provided responses, and these 
responses can be generalized. For recipient companies in the other four 
industries, and for non-recipient companies in all the industries, the 
responses we received cannot be generalized because of the non-
probability samples we used and/or the number of responses we received. 
Thus, in these cases, the views we report are not necessarily 
representative of their respective groups. However, we supplemented the 
information we received with telephone interviews to verify, and in 
some cases, expand upon, the information that some companies provided. 
We also compared the overall responses in each industry with industry 
experts' views and the information contained in available studies, such 
as ITC reports, and found the information we gathered to be broadly 
consistent with these sources. 

Finally, within this objective, we also conducted an analysis on the 
trends in the filings of AD/CV relief petitions. We collected data on 
the number, type, and status of AD/CV duty orders from the ITC and 
Commerce. We verified this information directly with the Federal 
Register notices, which are the official sources for AD and CV orders. 
We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes 
of this report. In addition, we reviewed literature on the determinants 
of AD petition filings. We applied regression analysis to study the 
effects of macroeconomic conditions, real exchange rates, and CDSOA 
itself on the number of petition filings. We also asked the companies 
we surveyed to discuss CDSOA's impact on AD/CV filings and interviewed 
industry representatives to gain an understanding of what affects their 
decision to file or support AD/CV petitions, and whether CDSOA was a 
significant factor in their decision. 

To determine the status of the WTO decisions on CDSOA, we analyzed 
official U.S., foreign government, and WTO documents. We also 
interviewed officials from the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative 
and the Department of State. 

We conducted our work in Washington, D.C., and Indianapolis, Indiana, 
from September 2004 to September 2005 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section]

Appendix II: Top CDSOA Recipient Companies: 

This appendix provides information on the CDSOA payments[Footnote 68] 
received by the top recipient companies and the views of these 
companies on CDSOA's effects. 

CDSOA Payments to the Top Recipient Companies: 

Table 2 lists the top 39 companies that received 80 percent of the 
total CDSOA payments during fiscal years 2001-2004. This table also 
presents each company's percentage of the total payments and the 
cumulative percentages. Each company's industry is also listed. 

Table 2: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 CDSOA Distributions to Top Recipient 
Companies: 

Dollars in thousands. 

Rank: 1; 
Company: The Timken Company[A]; 
Amount paid: $205,328,783; 
Amount claimed: $59,990,348,732; 
Percentage of total payments: 19.83%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 19.83%; 
Industry: Bearings. 

Rank: 2; 
Company: The Torrington Company[A]; 
Amount paid: $135,349,304; 
Amount claimed: $22,175,725,680; 
Percentage of total payments: 13.07%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 32.90%; 
Industry: Bearings. 

Rank: 3; 
Company: Candle-lite[B]; 
Amount paid: $56,759,989; 
Amount claimed: $1,285,509,591; 
Percentage of total payments: 5.48%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 38.38%; 
Industry: Candles. 

Rank: 4; 
Company: MPB Corporation[C]; 
Amount paid: $55,131,485; 
Amount claimed: $9,158,867,720; 
Percentage of total payments: 5.32%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 43.71%; 
Industry: Bearings. 

Rank: 5; 
Company: Zenith Electronics Corporation; 
Amount paid: $33,412,990; 
Amount claimed: $; 23,270,258,343; 
Percentage of total payments: 3.23%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 46.93%; 
Industry: Television sets. 

Rank: 6; 
Company: Micron Technology; 
Amount paid: $33,389,988; 
Amount claimed: $9,093,423,782; 
Percentage of total payments: 3.22%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 50.16%; 
Industry: DRAMs. 

Rank: 7; 
Company: Lancaster Colony Corporation[B]; 
Amount paid: $26,225,555; 
Amount claimed: $1,382,869,375; 
Percentage of total payments: 2.53%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 52.69%; 
Industry: Candles. 

Rank: 8; 
Company: United States Steel Corporation; 
Amount paid: $22,925,628; 
Amount claimed: $590,935,208,013; 
Percentage of total payments: 2.21%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 54.91%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Rank: 9; 
Company: Home Fragrance Holdings; 
Amount paid: $20,394,804; 
Amount claimed: $444,243,884; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.97%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 56.88%; 
Industry: Candles. 

Rank: 10; 
Company: Wellman; 
Amount paid: $15,681,319; 
Amount claimed: $1,291,294,651; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.51%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 58.39%; 
Industry: Polyester fibers. 

Rank: 11; 
Company: Carpenter Technology Corporation; 
Amount paid: $13,991,133; 
Amount claimed: $24,272,753,229; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.35%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 59.74%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Rank: 12; 
Company: E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company; 
Amount paid: $12,485,357; 
Amount claimed: $6,188,244,053; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.21%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 60.95%; 
Industry: Chemical products. 

Rank: 13; 
Company: Emerson Power Transmission; 
Amount paid: $12,132,932; 
Amount claimed: $6,518,385,490; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.17%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 62.12%; 
Industry: Bearings. 

Rank: 14; 
Company: AK Steel Corporation; 
Amount paid: $11,337,171; 
Amount claimed: $273,729,695,233; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.09%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 63.21%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Rank: 15; 
Company: Allegheny Ludlum Corporation; 
Amount paid: $11,107,788; 
Amount claimed: $42,821,265,506; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.07%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 64.29%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Rank: 16; 
Company: American Italian Pasta Company; 
Amount paid: $11,052,969; 
Amount claimed: $8,063,794,100; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.07%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 65.35%; 
Industry: Pasta. 

Rank: 17; 
Company: Muench-Kreuzer Candle Company; 
Amount paid: $10,695,594; 
Amount claimed: $212,476,879; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.03%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 66.39%; 
Industry: Candles. 

Rank: 18; 
Company: International Steel Group; 
Amount paid: $10,374,465; 
Amount claimed: $568,595,773,448; 
Percentage of total payments: 1.00%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 67.39%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Rank: 19; 
Company: The Gates Rubber Company; 
Amount paid: $10,208,272; 
Amount claimed: $2,037,888,247; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.99%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 68.37%; 
Industry: Rubber products. 

Rank: 20; 
Company: Regal Ware; 
Amount paid: $9,804,074; 
Amount claimed: $1,364,648,692; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.95%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 69.32%; 
Industry: Stainless steel cooking ware. 

Rank: 21; 
Company: North American Stainless; 
Amount paid: $9,697,133; 
Amount claimed: $35,786,766,024; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.94%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 70.26%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Rank: 22; 
Company: Maui Pineapple Company; 
Amount paid: $9,376,864; 
Amount claimed: $335,327,969; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.91%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 71.16%; 
Industry: Pineapples. 

Rank: 23; 
Company: General Wax & Candle; 
Amount paid: $9,297,725; 
Amount claimed: $150,256,642; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.90%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 72.06%; 
Industry: Candles. 

Rank: 24; 
Company: Hershey Foods (New World Pasta)[D]; 
Amount paid: $8,136,032; 
Amount claimed: $4,853,308,844; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.79%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 72.85%; 
Industry: Pasta. 

Rank: 25; 
Company: Maverick Tube Corporation; 
Amount paid: $7,295,447; 
Amount claimed: $35,919,351,631; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.70%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 73.55%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Rank: 26; 
Company: Reed Candle Company; 
Amount paid: $7,214,429; 
Amount claimed: $152,164,485; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.70%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 74.25%; 
Industry: Candles. 

Rank: 27; 
Company: Eramet Marietta[E]; 
Amount paid: $6,274,365; 
Amount claimed: $32,661,954; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.61%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 74.85%; 
Industry: Manganese metal. 

Rank: 28; 
Company: J&L Specialty Steel; 
Amount paid: $6,227,041; 
Amount claimed: $21,580,366,304; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.60%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 75.46%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Rank: 29; 
Company: Bethlehem Steel Company; 
Amount paid: $5,975,849; 
Amount claimed: $277,902,636,707; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.58%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 76.03%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Rank: 30; 
Company: Sanford; 
Amount paid: $5,892,337; 
Amount claimed: $478,764,505; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.57%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 76.60%; 
Industry: Cased pencils. 

Rank: 31; 
Company: Lumi-Lite Candle Company; 
Amount paid: $5,625,486; 
Amount claimed: $89,582,027; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.54%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 77.15%; 
Industry: Candles. 

Rank: 32; 
Company: Holcim (US); 
Amount paid: $4,726,614; 
Amount claimed: $6,986,480,910; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.46%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 77.60%; 
Industry: Cement. 

Rank: 33; 
Company: Lafarge North America; 
Amount paid: $4,633,793; 
Amount claimed: $6,850,627,559; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.45%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 78.05%; 
Industry: Cement. 

Rank: 34; 
Company: USEC; 
Amount paid: $4,401,004; 
Amount claimed: $411,300,000; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.43%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 78.47%; 
Industry: Low enriched uranium. 

Rank: 35; 
Company: Neenah Foundry Company; 
Amount paid: $4,307,616; 
Amount claimed: $5,849,676,065; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.42%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 78.89%; 
Industry: Iron castings. 

Rank: 36; 
Company: Allied Tube & Conduit; 
Amount paid: $4,198,722; 
Amount claimed: $21,792,742,720; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.41%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 79.30%; 
Industry: Steel pipe. 

Rank: 37; 
Company: Olin Corporation; 
Amount paid: $3,987,611; 
Amount claimed: $7,517,617,388; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.39%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 79.68%; 
Industry: Brass sheet and strip. 

Rank: 38; 
Company: A. Zerega's Sons; 
Amount paid: $3,889,333; 
Amount claimed: $2,290,556,634; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.38%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 80.06%; 
Industry: Pasta. 

Rank: 39; 
Company: Armco Steel Corporation; 
Amount paid: $3,716,372; 
Amount claimed: $155,054,850,596; 
Percentage of total payments: 0.36%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 80.42%; 
Industry: Steel products. 

Total; 
Amount paid: $563,228,970; 
Amount claimed: $2,236,867,713,610; 
Percentage of total payments: 80.42%; 
Cumulative percentage of total payments: 80.42%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

Notes: 

[A] Timken acquired Torrington in February 2003. The CDSOA 
distributions we report for Torrington in this table reflect the 
distributions received by Torrington in FY 2001 and FY 2002. 

[B] In 1972 Candle-lite was acquired by Lancaster Colony Corporation of 
which it remains a division today. For fiscal years 2001-2003, 
Lancaster Colony received CDSOA distributions under the name Candle-
lite. The "amount paid" for Candle-lite and Lancaster Colony should be 
added together for an accurate account of CDSOA distributions made to 
the Candle-lite Division of Lancaster Colony Corporation Total fiscal 
year 2001-2004 distributions equal $82,985,544 or 58.21 percent of 
total distributions to the candle industry. Likewise, the amount 
claimed for Lancaster Colony Corporation is applicable to Candle-lite. 

[C] MPB Corporation is a subsidiary of Timken. CDSOA distributions are 
listed separately for Timken and MPB because they reflect the CDSOA 
distributions as reported by CBP. 

[D] New World Pasta acquired Hershey Foods Corporation in 1999. CBP 
also made CDSOA distributions to New World Pasta. The amount paid to 
Hershey Foods (New World Pasta) does not include these separate 
distributions to New World Pasta, which were $3,584,898. 

[E] Eramet Marietta is included in this table as a top recipient 
company because it is listed by CBP as having received CDSOA funds in 
fiscal year 2002. After contacting this company, we discovered that it 
was required to send back its CDSOA money to CBP due to a CBP 
overpayment error. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effects on Top Recipient Companies: 

Top Recipients of CDSOA Payments Reported Varying Positive Effects: 

We sent surveys to the companies that received 80 percent of the CDSOA 
payments from 2001 through 2004, asking for their views on CDSOA's 
effects.[Footnote 69] We asked these companies to assess CDSOA's 
effects on a number of different dimensions including prices, 
employment, and ability to compete. 

We asked the companies to rate CDSOA's effect, ranging from 1 (very 
positive) to 5 (very negative) for each particular company 
dimension.[Footnote 70]

The top recipients reported that CDSOA had the most positive impact in 
the areas of net income and employment.[Footnote 71] In its written 
comments, one company stated that CDSOA payments have allowed it to 
make substantial investments in its plant and its workers, including 
providing supplemental health care benefits. The top recipients 
reported that CDSOA had less of effect in areas such as prices, net 
sales, and market share. Several companies commented that, for example, 
disbursements have had little or no effect on prices for its CDSOA 
products, since such prices are ultimately determined by market forces. 

The ratio of CDSOA payments to company net sales ranged from less than 
1 percent to over 30 percent. However, this ratio was less than 3 
percent for all but five companies. 

In table 3 we present summary information on these companies' 
responses. 

Table 3: CDSOA Effects on Top Recipient Companies: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 2; 
Little or no effects: 20; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 5; 
Little or no effects: 15; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 12; 
Little or no effects: 10; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 20; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 17; 
Little or no effects: 6; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 16; 
Little or no effects: 6; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 17; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 14; 
Little or no effects: 9; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 23. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 4; 
Little or no effects: 17; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 22. 

Source: GAO analysis of company questionnaires. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effect on Company Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Table 4 shows that 17 of the 24 companies reported that CDSOA had 
increased their ability to compete in the U.S. market. 

Table 4: CDSOA Effect on Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Increased: 17; 
Stayed about the same: 7; 
Decreased: 0; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 24. 

