Many
made the search for legal protection from import
competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the
(5) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage
from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign
governments. Another 340 charge that foreign compa-
nies “dumped” their products in the
“less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices
(10) are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been
injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
Contrary to the general impression, this quest for
import relief has hurt more companies than it has
helped. As corporations begin to function globally, they
(15) develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and
research relationships, The complexity of these relation-
ships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief
laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under
the same parent company.
(20) Internationalization increases the danger that foreign
companies will use import relief laws against the very
companies the laws were designed to protect. Suppose a
United States-owned company establishes an overseas
plant to manufacture a product while its competitor
(25) makes the same product in the
competitor can prove injury from the imports---and
that the
a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the
(30) tive in the
duties.
Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC
investigated allegations that Canadian companies were
injuring the
(35) rock salt, used to de-ice roads. The bizarre aspect of the
complaint was that a foreign conglomerate with United
States operations was crying for help against a United
States company with foreign operations. The “United
States” company claiming injury was a subsidiary of a
(40) Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies
included a subsidiary of a
second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.
这篇文章不知道为什么我读的非常晕。整篇的文章的结构搞不清,三段首句中的import relief到底是什么意思啊,题目中有三道考到这句话,真的郁闷死了。
大家给我点意见吧!谢谢
输了一堆,全没有了!呜呜!
Again.
P1 presents an economic phenomenon that many american companies seek for import relief when facing import competition, and then states that this quest for import relief has hurt more companies than it has helped and lists some reasons.
P2 states that internationalization increases the danger that foreign companies will use import relief laws against the very companies the laws were designed to protect and gives examples.
So I think this passage is a phenomenon explanation, explaning that import relief will hurt american companies themself when internationalization increases.
Even when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
这句话怎么理解呀???
Even
when no unfair practices are alleged, the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief.
即使没有不公平的实践的声明,只要简单的讲该行业被进口伤害已足够寻求保护.
minimal basis 是否可理解为本impossible basis?
理解为sufficient grounds 更好.
欢迎光临 ChaseDream (https://forum.chasedream.com/) | Powered by Discuz! X3.3 |