Question

Q.2 Passage: (10M)
Read the following comprehension and answer the questions that follow:-
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.

Summarize the above passage in 50-60 words:-

Answer 1

Answer:

(A) Companies in the United States may receive no protection from imports unless they actively seek protection from import competition.

(B) Companies that seek legal protection from import competition may incur legal costs that far exceed any possible gain.

(C) Companies that are United States-owned but operate internationally may not be eligible for protection from import competition under the laws of the countries in which their plants operate.

(D) Companies that are not United States-owned may seek legal protection from import competition under United States import relief laws.

(E) Companies in the United States that import raw materials may have to pay duties on those materials