Source: GAO analysis of company questionaires. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: CDSOA Recipient and Non-Recipient Companies in Seven 
Industries: 

This appendix provides information on the CDSOA payments[Footnote 72] 
received by recipient companies in seven industries: bearings, steel, 
candles, DRAMs, pasta, crawfish, and softwood lumber. It also discusses 
the views of recipient and non-recipient companies in these industries 
on CDSOA's effects.[Footnote 73]

Figure 8 shows the share of CDSOA disbursements received by U.S. 
companies in the seven industries and in the remaining industries. 

Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2001-2004 CDSOA Disbursements by Industries: 

[See PDF for image] 

[End of figure] 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients and Non-Recipients in the Bearings 
Industry: 

Background: 

Bearings are used in virtually all mechanical devices and are used to 
reduce friction in moving parts. Types of bearings include ball 
bearings, tapered roller bearings, and spherical plain bearings. The 
market for bearings is global and dominated by only a few multinational 
companies.[Footnote 74] Within the U.S. market the degree of 
concentration among different segments of the industry varies; the 
Census Bureau listed 19 producers of tapered roller bearings and 65 
producers of ball bearings in 2003. The Timken Company is the largest 
U.S. bearings company, but several foreign-owned companies have also 
had a long-standing presence in this country as bearings producers and 
are Timken's main competitors in the U.S. market. One foreign-owned 
producer, for example, has operated U.S. production facilities for over 
80 years, while two others have produced in this country for over 25 
years. These companies have not been eligible to receive CDSOA 
disbursements because they did not support the original cases. 

In 1975 the ITC determined that tapered roller bearings from Japan were 
harming the domestic industry and a dumping finding was published the 
following year. The Department of Commerce subsequently published 
antidumping orders on tapered roller bearings against Japan, China, 
Hungary, and Romania in 1987. Commerce then issued antidumping orders 
for ball bearings, cylindrical roller bearings, and spherical plain 
bearings from a number of other countries in 1989. Currently, there are 
eight bearings orders in effect against seven countries. Import 
penetration of the U.S. market has grown from 5 percent of consumption 
in 1969 to approximately 25 percent in 2003. When Commerce levied ball 
bearing dumping duties against Japan, Singapore, and Thailand in 1989, 
an opportunity arose for China. All of the world's major bearing 
companies, including Timken, now have manufacturing facilities in 
China. 

Timken and Torrington are the two largest CDSOA recipient companies. 
Together, they received over 80 percent of all disbursements to the 
bearings industry and one-third of disbursements to all companies in 
CDSOA's first four years. Table 5 shows CDSOA recipients in the 
bearings industry from fiscal years 2001 through 2004. 

Table 5: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Bearings CDSOA Recipients: 

1; 
Company: The Timken Company; 
Amount paid: $205,328,783; 
Amount claimed: $59,990,348,732; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 49.7%. 

2; 
Company: The Torrington Company[A]; 
Amount paid: $135,349,304; 
Amount claimed: $22,175,725,680; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 32.7%. 

3; 
Company: MPB Corporation[B]; 
Amount paid: $55,131,485; 
Amount claimed: $9,158,867,720; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 13.3%. 

4; 
Company: Emerson Power Transmission; 
Amount paid: $11,574,736; 
Amount claimed: $6,503,215,604; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 2.8%. 

5; 
Company: McGill Manufacturing[C]; 
Amount paid: $2,703,403; 
Amount claimed: $653,293,608; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.7%. 

6; 
Company: Pacamor/Kubar Bearings; 
Amount paid: $2,267,413; 
Amount claimed: $442,474,178; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.6%. 

7; 
Company: Kubar Bearings[D]; 
Amount paid: $1,132,137; 
Amount claimed: $259,875,305; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.3%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

Notes: 

[A] Timken acquired Torrington in February 2003. The CDSOA 
distributions we report for Torrington in this table reflect the 
distributions received by Torrington in FY 2001 and FY 2002. 

[B] MPB Corporation is a subsidiary of Timken. CDSOA distributions are 
listed separately for Timken and MPB because they reflect the CDSOA 
distributions as reported by CBP. 

[C] McGill Manufacturing is owned by Emerson Power Transmission. CDSOA 
distributions are listed separately for McGill Manufacturing and 
Emerson Power Transmission because they reflect the CDSOA distributions 
as reported by CBP. 

[D] CBP listed separate CDSOA distributions to Pacamor/Kubar Bearings 
and Kubar Bearings in its Annual Reports on CDSOA. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effects on Bearings Companies: 

Bearings Recipients Reported Positive Effects from CDSOA Payments: 

We obtained the views of three bearings recipient companies. These 
companies commented that CDSOA has had positive effects, although they 
varied in their assessments of the extent of the benefit. Bearings 
recipients reported that CDSOA's greatest impact has been in the areas 
of net income, employment, and ability to compete. These companies also 
commented that CDSOA has had less of an effect on prices, sales, and 
profits. One company stated that the disbursements helped it to replace 
equipment and become more competitive, enabling it to recover to the 
position it had held prior to being injured from dumping. Another 
recipient commented that while the CDSOA disbursements were helpful, 
they were distributed years after the initial injury and did not fully 
compensate the company for lost profits due to unfair trade. 

The bearings recipient companies vary greatly in their overall size. 
These companies are also significantly different in terms of the amount 
they have received through CDSOA, overall and as a percentage of their 
sales. For the recipient companies in our case study, in fiscal year 
2004, CDSOA disbursements as a percentage of company sales ranged from 
just over 1 percent to 21 percent with the larger recipients generally 
at the low end of this scale.[Footnote 75]

Non-Recipients Reported Varying Effects: 

We obtained the views of two non-recipients, one of which reported 
negative effects, while the other said it is too early to tell the 
extent of the harm that CDSOA has caused. One company commented that 
CDSOA is harmful because the antidumping duties it pays are transferred 
directly to a competitor. The company further stated that the money it 
is paying in duties limits its ability to invest in its U.S. 
operations. The other non-recipient company emphasized the size of the 
CDSOA disbursements in the bearings industry, but commented that it is 
still too early to know the injurious effect these disbursements will 
have on non-recipient producers. The leading non-recipient producers 
have not been eligible to receive CDSOA payments because they did not 
support the original cases. 

Table 6 provides bearings recipient and non-recipients' responses to 
our questionnaire on CDSOA's effects. 

Table 6: CDSOA Effects on Bearings Companies: 

Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 3; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 2; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 3; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 2; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Non-Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effect on Company Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Table 7 provides these companies' responses to our question on CDSOA's 
effect on their ability to compete in the U.S. market. 

Table 7: CDSOA Effect on Bearings Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Recipients: 

Increased: 2; 
Stayed about the same: 1; 
Decreased: 0; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 3. 

Non-Recipients: 

Increased: 0; 
Stayed about the same: 0; 
Decreased: 1; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

Company Uses of CDSOA Funds: 

We also asked companies to describe how they used the CDSOA payments 
that they received. However, the law does not require that 
distributions be used for any specific purpose. The bearings recipient 
companies varied in their responses to this question. One company 
responded that it has used the disbursements to rebuild production 
equipment, maintain employment levels, and add more technical personnel 
for pursuing bearings customers. A second company commented that it 
does not earmark funds for a specific project; thus the funds have been 
spent on debt reduction. The third company did not specify how it used 
the funds, reiterating that the disbursements were based on previous 
qualified expenditures and emphasizing that its investments in U.S. 
bearings production have exceeded the money it received through CDSOA. 

Net Sales and Employment Trends: 

No clear trend emerged from these companies' production and employment 
data over the 4 years that CDSOA has been in effect. One recipient's 
net sales increased from 2001 to 2004, for example, while another's 
declined. Similarly for employment, one recipient's number of workers 
decreased over the 4 years, while another's remained about the same. 
The responses from the non-recipients also did not show a clear trend 
for production or employment. For two of the three companies, 
employment declined, while all three companies' net sales increased to 
varying degrees. 

Extent of Overseas Production: 

Most of the bearings companies that we contacted indicated that they 
had both domestic and overseas production operations. Of the three 
recipient companies, only one reported that it imports CDSOA products, 
but its imports make up a small share of its overall sales. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To obtain bearings companies' views on CDSOA's effects, we sent out a 
set of structured questions to certain CDSOA recipients and certain non-
recipients in the bearings industry. CDSOA payments are made in this 
industry under multiple AD orders that were issued in different years. 

To identify CDSOA recipients, we obtained information from CBP about 
the companies that have received payments in each of the four years 
that disbursements have been made and the amount of disbursements they 
have received. Using this information, we developed a list of seven 
recipients and ranked them by their total CDSOA receipts. We obtained 
additional information from company representatives and CBP resulting 
in our combining certain recipients and treating them as three distinct 
companies.[Footnote 76] For example, CBP sometimes listed in its annual 
reports on CDSOA, as separate distributions, payments to entities that 
were divisions or subsidiaries of other companies that also received 
CDSOA distributions. We surveyed the three companies, and all of them 
provided completed surveys. 

The universe of bearings non-recipients is larger than the universe of 
recipients.[Footnote 77] We sought to obtain views from a comparable 
number of non-recipients as recipients. To identify these companies, we 
obtained information from associations or others that were 
knowledgeable about the industry. Specifically, we obtained information 
about non-recipient bearings companies by (1) identifying members of 
the American Bearings Manufacturing Association, (2) asking recipient 
companies to identify their competitors, and (3) conducting our own 
research. We surveyed three non-recipient companies, of which two 
provided completed surveys.[Footnote 78] These two non-recipients are 
multi-national companies that are among the leading global producers of 
bearings and have had a long-standing history of production in the 
United States. The views of the non-recipients that responded to our 
questions may not be representative of all non-recipients. 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients in the Steel Industry: 

Background: 

For this case study, we defined the scope of the steel industry to 
include companies that produce steel by melting raw materials.[Footnote 
79] The two main types of producers of raw steel are integrated mills 
and minimills. Integrated producers use older, blast furnaces to 
convert iron ore into steel. They mainly produce "flat" products, such 
as plate and hot-rolled steel that are used in transportation 
equipment, construction, and heavy machinery. The minimills are a scrap-
based industry, producing steel from recycled metal products, such as 
crushed cars or torn-down buildings. They use newer, electric-arc 
furnaces, and account for almost all of the industry's "long" 
production, including wire-rod and rebar. The top three domestic steel 
producers--Mittal, U.S. Steel, and Nucor--together account for about 
half of overall domestic steel production, which is approximately 100 
million tons a year.[Footnote 80] A third, much smaller sector of the 
industry is the specialty, or stainless, sector. These producers also 
use electric-arc furnaces and represent about 2 percent of the overall 
industry output and about 10 percent of value. The steel industry is by 
far the largest user of AD/CV duty orders, with over 125 iron and steel 
mill orders in place as of June 2005. 

Several industrywide trends occurring at the same time as CDSOA 
disbursements are relevant. Between 1997 and 2003 period, 40 steel 
companies declared bankruptcy, with some of them ceasing operations 
altogether. CDSOA recipients were not immune from this general trend; 
several of them have declared bankruptcy and various firm 
consolidations have also occurred. The Asian financial crisis was an 
important factor in increasing steel imports to this country, as Asian 
demand for steel dropped and foreign steel companies increasingly 
looked to the United States as a market for their products.[Footnote 
81] The surge in imports led to the filing of relief petitions on hot-
rolled steel against Russia, Japan, and Brazil beginning in 1998. 
Companies subsequently filed relief petitions against 11 other 
countries. In 2002, the President also took action under section 201 of 
the Trade Act of 1974,[Footnote 82] which allows him to implement 
temporary relief when an industry has been seriously injured by surging 
imports. Under this authority the President announced a series of 
safeguard tariffs of up to 30 percent on a range of steel products. 
These tariffs, which were imposed in addition to the AD/CV duties, 
remained in place from March 2002 until late 2003. Much of the industry 
returned to profitability in 2004, when prices rose. 

Table 8 depicts the top 10 CDSOA recipients for steel in fiscal years 
2001 through 2004. 

Table 8: Top 10 Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Steel CDSOA Recipients: 

1; 
Company: United States Steel Corporation; 
Amount paid: $22,610,280; 
Amount claimed: $589,595,769,913; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 17.6%. 

2; 
Company: Carpenter Technology Corporation; 
Amount paid: $13,991,133; 
Amount claimed: $24,272,753,229; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 10.9%. 

3; 
Company: AK Steel Corporation; 
Amount paid: $11,337,171; 
Amount claimed: $273,729,695,233; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 8.8%. 

4; 
Company: Allegheny Ludlum Corporation; 
Amount paid: $11,107,788; 
Amount claimed: $42,821,265,506; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 8.6%. 

5; 
Company: International Steel Group; 
Amount paid: $10,374,465; 
Amount claimed: $568,595,773,448; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 8.1%. 

6; 
Company: North American Stainless; 
Amount paid: $9,697,133; 
Amount claimed: $35,786,766,024; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 7.5%. 

7; 
Company: J&L Specialty Steel; 
Amount paid: $6,227,041; 
Amount claimed: $21,580,366,304; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 4.8%. 

8; 
Company: Bethlehem Steel Company; 
Amount paid: $5,975,849; 
Amount claimed: $277,902,636,707; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 4.6%. 

