Once a US company takes legal action against a foreign importer "dumping" product into the USA, the company can claim money back from the government for certain expenses. These include investment in manufacturing facilities and the acquisition of technology.

This provides a direct financial reward for filing antidumping or anti-subsidy complaints: in effect, it's another illegal subsidy that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has already ruled illegal.

The WTO set a deadline for the USA to bring the Byrd Amendment into conformity with WTO rules expired on December 27, 2003.

So the EU has requested WTO authorisation to impose sanctions.

And, says Howard Pridding, executive director of the British Marine Federation (BMF), the easiest way for the EU to determine the goods upon which sanctions will be levied is to use the same tariff codes from the original steel dispute.

There is, however, a ray of light here in that Pridding has already been lobbying the UK government through the DTI.

"The government has already responded to our lobbying and made representations to Brussels to have recreational craft taken off the list of goods likely to be involved in the sanctions."

Pridding went on to say this dispute seems to be "not as big as the steel dispute" and should involve less companies.