Which of the following is the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission, as inferred from the passage?

a foreign competitor has received a subsidy from a foreign government.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

a foreign competitor has substantially increased the volume of products shipped to the United States.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

a foreign competitor is selling products in the United States at less than fair market value.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

the company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States.

Right on! Give the BNAT exam to get a 100% scholarship for BYJUS courses

the company requesting import relief has been barred from exporting products to the country of its foreign competitor.

No worries! We‘ve got your back. Try BYJU‘S free classes today!

Open in App

Solution

The correct option is D
the company requesting import relief has been injured by the sale of imports in the United States.

Bases for complaints to the International Trade Commission are discussed in the first paragraph. The author mentions the two specific kinds of complaints (about imports benefiting from subsidies provided by foreign government sand about “dumping”), but goes on to conclude the paragraph with the comment that “the simple claim that an industry has been injured by imports is sufficient grounds to seek relief”. That a “simple claim” is “sufficient grounds to seek relief” suggest that the minimal basis for a complaint to the ITC is an injury from the sale of imports in the United States. The situations in the remaining choices are not discussed in the passage.

Suggest Corrections

Similar questions

Q. 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) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit from subsidies by foreign governments. Another 340 charge that foreign companies “dumped” their products in the United States at “less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices 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 develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.
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 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 uncompetitive 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 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 Dutch conglomerate, while the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.
Q. It can be inferred from the passage that the minimal basis for a complaint to the International Trade Commission is which of the following?

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) has received about 280 complaints alleging damage from imports that benefit foreign governments’ subsidies. Another 340 charge that foreign companies “dumped” their products in the United States at “less than fair value.” Even when no unfair practices 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 develop an intricate web of marketing, production, and research relationships. The complexity of these relationships makes it unlikely that a system of import relief laws will meet the strategic needs of all the units under the same parent company.

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 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 uncompetitive 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 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 the injury was a subsidiary of a Dutch conglomerate. In contrast, the “Canadian” companies included a subsidiary of a Chicago firm that was the second-largest domestic producer of rock salt.

Q. As per the passage, which of the following is the second-largest producer of rock salt?

An established pharmaceutical company from the United States has done scanning of its business environment and realises the following factors of potential growth in India.

(i) Government in India is encouraging NRIs and foreign investors to invest in Indian companies.

(ii) There would be an improvement in the quality of life of people in India.

(iii) The ruling party is encouraging the foreign companies in India.

(iv) A law has been passed in the parliament relating to delicensing policy on industries.

(v) Procedure for import and export of technology has been simplified.

What are the various dimensions of the business environment? Give an example of each.

Consider the following statements:

1. Sporadic dumping is selling of goods at a low price in the foreign market to get rid of the inventory stocks.

2. Predatory dumping is selling a product at a lower price in foreign markets due to differences in elasticity of demand at home and in the foreign market.

3. Persistent dumping is destroying of competitors even at a loss initially and then, after eliminating of competitors, selling product at a high price.

Which of the above statements are correct?

Q. Select the proper option from the options given below and rewrite the sentences.

Selling of products to a foreign country directly through its distribution arrangements or through a host (another) country's company is ________.

(a) Direct Exporting
(b) Indirect Exporting
(c) Importing

Join BYJU'S Learning Program