9; 
Company: Armco Steel Corporation; 
Amount paid: $3,716,372; 
Amount claimed: $155,054,850,596; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 2.9%. 

10; 
Company: Maverick Tube Corporation; 
Amount paid: $3,454,452; 
Amount claimed: $13,870,701,890; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 2.7%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effects on Steel Companies: 

CDSOA Recipients Commented That Disbursements Have Had a Moderately 
Positive Effect: 

Recipient steel companies varied in their assessments of the payments' 
effects, but generally agreed that they had a positive impact in the 
areas of net income and investing in plant, property, and equipment. 
For example, several recipients said disbursements enabled them to make 
investments needed to survive the steel crisis and be competitive in 
the future. The companies also generally stated that CDSOA 
disbursements have had little or no effect on prices, net sales, and 
market share. Some steel recipients also commented that CDSOA has not 
been a complete solution to the problems they faced due to unfairly 
traded imports. One recipient commented, for example, that while CDSOA 
payments could be presumed to have had a tangible benefit for the 
industry, they have not come close to erasing the years of financial 
injury brought on by unfairly traded steel products. 

Some steel companies acknowledged that the CDSOA disbursements have not 
been significant in relation to their size or capital expenditure 
needs. For each of the 13 steel companies in our case study, the CDSOA 
disbursements they received amounted to less than 1 percent of their 
net sales in fiscal year 2004.[Footnote 83]

Table 9 provides steel recipients' responses to our questionnaire on 
CDSOA's effects. 

Table 9: CDSOA Effects on Steel Companies: 

Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 11; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 11. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 12. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 6; 
Little or no effects: 6; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 12. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 10; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 12. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 9; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 8; 
Little or no effects: 4; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 12. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 6; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 12. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 8; 
Little or no effects: 4; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 12. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 10; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 11. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effect on Company Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Table 10 provides these companies' responses to our question on CDSOA's 
effect on their ability to compete in the U.S. market. 

Table 10: CDSOA Effect on Steel Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Recipients: 

Increased: 9; 
Stayed about the same: 4; 
Decreased: 0; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

Company Uses of CDSOA Funds: 

We also asked companies to describe how they used the CDSOA payments 
that they received. However, the law does not require that 
distributions be used for any specific purpose. The steel recipient 
companies generally did not provide specific replies to this question. 
General comments by these companies included that they used the CDSOA 
payments to make capital investments, reduce debt, and assisted in the 
acquisition of steel-making assets. 

Net Sales and Employment Trends: 

Sales, profit, and income figures generally improved markedly for the 
steel companies between 2003 and 2004, as the overall industry enjoyed 
a strong rebound from the previous years. In some cases companies went 
from showing net losses to net income between these 2 years. Some 
companies also expanded greatly among all categories as they grew by 
acquiring the assets of other companies. Overall, some companies gained 
employees, while other companies lost them. 

Extent of Overseas Production: 

None of the recipient steel companies responding to our questionnaire 
reported that they are involved in overseas production or importation 
of CDSOA products. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To obtain steel companies' views on CDSOA's effects, we sent out a set 
of structured questions to certain steel CDSOA recipients and non-
recipients. CDSOA payments are made in this industry under multiple 
steel and steel-related AD and CV orders that were issued over several 
years. For this case study, we defined the scope of the steel industry 
to only include companies that produce steel by melting raw 
materials.[Footnote 84] Our scope excludes companies that primarily 
make steel-related products (such as pipe or tubing) from purchased raw 
steel. As discussed below, we were not able to obtain information from 
steel non-recipients on CDSOA's effects. 

To identify CDSOA recipients, we obtained information from CBP about 
the companies that have received payments, according to our definition 
of the industry, in each of the 4 years that disbursements have been 
made and the amount of disbursements they have received. We obtained 
information from representatives of the ITC, Commerce, and industry 
associations to determine precisely which companies fit under our 
definition of the steel industry. Using this information, we developed 
a list of 69 recipients and ranked them by their total CDSOA 
receipts.[Footnote 85] Because of time and resource constraints, we 
decided to survey the top 15 steel recipient companies that had 
received 90 percent of the distributions made under the orders included 
in our scope. Two of these companies had ceased operations. We surveyed 
the remaining 13 companies and received completed surveys from all of 
them. The 13 respondents accounted for about 72 percent of the CDSOA 
payments to this industry; their views may not be representative of all 
recipients, particularly those that received relatively small CDSOA 
receipts. 

The universe of steel non-recipients is larger than the universe of 
recipients.[Footnote 86] We sought to obtain views from a comparable 
number of non-recipients as recipients. To identify these companies, we 
obtained information from associations or others that were 
knowledgeable about the industry. Besides ITC, we spoke with several 
steel industry associations (American Iron and Steel Institute, Steel 
Manufacturers Association, and the Specialty Steel Industry of North 
America) to identify leading steel non-recipients. We also asked 
recipient companies to identify their competitors. Based on these 
meetings and our own research, we surveyed 12 leading non-recipient 
steel companies, from which we received 1 completed survey. However, 
this survey did not include comments or views on CDSOA's effects. As a 
result, we are not able to present the views of steel non-recipient 
companies on CDSOA's effects. 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients and Non-Recipients in the Candle 
Industry: 

Background: 

Petroleum wax candles are produced in several forms including columns 
or pillars, wax-filled containers, tapers or dinner candles, votives, 
and novelty candles. They are sold to consumers through retail outlets, 
the largest percentage of which are through mass merchandisers (such as 
Wal-Mart or Target); these are followed by department stores, discount 
retailers, card and gift shops, and door-to-door sales through 
membership groups. The majority of petroleum wax candles are produced 
and imported for national markets. The number of domestic producers has 
grown from over 100 when the ITC performed its original investigation 
in 1986 to over 400 at the time of its second 5-year review in 2005. 
Only 10 domestic candle producers are eligible for CDSOA payments. 
Table 5 shows these companies' CDSOA disbursements and claims. 
According to the ITC, these recipients, in addition to approximately 35 
other candle producers, make up 70 percent of U.S. candle production. 

In 1985 a petition was filed by the National Candle Association (NCA) 
alleging that the U.S. candle industry was materially injured by dumped 
imports of petroleum wax candles from China.[Footnote 87] The ITC 
determined injury in 1986, and Commerce issued an antidumping duty 
order of 54 percent on all Chinese producers and exporters. The ITC 
conducted a 5-year, expedited review in 1999, and the duty doubled from 
54 percent to 108 percent after another expedited review in 2004. U.S. 
producers' share of the market by quantity (pounds) went from 43 
percent in calendar year 1999 to 53 percent in calendar year 2004. 
Imports from China, which some perceive as lower-end candles, accounted 
for 20 percent in 1999, rising to 27 percent in 2004. U.S. producers 
and Chinese suppliers have both gained market share in recent years. 
U.S. producers' share of candles dollar value was 66 percent in 1999 
rising to 70 percent in 2004, while China's share rose from 10 percent 
in 1999 to 14 percent in 2004. The ITC is presently conducting a full 5-
year "sunset" review of this order, and recently presented its findings 
to Commerce. Also, Commerce is considering whether the scope of the 
order should be changed, inquiring whether mixed wax candles composed 
of petroleum wax and varying amounts of either palm or vegetable wax 
alter the product so that they are not subject to the current order. 

Table 11 depicts CDSOA recipients for candles in fiscal years 2001 
through 2004. 

Table 11: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Candle CDSOA Recipients: 

1; 
Company: Candle-lite[A]; 
Amount paid: $56,759,989; 
Amount claimed: $1,285,509,591; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 39.81%. 

2; 
Company: Lancaster Colony Corporation[A]; 
Amount paid: $26,225,555; 
Amount claimed: $1,382,869,375; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 18.39%. 

3; 
Company: Home Fragrance Holdings; 
Amount paid: $20,394,804; 
Amount claimed: $444,243,884; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 14.30%. 

4; 
Company: Meunch-Kreuzer Candle Company; 
Amount paid: $10,695,594; 
Amount claimed: $212,476,879; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 7.50%. 

5; 
Company: General Wax & Candle; 
Amount paid: $9,297,725; 
Amount claimed: $150,256,642; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 6.52%. 

6; 
Company: Reed Candle Company; 
Amount paid: $7,214,429; 
Amount claimed: $152,164,485; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 5.06%. 

7; 
Company: Lumi-Lite Candle Company; 
Amount paid: $5,625,486; 
Amount claimed: $89,582,027; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 3.95%. 

8; 
Company: A.I. Root Company; 
Amount paid: $3,338,318; 
Amount claimed: $163,393,408; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 2.34%. 

9; 
Company: Candle Artisans; 
Amount paid: $1,171,570; 
Amount claimed: $57,421,924; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.82%. 

10; 
Company: Cathedral Candle Company; 
Amount paid: $1,155,876; 
Amount claimed: $56,565,862; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.81%. 

11; 
Company: Will & Baumer; 
Amount paid: $691,842; 
Amount claimed: $913,379; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.49%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

[A] In 1972 Candle-lite was acquired by Lancaster Colony Corporation of 
which it remains a division today. For fiscal years 2001-2003, 
Lancaster Colony received CDSOA distributions under the name Candle-
lite. The "amount paid" for Candle-lite and Lancaster Colony should be 
added together for an accurate account of CDSOA distributions made to 
the Candle-lite Division of Lancaster Colony Corp. Total fiscal year 
2001-2004 distributions equal $82,985,544 or 58.21 percent of total 
distributions to the candle industry. Likewise, the amount claimed for 
Lancaster Colony is applicable to Candle-lite. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effects on Candle Companies: 

Candle Recipients Reported Positive Effects from CDSOA Payments: 

Recipients report that CDSOA distributions have had positive effects on 
their net income; on their property, plant and equipment; and on 
research and development. One of the larger recipients of CDSOA 
distributions claims that these payments have lessened the need to 
consider outsourcing their candle products from abroad. However, the 
company reported that because of the effects of dumped Chinese candles, 
they continue to lay off workers, though fewer than they may have 
absent the CDSOA funds. Other recipients claim to have developed new, 
better, and safer candles with research and development reinvestment of 
CDSOA disbursements. 

Fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements as a percentage of company sales 
range from 0.4 percent to 34.7 percent for the 10 recipient candle 
companies, with most companies' shares in the higher end of this 
range.[Footnote 88]

Candle Non-Recipients Reported Negative Effects: 

Non-recipients report that CDSOA distributions to their competitors 
have had negative effects on their ability to compete in the market, on 
their gross profits, and on net income. They also reported very 
negative effects on industry competition. One non-recipient company has 
closed two of four domestic manufacturing facilities, eliminated or 
reduced shifts, and its released workers. Another non-recipient company 
claims that their CDSOA-recipient competitors could reduce selling 
prices. While the company matched competitors' lower prices, they made 
no profit. Because of this, they have recently exited this segment of 
the candle business and released workers accordingly. Some non-
recipients also expressed the view that their ineligibility for CSDOA 
disbursements is unfair. One non-recipient company joined the NCA as a 
leader of the organization a few years after the issuance of the order, 
but stated that they have no institutional memory of receiving an ITC 
questionnaire during its original investigation in 1986. This company 
said it has supported the order as well as NCA's efforts to defend the 
order since joining the NCA. Another non-recipient is ineligible by 
virtue of being acquired by a firm that opposed the original 
investigation, and was unsuccessful in its legal challenge of this. 

Table 12 shows candle recipient and non-recipients' responses to our 
questionnaire on CDSOA's effects. 

Table 12: CDSOA Effects on the Candle Companies: 

Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 9; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 2; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 6; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 9; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Category: Property, plant and equipment; 
Positive effects: 9; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 8; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 6; 
Little or no effects: 4; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 6; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 2; 
Little or no effects: 4; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 4; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Non-Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 4; 
No basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 4; 
No basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 4; 
No basis to judge: 4; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 4; 
No basis to judge: 4; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Category: Property, plant and equipment; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 4; 
No basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 3; 
No basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 3; 
No basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 4; 
No basis to judge: 4; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 4; 
No basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effect on Company Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Table 13 depicts these companies' responses to our question on CDSOA's 
effect on their ability to compete in the U.S. market. 

Table 13: CDSOA Effect on Candle Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Recipients: 

Increased: 7; 
Stayed about the same: 2; 
Decreased: 0; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 10. 

Non-Recipients: 

Increased: 1; 
Stayed about the same: 0; 
Decreased: 4; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 8. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

Company Uses of CDSOA Funds: 

We also asked companies to describe how they used the CDSOA payments 
that they received. However, the law does not require that 
distributions be used for any specific purpose. Several recipients 
claim that they have used CDSOA funds to invest in new and better 
equipment, and in research and development. One recipient company 
reports that it has been able to offer employees consistent and 
comprehensive benefits packages due to CDSOA funds. 

Net Sales and Employment Trends: 

For smaller candle companies--both recipients and non-recipient 
respondents alike--net sales have stagnated, as has employment of 
production and related workers. Some of the larger non-recipient 
respondents appear to have experienced some growth in these categories, 
while some of the larger recipients seem to have experienced some 
decline or stagnation in net sales and some growth or stagnation in 
production and employment. 

Extent of Overseas Production: 

Most candle companies are strictly domestic producers; however, one non-
recipient stated that it would start to import some of its candle 
products from Asia in order to keep its costs down. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To obtain the views of candle companies on CDSOA's effects, we sent out 
a set of structured questions to candle CDSOA recipients and certain 
non-recipient companies within the industry. CDSOA payments are made 
under one AD order that was issued in 1986. 

