- UID
- 278425
- 在线时间
- 小时
- 注册时间
- 2007-9-25
- 最后登录
- 1970-1-1
- 主题
- 帖子
- 性别
- 保密
|
文章好像看明白了，题目做了三遍，第一遍只对了一题，第二遍错了两题，第三遍虽然全对了，可是看文章第三四段还是有点晕。文章第三段说(20) Internationalization increases the danger that foreign
companies will use import relief laws against the very
companies the laws were designed to protect。然后suppos了一个situation(a United States-owned company and its competitor) to show how the import relief might hurt the American company.a United States-owned company and its competitor到底是哪一种公司是the import relief tries to protect？包括第四段举例的公司，到底是哪一种公司是the import relief tries to protect？
Many United States companies have, unfortunately,
made the search for legal protection from import
competition into a major line of work. Since 1980 the
United States International Trade Commission (ITC)
(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 United States at
“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 United States. If the
competitor can prove injury from the imports---and
that the United States company received a subsidy from
a foreign government to build its plant abroad—the
United States company’s products will be uncompeti-
(30) tive in the United States, since they would be subject to
duties.
Perhaps the most brazen case occurred when the ITC
investigated allegations that Canadian companies were
injuring the United States salt industry by dumping
(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 Chicago firm that was the
second-largest domestic producer of rock salt. |
|
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2010-1-20 02:22:51
收藏
收藏
