Peter Harrell
Role at the time: Lawyer and international economic-policy specialist
Condemned
Statement summary
Harrell finds persuasive the arguments that Canada's acts are not discrimination under the statute and that the tariffs do not offset it, and says they would at least significantly narrow the tariffs.
“I have written about Section 338 elsewhere and I find these arguments persuasive: Canada's acts that are the purported basis for the Section 338 tariffs are not "discrimination" within the meaning of the statute, and the tariffs do not "offset" the burden of the discrimination. At the very least, these arguments would mean a significant narrowing of the tariffs.”
Read the original post (opens in a new tab)Peter Harrell finds key arguments against the Section 338 tariffs persuasive · Peter HarrellPost 2112621419301409179
Peter Harrell's post comments on imposing the Section 338 Canada tariffs. Harrell analyzes Gellert's complaint and distinguishes several legal arguments.
Why we used this label
Relative to imposing the Section 338 tariffs, Harrell finds the arguments against their statutory basis persuasive. His uncertainty about the litigation does not express support for the tariffs.