To identify CDSOA recipients, we obtained information from CBP about 
the companies that have received payments in each of the 4 years that 
disbursements have been made. Using this information, we developed a 
list of 11 recipients and ranked them by their total CDSOA receipts. 
One of these companies now receives CDSOA payments under the name of 
its parent company, leaving 10 distinct companies. We sent surveys to 
all recipient companies, and all of them provided completed surveys. 

The universe of candle non-recipients is larger than the universe of 
recipients.[Footnote 89] We sought to obtain views from a comparable 
number of non-recipients as recipients. To identify these companies, we 
obtained information from associations or others that were 
knowledgeable about the industry. Specifically, we (1) obtained a list 
of members of the NCA from its website; (2) corroborated this list with 
information from a recent ITC publication; and (3) obtained information 
about certain non-NCA members based on our own research. Because of 
time and resource constraints, most of the non-recipient candle 
companies we contacted are members of the NCA. Surveys were sent to non-
recipient candle companies for which an E-mail address could be 
obtained either from the NCA list or from the company directly. We 
surveyed 26 non-recipient candle makers, of which 8 provided completed 
surveys. Respondents included two relatively large candle companies 
whose net candle sales were similar in magnitude to one of the largest 
candle CDSOA recipients, and several smaller candle companies whose net 
sales were similar to or slightly larger than several of the smaller 
CDSOA candle recipients. The views of these respondents may not be 
representative of all non-recipients. 

Views on CDSOA from Pasta Company Recipients and Non-Recipients Pasta: 

Background: 

The bulk of pasta production in the United States is dry pasta, with 
production of frozen or refrigerated pasta constituting a smaller 
portion of the U.S. industry. After several decades of mergers and 
acquisitions, and the 2001 sale of one major producer's production 
facilities and brand names to two of its competitors, the industry's 
current structure reflects a high degree of concentration among a few 
large producers. The four largest U.S. producers as of 2001, based on 
ITC data, were American Italian Pasta Company, New World Pasta, Dakota 
Growers Pasta Company, and Barilla America, Inc. (a U.S. subsidiary of 
an Italian pasta company that was set up in 1998 after antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders on Italian dry pasta imports were issued). 
An industry expert estimated that these four companies currently 
account for about 80 percent of dry pasta production in the United 
States, with the remainder supplied by smaller or specialty 
companies.[Footnote 90] Three of the four are eligible for CDSOA 
disbursements, but Barilla America, Inc., whose share of U.S. 
production is growing and which said it only imports a small percentage 
of the pasta it sells here, is not. Overall demand for dry pasta in the 
United States has been declining since the late 1990s, a trend that has 
been exacerbated, according to dry pasta companies and industry 
experts, by diets that emphasize low-carbohydrate intake.[Footnote 91] 
Further, the industry has been experiencing decreased sales, excess 
capacity, and plant closures. Among the more significant indicators of 
the downturn, New World Pasta--a leading CDSOA recipient--filed for 
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2004. According to ITC, about three-
fourths of U.S. consumption of dry pasta in 2000 was supplied by 
domestic producers, with the remainder supplied by imported products. 
At that time, the largest sources of imported pasta were Italy, Canada, 
Korea, and Mexico. 

Several U.S. producers petitioned for relief from rapidly growing 
imports in 1995. In 1996, Commerce issued antidumping and 
countervailing duty orders on certain pasta imports from Italy and 
Turkey.[Footnote 92] Initial AD duties rated from 0 to about 47 percent 
on Italian pasta and about 61 to 63 percent on Turkish pasta, while 
initial CV duties ranged from about 0 to 11 percent on Italian pasta 
and about 4 to 16 percent on Turkish pasta. Since Commerce issued the 
order, dry pasta imports from Italy have declined and Turkey is no 
longer a leading supplier of pasta to the United States. The ITC 
completed a sunset review in 2001 that extended the orders until 2006. 

The top seven CDSOA recipients have received about 99 percent of the 
payments made to the industry, with American Italian Pasta Company and 
New World Pasta/Hershey Foods receiving 70 percent of total payments. 

Table 14 shows total payments made to all dry pasta CDSOA recipients in 
fiscal years 2001 through 2004. 

Table 14: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 CDSOA Pasta Recipients: 

1; 
Company: American Italian Pasta Company; 
Amount paid: $11,052,969; 
Amount claimed: $8,063,794,100; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 34.0%. 

2; 
Company: Hershey Foods (New World Pasta); 
Amount paid: $8,136,032; 
Amount claimed: $4,853,308,844; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 25.0%. 

3; 
Company: A. Zerega's Sons; 
Amount paid: $3,889,333; 
Amount claimed: $2,290,556,634; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 12.0%. 

4; 
Company: New World Pasta; 
Amount paid: $3,584,898; 
Amount claimed: $8,213,502,091; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 11.0%. 

5; 
Company: Dakota Growers Pasta Company; 
Amount paid: $2,328,690; 
Amount claimed: $3,285,863,416; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 7.2%. 

6; 
Company: Philadelphia Macaroni Company; 
Amount paid: $2,002,478; 
Amount claimed: $1,176,503,668; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 6.2%. 

7; 
Company: Gooch Foods; 
Amount paid: $744,737; 
Amount claimed: $30,137,692; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 2.3%. 

8; 
Company: Pasta USA; 
Amount paid: $463,953; 
Amount claimed: $698,654,710; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 1.4%. 

9; 
Company: Fould's; 
Amount paid: $185,155; 
Amount claimed: $260,992,108; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.6%. 

10; 
Company: S.T. Specialty Foods; 
Amount paid: $112,247; 
Amount claimed: $282,512,767; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.4%. 

11; 
Company: D. Merlino & Sons; 
Amount paid: $31,067; 
Amount claimed: $43,778,230; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

[A] New World Pasta acquired Hershey Foods Corporation in 1999. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effects on Pasta Companies: 

Pasta Recipients Reported Mostly Positive Effects From CDSOA Payments: 

The four pasta recipients that responded to our survey viewed the CDSOA 
program as having mostly positive effects on their companies. The two 
largest recipients did not respond to our survey, and we did not 
contact the three smallest recipients. All respondents cited the most 
positive company effects in the areas of profit; income; and investment 
in property, plant, and equipment; and most cited positive effects on 
net sales and ability to compete. Some recipient companies noted that 
the program has enhanced their ability to increase production through 
plant expansions and upgrades; improved their cash flow, allowing them 
more operating flexibility; reduced manufacturing costs; and enhanced 
some companies' competitive position. Funds have also helped some 
companies develop new products. 

CDSOA disbursements to the pasta industry have been small compared to 
each company's net sales. For example, fiscal year 2004 CDSOA payments 
to the pasta companies that responded to our survey represented about 1 
percent or less of each company's 2004 net sales.[Footnote 93]

Non-Recipients Reported Minimal or Negative Effects: 

Among the six pasta non-recipients that responded to our survey, views 
about the effect of CDSOA funds were mixed. A few said the funds had 
impacted their companies negatively in certain areas or created an 
unfair competitive environment in the industry, while others thought 
effects were minimal or could not judge the program's effects. About 
half of the non-recipients thought the program has had little or no 
effects for their companies in the areas of employment, prices, sales, 
investment, or market share. Some non-recipients thought the program 
had negatively impacted their company's profits, income, and ability to 
compete. Some non-recipients said that the program has probably helped 
recipients cut prices, and that this has created an unfair advantage in 
the industry for recipients. One non-recipient stated that it has had 
to transfer substantial sums of money to its competitors because of 
CDSOA, and that these funds would likely have been used for product 
development, capital investment, and expansion at its U.S. facility. 

Table 15 provides pasta recipients' and non-recipients' responses to 
our questionnaire on CDSOA effects. 

Table 15: CDSOA Effects on Pasta Companies: 

Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 2; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 3; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 4; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 4; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 4; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 2; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 3; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 2; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Non-Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 2; 
No basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 2; 
No basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 4; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 2; 
No basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 1; 
No basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effect on Company Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Table 16 provides these companies' responses to our question on CDSOA's 
effects on their ability to compete in the U.S. market. 

Table 16: CDSOA Effect on Pasta Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Recipients: 

Increased: 3; 
Stayed about the same: 1; 
Decreased: 0; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 4. 

Non-Recipients: 

Increased: 0; 
Stayed about the same: 1; 
Decreased: 3; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

Company Uses of CDSOA Funds: 

We also asked companies to describe how they used the CDSOA payments 
that they received. However, the law does not require that 
distributions be used for any specific purpose. Recipients used CDSOA 
funds for a variety of purposes. For example, some said they used the 
funds to purchase new equipment or upgrade existing equipment; reduce 
manufacturing costs and improve cash flow; increase production 
capacity; and invest in research and product development. This, in 
turn, led to increased production and employment among some companies. 
One company that did not respond to our survey disclosed in its 2003 
annual report that it used a significant portion of the funds to 
increased investment in brand building activities and to strengthen the 
company's organization. One recipient noted that CDSOA funds have been 
helpful because margins in the industry are very thin and competition 
is strong. As CDSOA improved one company's bottom line, it was able to 
obtain more attractive financing rates. 

Net Sales and Employment Trends: 

Our information about the effect of CDSOA on net sales and employment 
in this industry is limited because the two largest companies did not 
respond to our survey. Although press coverage of the industry has 
noted generally declining net sales among U.S. dry pasta companies in 
recent years, the companies that responded to our questions reported 
general increases in net sales during 2001 through 2004. Specifically, 
two companies reported increased sales in the 2001 through 2004 time 
frame, and two companies reported fluctuating sales that were higher at 
the end of the period than at the beginning. Among recipient 
respondents, two companies' employment levels generally increased, and 
two companies' employment levels generally decreased since the 
implementation of CDSOA. Among non-recipient respondents, net sales and 
employment showed mixed trends. Three companies reported increased 
sales, one company reported fluctuating sales that were higher at the 
end of 2004, and two companies reported decreased net sales. Three 
companies reported generally increased employment levels and three 
reported general decreases. 

Extent of Overseas Production: 

All of the recipient pasta companies that responded to our survey 
produce their product only in the United States. However, the top CDSOA 
recipients that did not respond to our survey produce pasta 
domestically and in other countries. Four of the non-recipients produce 
exclusively in the United States, and two produce both domestically and 
overseas. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To obtain pasta companies' views on CDSOA's effects, we sent out a set 
of structured questions to certain pasta CDSOA recipients and non-
recipients. CDSOA payments are made in this industry under two AD and 
two CV orders that were issued simultaneously. 

To identify CDSOA recipients, we obtained information from CBP about 
the companies that have received payments in each of the 4 years that 
disbursements have been made and the amount of disbursements they have 
received. Using this information, we developed a list of 11 recipients 
and ranked them by their total CDSOA receipts. CBP provided additional 
information that indicated there were actually 10 distinct 
companies.[Footnote 94] Because of time and resource constraints, we 
decided to survey the top seven companies that had received 99 percent 
of the total payments made under these orders, from which we received 
four completed surveys.[Footnote 95] The two pasta companies that are 
top CDSOA recipients did not respond to our survey. Our information 
about CDSOA effects for recipients is limited to the four pasta 
companies that responded, which together accounted for about 27 percent 
of CDSOA payments to this industry. 

The universe of dry pasta non-recipients is larger than the universe of 
recipients.[Footnote 96] We sought to obtain views from a comparable 
number of non-recipients as recipients, but we had difficulty 
identifying non-recipient dry pasta companies. To identify these 
companies, we obtained information from associations or others that 
were knowledgeable about the industry. Specifically, we obtained 
company names and contact information from (1) the website of the 
National Pasta Association, which presently carries out only limited 
activities on behalf of the industry; (2) an association management 
company that handles administrative matters for the National Pasta 
Association; (3) a directory of pasta companies published on 
[Hyperlink, http://bakingbusiness.com], a division of Milling and 
Baking News, which is a business news organization that ITC had 
identified as closely following the pasta industry; and (4) other pasta 
companies. Many of the companies we identified through these sources 
were not makers of dry pasta as defined in the orders, but were instead 
makers of egg noodles, fresh or refrigerated pasta, couscous, and boxed 
or frozen foods that use pasta, or were flour mills or other companies 
linked to the production of dry pasta. We surveyed eight non-recipient 
dry pasta manufacturers, from which we received six completed surveys. 
The respondents include the fourth-largest dry pasta manufacturer in 
the United States, several smaller pasta companies that produce durum 
wheat pasta, one company that produces wheat-free pasta, and one 
company that produces exclusively organic pasta. The views of these 
respondents may not be representative of all non-recipients. 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients in the DRAM Industry: 

Background: 

Dynamic random access memory (DRAM) semiconductors are considered 
commodity products and compete largely on the basis of price; DRAMs of 
similar density, access speed, and variety are generally 
interchangeable regardless of the country of fabrication. Today, four 
companies produce DRAMs in the United States:[Footnote 97] Micron 
Technologies is a U.S. company, Infineon Technologies is a spin-off of 
the German company Siemens, and Samsung Electronics[Footnote 98] and 
Hynix Semiconductor[Footnote 99] are Korean companies. All of these 
companies now have production facilities in the United States as well 
as abroad, but the latter three have entered the U.S. industry within 
the past decade. The DRAM industry is cyclical in nature, where demand 
is driven by investments in computers and other end-products. 
Fabrication facility costs are high and require complete replacement 
approximately every 10 years. Due to high fixed costs, chip 
manufacturers cannot afford to scale down production; they must 
constantly produce chips and invest or go out of business. 

