On the other hand, the major industrial organizations in the United States do not want to renew the treaty. The executive director of the U.S. coalition on wood Zoltan Van Heyningen expressed his disapproval of the current format of the agreement. One reason is the changing cost of wood, which the United States says is not reflected in the cost of B.C. The U.S. Wood Coalition points out that if negotiations fail, it is certainly legally entitled to file a petition with the U.S. Department of Commerce to file a new case. „While this reduction in tariffs will bring urgent relief to our industry, all tariffs imposed on our softwood exports to the United States are unjustified,“ he said in a statement. On April 15, 2005, Canadian Trade Minister Jim Peterson announced that the federal government would provide $20 million to Canadian conifer timber associations to offset their legal costs related to the litigation with the United States. In the same year, another NAFTA Chapter 19 body reviewed the USITC`s conclusion that the U.S. lumber industry is threatened by Canadian imports.
Since the United States ceded jurisdiction to the World Trade Organization, the U.S. government had to find that a domestic industry had been harmed or threatened to be violated before countervailing duties could be imposed. The NAFTA committee found that the USITC`s determination was null and void. In addition, the group made the controversial decision to deny the USITC the reopening of the administrative protocol and ordered the USITC to issue a negative provision based on the existing data set. Unlike during the lumber III phase, the decision of this body was unanimous. However, the U.S. government challenged its decision before an extraordinary challenge committee which, on August 10, 2005, unanimously decided against the United States and found that the determination of the NAFTA body was not valid enough to require deportation or remand under NAFTA standards. However, in the event of a positive anti-dumping duty on June 23, cash deposits on this right are recovered for up to six months after publication in the Federal Register. Therefore, if an interim AD obligation comes into effect in early July, it could be collected by early January 2018. Three days after the softwood agreements on wood expired, the U.S.
wood industry applied for countervailing duties from the Department of Commerce.  In addition, for the first time, the U.S. industry has filed an anti-dumping action and argues that Canadian wood companies also discriminate unfairly in terms of price. On April 25, 2002, the U.S. company DoC announced that it had set subsidy and anti-dumping rates of 18.79% and 8.43% to reach a combined rate of 27.22%, although different rates were calculated for some companies. Up to February 26, 2003, 15,000 workers were laid off, mainly in British Columbia, because of U.S. tariffs.  As in the aluminum sector, Canadian exports play a crucial role in the United States, where demand for wood is significantly higher than domestic supply. Q: Who applies tariffs on Canadian timber transportation to the United States? A: The U.S. government collects tariffs, and as soon as the entire investigation and appeal process is complete, the tariffs are paid to the U.S. Treasury.
On April 25, 2017, the Trump administration announced plans to impose tariffs of up to 24% on most Canadian wood species and demanded that timber companies be subsidized by the government.  The tasks apply to the five companies: West Fraser Mills, Tolko Marketing and Sales, J. D. Irving, Canfor Corporation and Resolute FP Canada. West Fraser Mills pays the highest tax of 24%.  The beginnings of the conifer timber conflict, commonly known as Lumber I, were in 1982, when the United States.