One countervailing duty order is currently in effect for DRAMs produced 
by Hynix only.[Footnote 100] This duty order came into effect in 2003 
and its duty rate is currently 44 percent. Micron Technology received 
the bulk of distributions in this industry because it was the sole 
recipient of duties from two antidumping orders dating from the 1990s 
on DRAMs and other kinds of chips. Payments were made to Micron on 
DRAMs of 1 megabit and above under one AD order issued in 1993 and 
revoked in 2000, as well as on an AD order on SRAMs (static random 
access memory chips) issued in 1998 and revoked in 2002. The vast 
majority of CDSOA disbursements to the industry (approximately $33 
million) in fiscal years 2001 through 2004 were related to these 
orders. Infineon did not incorporate in the United States until 2000 
and, therefore, did not participate in the earlier investigations. Both 
Infineon and Micron are eligible and received disbursements under the 
current order but Hynix and Samsung are not eligible because they 
opposed the petition. Because DRAMs are a technologically dynamic 
product, it is expected that Commerce will revoke these orders when the 
subject products are obsolete. New products open themselves to new 
petitions and orders, thereby allowing new potential CDSOA recipients. 

Table 17 depicts CDSOA recipients for DRAMs in fiscal years 2001-2004. 

Table 17: Fiscal Years 2001-2004 DRAM CDSOA Recipients: 

1; 
Company: Micron Technology; 
Amount paid: $33,389,988; 
Amount claimed: $9,093,423,782; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 99.98%. 

2; 
Company: Infineon Technologies Richmond; 
Amount paid: $5,974; 
Amount claimed: $590,776,005; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 0.02%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effects on DRAM Companies: 

CDSOA Disbursements Have Mixed Effects on DRAM Companies: 

The two recipients of CDSOA disbursements reported mixed effects. One 
recipient reported that, although at the time it was operating at a net 
loss, CDSOA distributions improved its profitability, investment, 
employment, and research and development. The company noted that it 
would be of greater help if payments were made soon after other 
countries began their unfair trade practices. Another recipient 
reported that disbursements were immaterial to their operations. 

Fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements are equal to less than 1 percent 
of both companies' sales.[Footnote 101]

Table 18 presents DRAM recipients' responses to our questionnaire on 
CDSOA's effects. 

Table 18: CDSOA Effects on DRAM Companies: 

Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effect on Company Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Table 19 shows companies' responses to our question on CDSOA's effect 
on their ability to compete in the U.S. market. 

Table 19: CDSOA Effect on DRAM Companies' Ability to Compete in U.S. 
Market: 

Recipients: 

Increased: 1; 
Stayed about the same: 1; 
Decreased: 0; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 2. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

Company Uses of CDSOA Funds: 

We also asked companies to describe how they used the CDSOA payments 
that they received. However, the law does not require that 
distributions be used for any specific purpose. One recipient uses 
CDSOA distributions to fund U.S. operations and to invest in new U.S. 
production equipment. The other recipient also uses distributions in 
operations. 

Net Sales and Employment Trends: 

Historically, the DRAM market is subject to periods of "boom and bust." 
Both CDSOA recipients reported some net losses and have experienced 
slight declines in production and related workers during the past 4 
fiscal years. 

Extent of Overseas Production: 

One company has DRAM production facilities in three U.S. states as well 
as Japan, Italy, and Singapore. The other indicated that it has both 
domestic and foreign production facilities; they also noted that DRAMs 
manufactured in the United States can be sold abroad, and DRAMs 
manufactured abroad can in turn be sold here. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To obtain the views of DRAM-producing companies on CDSOA's effects, we 
sent a set of structured questions to the two CDSOA recipients. Current 
CDSOA payments on DRAMs are made on a CV order issued in 2003. 

To identify CDSOA recipients, we obtained information from CBP about 
the companies that have received payments in each of the 4 years that 
disbursements have been made. CBP identified two companies. We surveyed 
both recipient companies, and both provided completed surveys. 

To identify non-recipients, we consulted the recipient companies to 
identify their competitors, and we obtained information on domestic 
producers from the ITC's final determination on DRAM and DRAM Modules 
from Korea.[Footnote 102] There are two U.S. subsidiaries of Korean 
companies that are considered domestic producers who opposed the 
petition for the current order. We attempted to contact these companies 
but were unsuccessful in our efforts. We did not attempt to contact a 
fifth company that is also considered a domestic producer; this company 
does not list the major DRAM producers as competitors, and has no 
fabrication facilities.[Footnote 103] ITC listed other domestic 
producers for the purposes of its investigation, but these companies 
have since ceased DRAM production or have ceased to exist. 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients and Non-Recipients in Crawfish Industry: 

Background: 

Crawfish are freshwater crustaceans that resemble lobsters but are 
considerably smaller. U.S. commercial production of crawfish is 
concentrated within a relatively small area of southern Louisiana, 
where crawfish are harvested in the wild by fishermen and farmed in 
ponds. Crawfish may be sold whole and live, whole and boiled, or as 
fresh or frozen tail meat. Whole crawfish and fresh tail meat is 
consumed primarily in Louisiana and neighboring states, where there is 
generally a preference for local products in season. Tail meat is also 
sold more broadly throughout the United States. U.S. producers supply 
whole crawfish and fresh and frozen tail meat, whereas imports, mainly 
from China, are primarily frozen tail meat. U.S. businesses that 
process whole crawfish into tail meat are primarily small, family-owned 
concerns. Inexpensive imports and poor harvests have driven many 
domestic crawfish processors out of business in recent years. It is 
estimated that there were over 100 processors in Louisiana in the 1980s 
and early 1990s, but that number has dropped by more than half. 

In 1996, the Crawfish Processors Alliance, an industry association, and 
the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Fisheries, filed a petition 
alleging that U.S. processors of crawfish tail meat were being injured 
by dumped imports of crawfish tail meat from China. Significant imports 
of tail meat began in the mid-1990s, and ITC estimates that imports' 
share of consumption grew from just over 60 percent in 1997 to about 87 
percent in 2002. In 1997, Commerce issued an anti-dumping order on 
crawfish tail meat and imposed anti-dumping margins that ranged from 
about 92 to about 202 percent. 

Table 20 depicts the top 10 CDSOA recipients for crawfish in fiscal 
years 2001-2004. 

Table 20: Top 10 Fiscal Years 2001-2004 Crawfish CDSOA Recipients: 

1; 
Company: Atchafalaya Crawfish Processors; 
Amount paid: $3,054,297; 
Amount claimed: $5,940,653; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 12.0%. 

2; 
Company: Seafood International; 
Amount paid: $2,394,144; 
Amount claimed: $4,231,815; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 9.4%. 

3; 
Company: Catahoula Crawfish; 
Amount paid: $2,136,763; 
Amount claimed: $4,033,844; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 8.4%. 

4; 
Company: Crawfish Enterprises; 
Amount paid: $1,722,957; 
Amount claimed: $5,559,354; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 6.8%. 

5; 
Company: Prairie Cajun Seafood Wholesale Distributors; 
Amount paid: $1,711,875; 
Amount claimed: $3,063,186; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 6.7%. 

6; 
Company: Bayou Land Seafood; 
Amount paid: $1,512,866; 
Amount claimed: $3,083,890; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 6.0%. 

7; 
Company: Acadiana Fishermen's Co-Op; 
Amount paid: $1,297,685; 
Amount claimed: $2,635,910; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 5.1%. 

8; 
Company: Bonanza Crawfish Farm; 
Amount paid: $1,086,372; 
Amount claimed: $2,084,090; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 4.3%. 

9; 
Company: Riceland Crawfish; 
Amount paid: $1,061,156; 
Amount claimed: $2,192,214; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 4.2%. 

10; 
Company: Cajun Seafood Distributors; 
Amount paid: $1,052,414; 
Amount claimed: $2,172,290; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 4.1%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effects on Crawfish Processing Companies: 

Crawfish Recipients Reported Positive Effects from CDSOA Payments: 

CDSOA recipient respondents in the crawfish tail meat processing 
industry stated that the program has generally had positive effects for 
the industry and their companies. Several recipient respondents 
credited CDSOA with saving the domestic crawfish processing industry. 
Because of the program, they said, businesses remained open, employees 
kept their jobs, and crawfish fishermen continued to fish. The areas in 
which positive effects were most often cited were income; profits; 
investment in property, plants, and equipment; employment; and ability 
to compete. The program was generally seen as having little or no 
effect on prices, research and development, and market share. Many 
recipients stated that the program had encouraged them to purchase and 
process more crawfish and freeze more tail meat for sale in the off-
season, leading to increased employment among some processors and 
higher sales volumes for crawfish farmers and fishermen. 

Many respondents noted the poor collection rate and enforcement of the 
AD order for crawfish and viewed the CDSOA program as providing their 
only effective relief from dumped imports. (CBP disbursed about $9.8 
million to crawfish processors in fiscal year 2003 but reported that 
the uncollected duties related to crawfish in that year were about 
$85.4 million. In fiscal year 2004, CBP disbursed about $8.2 million to 
the industry, but uncollected duties rose to about $170 million. Nearly 
two-thirds of all uncollected duties in fiscal year 2004 were related 
to the crawfish order.) Recipients complained that widespread non-
payment of duties means Chinese crawfish continues to enter the U.S. 
market unabated. In its 2003 review to evaluate continuation of the AD 
order, ITC found that Chinese tail meat undersold (was sold at a lower 
price) domestic tail meat to the same degree with the AD order in place 
as it had before the order was issued, suggesting that the order has 
not affected the price of imported tail meat.[Footnote 104]

Although CDSOA disbursements in this industry have been small compared 
to certain other industries, these payments have been significant for 
some recipients when compared to net sales. Among the 16 recipients 
that responded to our survey, their fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursement 
as a percent of their 2004 net sales ranged from a low of about 4 
percent for one company to a high of about 350 percent for 
another.[Footnote 105] Among the other respondents, four companies' 
fiscal year 2004 disbursement was about 15 to 18 percent of their net 
sales that year, five companies' disbursement was about 27 to 33 
percent of their net sales, and four companies' disbursement was 
between 52 and 96 percent of their net sales.[Footnote 106] One company 
did not report any net sales information to us. 

Non-Recipients Reported Negative Effects: 

Non-recipients crawfish processors that responded to our survey said 
that the CDSOA program has helped recipient companies, but has harmed 
non-recipient companies by creating conditions of unfair competition 
among domestic processors. Most non-recipients cited negative effects 
for their companies in terms of ability to compete, net sales, profits, 
income, investment, and employment, which are generally the areas where 
recipients saw positive effects. Several non-recipients stated that 
they were unable to compete with the CDSOA recipients. For example, 
several non-recipients said that recipient companies were offering tail 
meat for sale at prices that were below the cost of production and were 
able to do so because their CDSOA funds would compensate them for any 
losses. In such conditions, some non-recipients said they cannot 
operate profitably and some decided to stop producing tail meat in 
recent years. 

Table 21 provides crawfish recipients and non-recipients' responses to 
our questionnaire on CDSOA's effects. 

Table 21: CDSOA Effects on Crawfish Companies: 

Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 3; 
Little or no effects: 13; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 9; 
Little or no effects: 7; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 11; 
Little or no effects: 4; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 15. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 14; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 11; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 14. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 5; 
Little or no effects: 9; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 14. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 11; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 10; 
Little or no effects: 6; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 5; 
Little or no effects: 9; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 14. 

Non-Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 2; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 5; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 8; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 8; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 1; 
Negative effects: 7; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 7; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 3; 
Negative effects: 4; 
No basis to judge: 2; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 7; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 0; 
Negative effects: 9; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 2; 
Negative effects: 6; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effect on Company Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Table 22 provides these companies' responses to our question on CDSOA's 
effect on their ability to compete in the U.S. market. 

Table 22: CDSOA Effect on Crawfish Companies' Ability to Compete in the 
U.S. Market: 

Recipients: 

Increased: 12; 
Stayed about the same: 3; 
Decreased: 0; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 16. 

Non-Recipients: 

Increased: 0; 
Stayed about the same: 1; 
Decreased: 8; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 9. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

Company Uses of CDSOA Funds: 

We also asked companies to describe how they used the CDSOA payments 
that they received. However, the law does not require that 
distributions be used for any specific purpose. Recipient companies 
reported a wide range of uses for the funds. For example, most of the 
companies that reported this information said they purchased or 
upgraded equipment, buying new or larger delivery trucks, boilers, ice 
machines, freezers, coolers, and vacuum-pack machines. Several 
companies bought more crawfish to peel and hired more employees, 
thereby increasing their production of tail meat. Several companies 
said that they made investments and repairs to their plants, such as 
installing or expanding docks for receiving shipments of whole 
crawfish. Several also paid off long-standing company and personal 
debts. For example, the head of one small family-run company said he 
paid off mortgages on the plant and his residence, bought new 
equipment, and made needed repairs without incurring new financing 
costs. One company said that it started a pension plan for its 
employees. 

Net Sales and Employment Trends: 

More than half of the recipient companies that we surveyed had growing 
net sales in the 2001 through 2004 time frame. Other companies' net 
sales fluctuated, decreased, or were relatively stable. Several 
respondents said that one of the most significant outcomes of the CDSOA 
program was to encourage them to purchase and process more crawfish and 
freeze more tail meat for sale in the off-season, thereby improving 
their year-round cash flow. Most non-recipients that responded to our 
survey did not provide net sales information. 

More than half of the crawfish recipient respondents also reported 
growth in employment levels, and some of these increases were 
significant. One company quadrupled the number of production and 
related workers during the 2001 through 2004 period (from 28 to 111) 
and the number of such workers at three other companies doubled. 
Several stated CDSOA enabled them to hire more people. Three recipients 
reported net decreases in the number of production and related workers 
in this time period. Non-recipients also generally did not report 
employment information. 

Extent of Overseas Production: 

Survey respondents said they process tail meat exclusively in the 
United States. We did not gather any information that disclosed 
whether, in the course of doing business, any of these processors also 
import or offer imported tail meat for sale. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To obtain crawfish tail meat processing companies' views on CDSOA's 
effects, we sent out a set of structured questions to certain crawfish 
CDSOA recipients and non-recipients. CDSOA payments are made in this 
industry under one AD order. 

To identify CDSOA recipients, we obtained information from CBP about 
the companies that have received payments in each of the three years 
that disbursements have been made and the amount of disbursements they 
have received. Using this information, we developed a list of 35 
recipients and ranked them by their total CDSOA receipts. CBP provided 
additional information that indicated that certain companies had 
received funds under different names in different years. Because of 
time and resource constraints, we decided to survey 20 of the top 
recipients that had received about 90 percent of the total payments 
made under this order. We received 16 completed surveys. These 16 
companies accounted for about 73 percent of CDSOA payments to this 
industry; their views may not be representative of all recipients, 
particularly those that received relatively small CDSOA disbursements. 

The size of the universe of crawfish non-recipients not known.[Footnote 
107] We sought to obtain views from a comparable number of non-
recipients as recipients, but we had difficulty identifying non-
recipient crawfish companies. To identify these companies, we obtained 
information from associations or others that were knowledgeable about 
the industry. Specifically, we obtained contact information for current 
and former tail meat processors that are non-recipients from (1) a law 
firm that represents the Crawfish Processors Alliance, an entity that 
was a petitioner in this case; (2) the Louisiana Department of 
Agriculture and Fisheries, an entity that was a petitioner in this 
case; (3) the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals, which 
licenses and inspects processors; and (4) certain other tail meat 
processors. We lacked accurate contact information for several of these 
companies. We surveyed 17 current and former processors, from which we 
received 9 completed surveys.[Footnote 108] The views of these 
respondents may not be representative of all non-recipients. 

Views on CDSOA from Recipients and Non-Recipients in Softwood Lumber 
Industry: 

Background: 

Softwood lumber generally comes from conifers or evergreen trees 
including pine, spruce, cedar, fir, larch, Douglas fir, hemlock, 
cypress, redwood, and yew. Softwood is easy to saw and used in 
structural building components. It is also found in other products such 
as mouldings, doors, windows, and furniture. Softwood is also harvested 
to produce chipboards and paper. U.S. softwood lumber producers are 
generallly located in the southeast and northwest, with the northwest 
softwood lumber being comparable to Canadian softwood lumber. CDSOA 
disbursements to the softwood lumber industry went to 143 companies in 
fiscal years 2003 and 2004. According to one estimate, about half of 
the softwood lumber companies are eligible to receive these 
disbursements. 

Canada's share of the U.S. lumber market rose from less than 3 billion 
board feet (BBF) and 7 percent of the market in the early 1950s to more 
than 18 BBF per year and 33 percent of the market in the late 1990s. In 
2003, U.S. imports of softwoods were 49,708 thousands of cubic meters, 
and the ratio of these imports to consumption was 37.4 percent. Since 
1981, the United States and Canada have been involved in several 
softwood lumber disputes, leading to, among other things, a 15 percent 
Canadian tax on lumber exports in 1986; a countervailing duty of 6.51 
percent on Canadian imports in 1992, which ended in 1994; and a 1996 
Softwood Lumber Agreement restricting Canadian exports for five years, 
until 2001. 

The U.S. again imposed antidumping and countervailing duties on 
Canadian imports in 2002. From May 2002 to December 2004 most Canadian 
softwood lumber exported to the United States was subject to a combined 
antidumping and countervailing duty of 27 percent. In December 2004 
this combined duty was reduced to 21 percent. These two duty orders 
funded about $5.4 million in CDSOA disbursements to U.S. softwood 
lumber companies in fiscal years 2003 and 2004. Leading U.S. softwood 
lumber producers are among the industry's top CDSOA recipients. 
However, major U.S. producers are also among those ineligible to 
receive CDSOA disbursements. CBP has received over $3.7 billion in 
deposits to cover estimated duties from softwood lumber imports from 
Canada. 

Table 23 depicts the top 10 CDSOA softwood lumber recipients for fiscal 
years 2003-2004. 

Table 23: Top 10 FY 2003-2004 Softwood Lumber CDSOA Recipients: 

1; 
Company: International Paper; 
Amount paid: $761,907; 
Amount claimed: $3,450,790,984; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 13.98%. 

2; 
Company: Sierra Pacific Industries; 
Amount paid: $549,622; 
Amount claimed: $2,479,493,488; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 10.09%. 

3; 
Company: Stimson Lumber; 
Amount paid: $350,766; 
Amount claimed: $1,587,151,896; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 6.44%. 

4; 
Company: Hampton Resources; 
Amount paid: $321,954; 
Amount claimed: $1,459,096,581; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 5.91%. 

5; 
Company: Potlatch Corporation; 
Amount paid: $261,543; 
Amount claimed: $1,186,058,000; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 4.80%. 

6; 
Company: Temple Inland Forest; 
Amount paid: $165,907; 
Amount claimed: $763,770,440; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 3.04%. 

7; 
Company: Plum Creek Reek Timber; 
Amount paid: $141,260; 
Amount claimed: $650,304,609; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 2.59%. 

8; 
Company: Swanson Group Inc; 
Amount paid: $135,481; 
Amount claimed: $623,700,679; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 2.49%. 

9; 
Company: Gilman Building Products; 
Amount paid: $120,249; 
Amount claimed: $550,635,410; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 2.21%. 

10; 
Company: Seneca Sawmill; 
Amount paid: $107,278; 
Amount claimed: $483,738,802; 
Amount paid as a percentage of total paid to industry: 1.97%. 

Source: GAO analysis of CBP data. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effects on Softwood Lumber Companies: 

Softwood Lumber Recipients and Non-Recipients Reported Little or No 
Effects from CDSOA Payments: 

Recipient and non-recipient companies generally noted that, because 
CDSOA disbursements had been so small in fiscal years 2003-2004, 
totaling about $5.4 million, they had had little or no effect on their 
companies. 

Although recipient companies vary greatly in their overall size, these 
companies do not vary significantly in terms of the amount they have 
received through CDSOA as a percentage of their sales in fiscal year 
2004. 

Specifically, CDSOA disbursements to company sales amounted to less 
than 1 percent for the recipient companies in our study.[Footnote 109]

However, some recipient and non-recipient companies emphasized that, if 
the United States ever were to liquidate and disburse the large amount 
of softwood lumber duties currently being held in deposit by Treasury, 
these disbursements would have major effects on both recipient and non-
recipient companies. One recipient company noted that these 
disbursements would have positive effects on its company, while a non-
recipient company emphasized negative effects. Because capital is a 
major function in competitiveness, a non-recipient company stated that, 
if recipient companies were to invest large CDSOA disbursements on new 
mills, they would be able to dramatically increase their efficiency, 
output, and market share. 

Table 24 provides softwood lumber recipients and non-recipients' 
responses to our questionnaire on CDSOA's effects. 

Table 24: CDSOA Effects on Softwood Lumber Companies: 

Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 1; 
Little or no effects: 12; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 0; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Non-Recipients: 

Category: Prices; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Net sales; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Gross profits; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Net income; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Property, plant, and equipment; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Research and development; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Employment; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Ability to compete; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Category: Market share; 
Positive effects: 0; 
Little or no effects: 5; 
Negative effects: 0; 
No basis to judge: 1; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

CDSOA Effect on Company Ability to Compete in U.S. Market: 

Recipient and non-recipient companies generally reported that the CDSOA 
disbursements had had no effect on their companies' ability to compete 
in the U.S. market. 

Table 25 presents these companies responses to our question on CDSOA's 
effect on their ability to compete in the U.S. market. 

Table 25: CDSOA Effect on Softwood Lumber Companies' Ability to Compete 
in U.S. Market: 

Recipients: 

Increased: 2; 
Stayed about the same: 8; 
Decreased: 0; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 13. 

Non-Recipients: 

Increased: 0; 
Stayed about the same: 2; 
Decreased: 1; 
Don't know/no basis to judge: 3; 
Number of respondents: 6. 

Source: GAO analysis of company responses to structured questions. 

[End of table]

Company Uses of CDSOA Payments: 

We also asked companies to describe how they used the CDSOA payments 
that they received. However, the law does not require that 
distributions be used for any specific purpose. Overall, companies 
noted that they had used the payments for a variety of purposes, such 
as paying debt, past qualifying expenditures, general operating 
expenses, general corporate expenses, and capital investment. Others 
noted that the payments had been too small to track their use in any 
area. 

Net Sales and Employment Trends: 

Overall, recipient and non-recipient companies we contacted vary 
significantly in size. Both show slight increase in net sales and 
employment over the 4 years that CDSOA has been in effect. Leading U.S. 
producers are among the CDSOA recipient and non-recipient companies. 

Extent of Overseas Production: 

Most recipient companies we contacted produced CDSOA-related products 
domestically. Some non-recipient companies we contacted produced these 
products domestically. Others produced them both domestically and 
abroad. 

Scope and Methodology: 

To obtain softwood lumber companies' views on CDSOA's effects, we sent 
out questionnaires to certain softwood lumber CDSOA recipients and non-
recipients. CBP made CDSOA payments to recipients in this industry in 
fiscal years 2003 and 2004 under an AD order and a CV order both issued 
in 2002. 

To identify CDSOA recipients, we obtained information from CBP about 
the companies that had received CDSOA payments in the 2 fiscal years 
and the amount of disbursements they had received. Using this 
information, we developed a list of 143 recipients and ranked them by 
their total CDSOA receipts in the 2 fiscal years. Because of time and 
resource constraints, we decided to survey the top 14 recipients that 
had received about 60 percent of the total softwood lumber payments. 
CBP provided contact information on these companies to us. From these 
14 companies, we received 13 completed surveys. These 13 companies 
accounted for about 59 percent of all softwood lumber disbursements. 
Their views may not be representative of all recipients, particularly 
those that received relatively small CDSOA disbursements. 

Given that about half of the industry is eligible to receive CDSOA 
disbursements, we sought to obtain views from a comparable number of 
recipients and non-recipients. To identify non-recipient companies, we 
obtained information from public and private sources that are 
knowledgeable about the industry. Specifically, we obtained information 
on non-recipients from the ITC and softwood lumber companies. We 
surveyed 15 companies and we received six completed surveys from them. 
These respondents included a wide range of top non-recipients, 
including one of the largest companies in the industry. However, their 
views may not be representative of all non-recipients. 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from Customs and Border Protection: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

September 7, 2005: 

Mr. Loren Yager: 

Director, International Affairs and Trade: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Yager: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on draft report GAO-05-979, 
International Trade: Issues and Effects of Implementing the Continued 
Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act. The Department appreciates the work 
done in this review to identify areas within the Continued Dumping and 
Subsidy Offset Act (CDSOA) program that need to be improved. 

The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS's) U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection (CBP) generally concurs with the report's five 
recommendations to enhance the processing of CDSOA claims and payments 
and the collection of antidumping or countervailing (AD/CV) duties. 
Following are comments specific to the recommendations. Technical 
comments were provided under separate cover. 

Recommendation 1: 

To improve the processing of CDSOA claims, CBP should implement labor 
savings steps such as working with the ITC to formalize and standardize 
exchanges of electronic updates of the list of eligible producers, and 
requiring that company claims follow a standard form and be submitted 
electronically. This would also reduce data entry-related errors. 

Response: 

CBP representatives met with the U.S. International Trade Commission 
(ITC) on August 16, 2005 to establish a preliminary methodology on how 
to formalize and standardize exchanges of electronic updates. During 
December 2005, CBP will work in conjunction with the ITC to formalize 
this process. CBP agrees that a standard form is necessary and will 
have the regulations revised accordingly before the 2006 cycle. While 
CBP supports electronic filing, we will have to determine if existing 
statutes give us the authority to require electronic filing. If so, we 
will work with other government agencies to develop this capability. 

Recommendation 2: 

To further improve the processing of claims, CBP should have in place 
clear guidance for preparing CDSOA certifications or claims. 

Response: CBP believes the regulations pertaining to preparing CDSOA 
certifications or claims are adequate; however, several issues have 
been identified that should be clarified. To clarify these issues, we 
will work to modify the regulations prior to the 2006 filing period. If 
this deadline cannot be met, we will use the Federal Register to 
clarify the issues. 

Recommendation 3: 

To enhance the processing of claims and payments in the face of a 
growing workload, CBP should develop and implement plans for managing 
and improving its CDSOA program processes, staff, and technology. For 
instance, a human capital plan would help ensure that the CDSOA program 
has staff in place with the appropriate competencies, skills, and 
abilities. 

Response: CBP has already implemented a formal process with established 
procedures for handling CDSOA; however, these procedures are 
continually refined. Except for the areas noted in the previous 
recommendation, technology issues cannot truly be addressed until the 
full implementation of the Automated Commercial Environment program in 
2009. CBP will develop a human capital plan and execute this plan to 
conform with budgetary and operational requirements. 

Recommendation 4: 

To enhance the verification of claims, CBP should implement a plan for 
systematically verifying CDSOA claims. This plan should aim to ensure 
that companies receiving CDSOA disbursements are accountable for the 
claims they make. CBP should also consider asking companies to justify 
their claims by providing additional information on their claims, such 
as the explanations of the basis for the claim, supporting financial 
information, and an independent assessment of the claim's validity and 
accuracy. 

Response: 

CBP agrees that companies receiving CDSOA disbursements should be 
accountable for the claims they make and should provide additional 
information when the claim is filed. The additional information will 
aid CBP in determining the risk of inaccurate disbursements for claims 
that cannot be justified. In addition, CBP concurs that a method for 
systematically verifying CDSOA claims prior to payment of the funds 
should be implemented. CBP will work to formalize this process by April 
1, 2006. 

Recommendation 5: 

To better address antidumping and countervailing duty collection 
problems, CBP should report to Congress on what factors have 
contributed to the collections problems, the status and impact of 
efforts to date to address these problems, and how CBP, in conjunction 
with other agencies, proposes to improve the collection of antidumping 
and countervailing duties. 

Response: CBP has already committed to coordinate with other affected 
agencies and to report to Congress not later than December 31, 2005, on 
legislative, regulatory, and procedural suggestions to improve the 
collection of antidumping and countervailing duties. An Interim Report 
was completed on July 7, 2005. 

We thank you again for the opportunity to provide comments on this 
draft report and look forward to working with you on future homeland 
security issues. 

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Steven J. Pecinovsky: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section]

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Loren Yager, (202) 512-4347: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Kim Frankena served as Assistant Director responsible for this report, 
and Juan Tapia-Videla was the Analyst-in-Charge. In addition to those 
named above, the following individuals made significant contributions 
to this report: Shirley Brothwell, Ming Chen, Martin de Alteris, Carmen 
Donohue, John Karikari, Casey Keplinger, Jeremy Latimer, and Grace Lui. 
The team benefited from the expert advice and assistance of Jamie 
McDonald, Jena Sinkfield, Tim Wedding, and Mark Speight. 

(320289): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] 19 U.S.C  1675c. 

[2] All CDSOA disbursements are in nominal dollars. We also analyzed 
disbursement data in constant dollars, but the differences between 
disbursements in nominal and constant dollars are minimal given the 
short time span and fairly low inflation rate over the period covered 
by our analysis. 

[3] The President proposed the repeal of the CDSOA in three budget 
submissions, for fiscal years 2004, 2005, and 2006. 

[4] In March 2005, Congressman Ramstad introduced H.R. 1121, 109TH 
Cong. (2005) to repeal CDSOA. 

[5] In the seven industries we examined, 61 of 69 recipient companies 
and 31 of 82 non-recipient companies responded to our structured 
questions. 

[6] These members were Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European 
Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. 

[7] For further background see Vivian Jones, Trade Remedies: A Primer, 
a publication of the Congressional Research Service, Order Code RL 
32371. 

[8] Pub. L. No. 106-387, Title X, sec. 1002, 114 Stat. 1549, 1549A-72 
(2000). 

[9]  1002, 114 Stat. 1549A-72. 

[10] The names are to be transmitted to Customs within 60 days of the 
issuance of an AD/CV duty order. See 19 U.S.C.  1675c. 

[11] U.S. ITC, Implementation of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy 
Offset Act of 2000, OIG-IR-01-04, Washington, D.C. September 30, 2004. 

[12] Department of the Treasury, Financial Management: Bureau of 
Customs and Border Protection Needs to Improve Compliance with the 
Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000 (CDSOA), OIG-03-085, 
Washington, D.C. June 17, 2003. 

[13] For background see GAO, World Trade Organization: Standard of 
Review and Impact of Trade Remedy Rulings, GAO-03-824 (Washington, D.C. 
July 30, 2003), and World Trade Organization: Issues in Dispute 
Settlement, GAO/NSIAD-00-210 (Washington, D.C. Aug. 9, 2000). The 
relevant WTO agreements for trade remedies are the Antidumping 
Agreement, the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, and 
parts of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994. 

[14] For background see GAO, World Trade Organization: Global Trade 
Talks Back on Track, but Considerable Work Needed to Fulfill Ambitious 
Objectives, GAO-05-538 (Washington, D.C. May 31, 2005). This is the 
latest in a series of GAO reports on these negotiations. 

[15] A petitioner is a manufacturer, producer, or wholesaler in the 
United States of a domestic like product; a certified union or 
recognized union or group of workers which is representative of an 
industry engaged in the manufacture, production, or wholesale in the 
United States of a domestic like product; a trade or business 
association a majority of whose members manufacture, produce, or 
wholesale a domestic like product in the United States; an association, 
a majority of whose members is composed of the aforementioned parties 
with respect to a domestic like product; and in any investigation 
involving an industry engaged in producing a processed agricultural 
product, a coalition or trade association which is representative of 
either: (i) processors, or (ii) processors and producers, or (iii) 
processors and growers. See 19 U.S.C.  1671a, 1673a. 

[16] A successor company may be eligible if it has succeeded to the 
operations of a predecessor company that appeared on the ITC list of 
potentially eligible companies and files a certification to claim a 
distribution behalf of the predecessor company. If a member company of 
an association appearing on the ITC list does not itself appear on the 
ITC list, the member company may file a claim, as long as the member 
was a member at the time of the petition and also meets the other 
requirements of the statute. However, according to the law, companies 
that had supported petitions but were acquired by a company that did 
not support a petition are not eligible to receive distributions. See 
19 U.S.C.  1675c and 19 C.F.R.  159.61. 

[17] In situations where the ITC has good information about the 
universe of producers, the agency takes a stratified sample by dividing 
the universe of companies into different groups by size. It then draws 
a random sample from each group. However, in situations where the ITC 
has no information about the size of the industry, it simply takes a 
random sample. 

[18] See 19 U.S.C.  1677f. 

[19] Cathedral Candle Co. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 400 F.3d 
1352 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

[20] Id. at 1360. 

[21] Id. at 1361, 1367. 

[22] Id. at 1372. 

[23] Candle Corp. of America v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 374 
F.3d 1087 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

[24] Id. at 1094. 

[25] Id. at 1094. 

[26] Bergeron's Seafood v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 306 
F.Supp.2d 1353 (CIT 2004). 

[27] Id. at 1357. 

[28] Id. at 1359. 

[29] See PS Chez Sidney, L.L.C. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, 
Court No. 02-00635 and Bergeron's Seafood v. United States Int'l Trade 
Comm'n, Court No. 03-00448. 

[30] Namely, these expenditures might include expenses for 
manufacturing facilities; equipment; research and development; 
personnel training; acquisition of technology; health care benefits 
paid by the employer; pension benefits paid by the employer; 
environmental equipment, training, or technology; acquisition of raw 
materials and other inputs; and working capital or other funds needed 
to maintain production. 

[31] Specifically, producers can claim expenses incurred after the 
issuance, and prior to the termination, of an order. 

[32] Claims may be rejected if a claimant is not an eligible producer 
or fails to meet certain other CDSOA criteria. 

[33] See Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21ST Century, 
GAO/T-GGD-00-77 (Washington, D.C. Mar. 9, 2000). 

[34] See Human Capital: Major Human Capital Challenges at SEC and Key 
Trade Agencies, GAO-02-662T (Washington, D.C. Apr. 23, 2002); A Model 
of Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-02-373SP, (Washington, D.C. 
March 2002); Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic 
Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C. Dec. 2003); and Human 
Capital: Observations on Final DHS Human Capital Regulations, GAO-05-
391T (Washington, D.C. Mar. 2, 2005). 

[35] See, for example, GAO's Policy and Procedures Manual for Guidance 
of Federal Agencies, title 7--Fiscal Guidance, ch. 6, Disbursements, 
pp. 7.6.1-7.6.16, (Washington, D.C. May 18, 1993); Streamlining the 
Payment Process While Maintaining Effective Internal Control, GAO/AIMD-
21.3.2 (Washington, D.C. May 2000); Internal Control Management and 
Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G (Washington, D.C. August 2001) p.41; and 
Strategies to Manage Improper Payments, Learning from Public and 
Private Sector Organizations, GAO-02-69G (Washington, D.C. October 
2001). 

[36] In the interim between the entry of imports after an AD/CV duty is 
first imposed and the final liquidation and collection of duties, CBP 
requires posting of cash deposits or, in limited circumstances, bonds 
to cover estimated duties. CBP also requires additional security, 
usually in the form of a continuous bond, on the entry. Because the 
final AD/CV rate often differs from the rates used to calculate these 
deposits, there are cases where CBP has collected less money than what 
is finally due. Moreover, the length of time that can elapse is 
sometimes several years, which further compromises duty collection. It 
also means that any measure CBP takes based on estimated duties, such 
as increasing continuous bond coverage, may not cover duties owed. 

[37] A "new shipper" is a foreign exporter or producer that did not 
export, and is not affiliated with, an exporter or producer that 
exported to the United States during the period of AD/CV investigation 
and that has begun to export to the United States. This shipper can 
request a separate, expedited review (called a "new shipper" review) to 
establish his own estimated dumping margin. The new shipper has the 
option of posting a bond or security in lieu of cash once Commerce 
determines that the company meets the requirements and initiates a 
review. Commerce conducts the review based on at least one shipment. 
The United States has expressed concern about abuse of such privileges, 
which were provided for in article 9.5 of the WTO Antidumping Agreement 
and subsequently codified in U.S. law and regulations at 19 U.S.C.  
1675 (a)(2)(B)(iii). The concern is that, based on a single 
transaction, new shippers have received very low rates that allow them 
to post bonds at low rates and ship goods at low prices, subverting 
entirely or delaying relief to domestic producers from injurious 
imports. Moreover, CBP has had problems collecting duties when 
Commerce, after completing its review and finding higher dumping 
margins, has issued orders for CBP to liquidate the prior entries at 
higher rates. When CBP has tried to collect these higher rates (on 
goods that originally entered at a low rate), both new shippers and 
bondsmen have not been able to pay the duties owed. For example, CBP 
confirmed that it only collected $25.5 million of the $195.5 million in 
AD duties owed on crawfish between 2002 and 2004. The antidumping order 
against freshwater crawfish tail meat from the People's Republic of 
China has involved numerous new shipper reviews. In many of these 
cases, new shippers were initially granted a very low rate, which was 
later raised significantly upon review. For example, one Chinese 
exporter was granted a rate of 0 percent (no duty) in May 1999 after 
requesting a new shipper review. However, an administrative review 
completed in April 2000 raised its rate to 201.63 percent. 

[38] See H.R. 3283, 109TH Cong. (2005). 

[39] The fourth-leading recipient, MPB Corporation, is a subsidiary of 
the Timken Company. For fiscal years 2001, 2003, and 2004, CBP 
distributed CDSOA distributions separately to Timken and MPB. Timken 
also acquired the Torrington Company, the second-leading CDSOA 
recipient, in February 2003. 

[40] We did not verify the accuracy of statements from these CDSOA 
recipients. 

[41] We did not verify the accuracy of statements from CDSOA recipients 
and non-recipients in these seven industries. 

[42] Within the steel industry, the non-recipients tended to be smaller 
and typically were not direct competitors of the leading recipients. 
Only one non-recipient steel company responded to our questionnaire on 
CDSOA, and it did not provide views on the program. 

[43] According to data provided by a steel industry representative, 42 
steel companies declared bankruptcy and 19 ceased operations from 1997 
to 2003. Many of these companies were subsequently acquired by larger 
companies. 

[44] Although CBP data indicates payments were made to 35 different 
companies between fiscal year 2002 and 2004, several of these companies 
reported under different names in different years. 

[45] See U.S. International Trade Commission Crawfish Tail Meat from 
China, Investigation No. 731-TA-752 (Review), Publication 3614, 
(Washington, D.C. July 2003). 

[46] Recipients for this CV order include the U.S. company, and a U.S. 
subsidiary of a German company. The U.S. subsidiaries of the two Korean 
companies opposed the petition and therefore are ineligible to receive 
distributions. 

[47] See, for example, Kara Olson, Subsidizing Rent Seeking: 
Antidumping Protection and the Byrd Amendment, American University, 
2004. 

[48] See Economic Analysis of the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset 
Act of 2000, The Congressional Budget Office, 2004. 

[49] For example, our regression analysis of the number of filings each 
year, versus macroeconomic conditions, which include real exchange 
rates, and CDSOA's passage, was inconclusive and did not show clear 
evidence that CDSOA had an impact on the number of filings. 

[50] Generally, there tend to be more AD/CV filings following years 
with slower U.S. economic growth and when the U.S. dollar appreciates 
against foreign currencies, which makes imports cheaper. See, for 
example, Michael Knetter and Thomas Prusa, Macroeconomic Factors and 
Antidumping Filings: Evidence from Four Countries, NBER Working Paper 
8010, 2000; Douglas Irvin, The Rise of Antidumping Actions in 
Historical Perspective, Department of Economics, Dartmouth College, 
2004; and Richard Feinberg, U.S. Antidumping Enforcement and 
Macroeconomic Indicators: What Do Petitioners Expect, and Are They 
Correct?, Department of Economics, American University, 2004. 

[51] We were unable to obtain detailed scope-related AD/CV duty orders 
data from U.S. agencies because this data is not currently available. 
For instance, the number of petitioners and supporters of an order, the 
number of products covered by an order, and the number of products 
excluded from an order after it went into effect are not readily 
available for the years preceding and following the enactment of CDSOA. 

[52] United States --Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, 
WT/DS217/AB/BRA,CHL, EEC, IND, JPN, KOR; WT/DS234/AB/CAN, MEX. 

[53] These members were Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, the European 
Union, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Mexico, and Thailand. 

[54] WT/DS217/AB/EEC, paragraph 274. 

[55] Bill to amend the Trade Act of 1974 to provide trade readjustment 
and development enhancement for America's communities, and for other 
purposes, S. 1299, 108TH Cong. (2003). 

[56] Bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, H.R. 3933, 
108TH Cong. (2004). 

[57] WT/DS217/16/Add.14 and WT/DS234/16/Add.14. 

[58] Bill to repeal section 754 of the Tariff Act of 1930, H.R. 1121, 
109TH Cong. (2005). 

[59] See Amendment No. 1680 to the appropriations bill for Science, the 
Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies for 
the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, H.R. 2862, 109TH Cong. 
(2005). 

[60] See Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 108-447, 
Div. B, title II, 118 Stat. 2809, 2872, 2874 (2004). 

[61] TN/RL/W/153. 

[62] United States --Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, 
WT/DS217/ARB/BRA, CHL, EEC, IND, JPN, KOR and WT/DS234/ARB/CAN, MEX. 

[63] See WT/DS217/44, WT/DS217/45, and WT/DS217/46. 

[64] See GAO, Internal Control and Management Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-
1008G (Washington, D.C. August 2001). 

[65] We were not able to verify the accuracy of statements from CDSOA 
recipients and non-recipients. 

[66] We sent surveys to the 32 of the 39 companies that received 80 
percent of CDSOA payments from 2001-2004. Six of the seven companies 
that we did not survey either were no longer in operation or had been 
acquired by another company that did respond to our survey. The 
additional company that we did not survey was required to send back its 
CDSOA payments to CBP due to a CBP overpayment error. Eight of the top 
recipients that we contacted did not respond to our survey. 

[67] Some of the recipients and non-recipients may be U.S. producers 
that are foreign-owned. We did not exclude these companies from our 
sample because CDSOA does not restrict foreign-owned U.S. producers 
from receiving CDSOA payments. 

[68] All CDSOA disbursements are in nominal dollars. We also analyzed 
disbursement data in constant dollars, but the differences between 
disbursements in nominal and constant dollars are minimal given the 
short time span and fairly low inflation rate over the period covered 
by our analysis. 

[69] We sent surveys to 32 of the 39 companies that received 80 percent 
of CDSOA payments for fiscal years 2001-2004. Six of the seven 
companies that we did not survey either were no longer in operation or 
had been acquired by another company that did respond to our survey. 
The additional company that we did not survey was required to send back 
its CDSOA payments to CBP due to a CBP overpayment error. Eight of the 
top recipients that we contacted did not respond to our survey. 

[70] To conserve space in table 3 we combined the company responses of 
"very positive" and "positive" into one category for positive effects. 
Similarly we combined the "very negative" and "negative" categories 
into one category for negative effects. 

[71] We were not able to verify the accuracy of statements from these 
CDSOA recipients. 

[72] All CDSOA disbursements are in nominal dollars. We also analyzed 
disbursement data in constant dollars, but the differences between 
disbursements in nominal and constant dollars are minimal given the 
short time span and fairly low inflation rate over the period covered 
by our analysis. 

[73] We were unable to obtain the views of CDSOA non-recipients from 
the steel and DRAMs industries. We also were not able to verify the 
accuracy of statements from CDSOA recipients and non-recipients in 
these seven industries. 

[74] Public information on the comparative size and market share of 
leading bearings producers is limited, but a report by the Department 
of Commerce stated that in 1999, the world's 10 largest producers 
accounted for about 80 percent of total production. 

[75] The ratio of a company's fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements to 
its 2004 new sales may not be representative of this ratio for prior 
fiscal years or of the average ratio of disbursements to net sales for 
the company since CDSOA's inception, because of fluctuations in the 
size of CDSOA disbursements to net sales. Calculating average ratios 
would help take account of these fluctuations, but we did not calculate 
such ratios because we lacked consistent information about 
disbursements and net sales for all CDSOA recipients that responded to 
our case study questions. 

[76] Timken, Emerson Power Transmission, and Pacamor/Kubar Bearings. 

[77] Whereas there are seven CDSOA bearings recipients, in 2003, the 
Census Bureau listed 19 producers of tapered roller bearings and 65 
producers of ball bearings. 

[78] We also sent out and received back a survey from an additional 
company. We did not include this survey in our results because this 
company does not produce bearings within the United States. 

[79] We excluded from our scope companies that make steel-related 
products, such as pipe or tubing, from purchased raw steel. 

[80] In 2003, according to the Census Bureau, there were 226 producers 
of carbon steel, 64 producers of alloy steel, and 74 producers of 
stainless steel in this country. 

[81] We identified the vulnerability of the U.S. steel and 
semiconductor industries (among others) to surging imports in the wake 
of the Asian financial crisis, as well as concerns over dumping and 
subsidies, in a 1999 report to Congress. See GAO, International 
Monetary Fund: Trade Policies of IMF Borrowers, GAO/NSIAD/GGD-99-174 
(Washington, D.C. Jun. 23, 1999), pp. 29-35. 

[82] 19 U.S.C.  2251. 

[83] The ratio of a company's fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements to 
its 2004 new sales may not be representative of this ratio for prior 
fiscal years or of the average ratio of disbursements to net sales for 
the company since CDSOA's inception, because of fluctuations in the 
size of CDSOA disbursements to net sales. Calculating average ratios 
would help account for these fluctuations, but we did not calculate 
such ratios because we lacked consistent information about 
disbursements and net sales for all CDSOA recipients that responded to 
our case study questions. 

[84] These are classified under the North American Industry 
Classification System (NAICS) code, 331111 -Iron and Steel Mills. 

[85] The calculation of the total number of steel companies to receive 
CDSOA funds may include some payments that were received separately by 
different divisions of the same company. In calculating the total 
number of recipient steel companies we added the number of entities to 
receive distributions for steel products, as listed by CBP. 

[86] Whereas there are 69 CDSOA steel recipients, in 2003, the Census 
Bureau listed 226 producers of carbon steel, 64 producers of alloy 
steel, and 74 producers of stainless steel. 

[87] The ITC determined in the original investigation that beeswax 
candles should not be included within the domestic like product. 
Beeswax candles are composed of more than 50 percent beeswax, 
manufactured by U.S. producers principally for religious and specialty 
markets, and priced considerably higher than petroleum wax candles. 

[88] The ratio of a company's fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements to 
its 2004 new sales may not be representative of this ratio for prior 
fiscal years or of the average ratio of disbursements to net sales for 
the company since CDSOA's inception, because of fluctuations in the 
size of CDSOA disbursements to net sales. Calculating average ratios 
would help take account of these fluctuations, but we did not calculate 
such ratios because we lacked consistent information about 
disbursements and net sales for all CDSOA recipients that responded to 
our case study questions. 

[89] Eleven candle companies received CDSOA disbursements during fiscal 
years 2001-2005. According to ITC estimates, the U.S. candle industry 
contains about 400 candle producers and 45 of these producers represent 
approximately 70 percent of the domestic candle industry. 

[90] According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 182 dry pasta 
companies in 2002, down from 249 in 1997. 

[91] Information on U.S. demand for pasta for the 1997-2000 period was 
available from ITC. More recent information was obtained from annual 
assessments of the pasta industry published by Milling & Baking News, a 
trade magazine that follows the pasta industry. 

[92] The orders cover non-egg dry pasta in packages of 5 pounds or 
less. 

[93] The ratio of a company's fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements to 
its 2004 new sales may not be representative of this ratio for prior 
fiscal years or of the average ratio of disbursements to net sales for 
the company since CDSOA's inception, because of fluctuations in the 
size of CDSOA disbursements to net sales. Calculating average ratios 
would help take account of these fluctuations, but we did not calculate 
such ratios because we lacked consistent information about 
disbursements and net sales for all CDSOA recipients that responded to 
our case study questions. 

[94] One recipient had acquired another recipient. 

[95] One company said it lacked information to answer our questions 
because its CDSOA-eligible subsidiary was no longer producing pasta. 

[96] Whereas only 11 pasta recipient companies have received CDSOA 
disbursement, the U.S. Census Bureau identified 182 dry pasta companies 
in its 2002 economic census. See U.S. Census Bureau, Dry Pasta 
Manufacturing: 2002 Economic Census (Washington, D.C. December 2004). 

[97] The Department of Commerce's final determination defines the 
imported merchandise within the scope of its investigation as DRAMs 
from the Republic of Korea (ROK), whether assembled or unassembled. 
Processed wafers fabricated outside of the ROK and assembled into 
finished semiconductors in the ROK are not included in the scope. 

[98] Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. of Korea is associated with Samsung 
Austin Semiconductor LLC in Texas. Wafers fabricated in the Austin 
facility are sent to Samsung facilities in Korea for cased DRAM 
assembly and in some cases module assembly. These do not fall under the 
scope of the order. 

[99] Hynix Semiconductor, Inc. of Korea has two U.S. subsidiaries in 
California and Oregon. However, DRAM wafers fabricated in Oregon are 
sent to Korea for assembly. These do not fall under the scope of the 
order. 

[100] The Department of Commerce determined that the Government of 
Korea directed credit to the Korean semiconductor industry through 1998 
and specifically to Hynix and companies that continue to be, or were 
part of, the Hyundia Group from 1999 through June, 2002. 

[101] The ratio of a company's fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements to 
its 2004 new sales may not be representative of this ratio for prior 
fiscal years or of the average ratio of disbursements to net sales for 
the company since CDSOA's inception, because of fluctuations in the 
size of CDSOA disbursements to net sales. Calculating average ratios 
would help take account of these fluctuations, but we did not calculate 
such ratios because we lacked consistent information about 
disbursements and net sales for all CDSOA recipients that responded to 
our case study questions. 

[102] See ITC, DRAM and DRAM Modules from Korea, Investigation No. 701-
TA-431 (Final), Publication 3616 (Washington, D.C. August 2003). 

[103] According to the ITC, companies that only package DRAMs into DRAM 
modules and fabless design houses do not engage in sufficient 
production-related activities to warrant their inclusion in the 
domestic industry. Nonetheless, ITC included this company in a list of 
domestic producers for the purposes of its investigation. 

[104] See ITC, Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-
752 (Review), Publication 3614 (Washington, D.C. July 2003). 

[105] The ratio of a company's fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursement to 
its 2004 net sales may not be representative of this ratio for prior 
years or of the average ratio of disbursements to net sales for the 
company since CDSOA's inception, because of fluctuations in the size of 
CDSOA disbursements and net sales. Calculating average ratios would 
help take account of these fluctuations, but we did not calculate such 
ratios because we lacked consistent information about disbursements and 
net sales for all CDSOA recipients that responded to our case study 
questions. 

[106] This includes information for two companies based on their fiscal 
year 2003 disbursements and net sales because we lacked information to 
calculate the ratio for fiscal year 2004. 

[107] Precise information about the number of crawfish processors is 
unavailable. According to ITC, more companies are licensed to process 
crawfish than are active in any given year. In a 2003 report to 
evaluate the effects of the order, ITC received information from 42 
crawfish processors, of which 27 were CDSOA recipients. See ITC, 
Crawfish Tail Meat from China, Investigation No. 731-TA-752 (Review), 
Publication 3614 (Washington, D.C. July 2003). 

[108] We sent surveys to all current processors that we identified, 
with the exception of one company that had just entered the business 
and felt it lacked perspective on the questions. Included in the 
definition of current processors are certain companies that are not 
currently employing people to process tail meat but that continue to 
hold licenses to process crawfish and/or have engaged other companies 
to process tail meat on their behalf. We also sent surveys to former 
processors that had processed tail meat at any time since 2002, when 
CDSOA disbursements to this industry began. 

[109] The ratio of a company's fiscal year 2004 CDSOA disbursements to 
its 2004 new sales may not be representative of this ratio for prior 
fiscal years or of the average ratio of disbursements to net sales for 
the company since CDSOA's inception, because of fluctuations in the 
size of CDSOA disbursements to net sales. Calculating average ratios 
would help take account of these fluctuations, but we did not calculate 
such ratios because we lacked consistent information about 
disbursements and net sales for all CDSOA recipients that responded to 
our case study questions. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: