Abstract

The Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (Anti-Dumping Agreement), permits the imposition of anti-dumping duties for as long and to the extent necessary to counteract dumping which is causing injury subject to the proviso that they must be terminated after five years unless a sunset review has been initiated. Sunset review has the purpose of either permitting or terminating the continuation of an anti-dumping duty. This is significant because if the sunset review is not initiated prior to the expiry of the five year period, the anti-dumping duties will be terminated.
 Therefore, this places a greater emphasis on the determination of the precise date of commencement of the anti-dumping duties. This is because an incorrect determination of the date of imposition of the anti-dumping duty has obvious financial implications for the interested parties. To this end, the Supreme Court of Appeal in South Africa has delivered two salient judgments in this regard: firstly, in Progress Office Machines CC v SARS, and then more recently, in Association of Meat Importers v ITAC. These two cases hinge on the interpretation of the date of 'imposition' of definitive anti-dumping duties particularly where provisional measures are involved, which invariably determines the date of expiry of the duties as espoused by Regulations 38 and 53 of the International Trade Administration Commission Anti-Dumping Regulations.
 This paper contends that these two judgments are conflicting and riddled with inconsistencies. Secondly, the paper contends that the SCA has in the recent AMIE case, virtually rewritten its earlier judgment of Progress Office Machines. Lastly, the paper shows that the approach of South African courts on whether the Anti-Dumping Agreement is binding on South African law, is fraught with uncertainty and an ambivalence .The case analysis also reflects on the impact of the newly minted but yet to be implemented, Customs Duty Act, with a view to assess the impact of the new legislation on the issues currently plaguing the anti-dumping regime of South Africa. 
 

Highlights

  • The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994) (GATT) works in tandem with the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994) (Anti-Dumping Agreement or ADA), to regulate the practice of "dumping"

  • Article 13 of the ADA. Article 11.2 of the ADA. Article 11.2 of the ADA. It appears that international trade law disputes will continue to be decided according to the law as interpreted by the litigants and not the courts

  • This is because the courts have proven malleable to the claims of the litigants on disputes pertaining to dumping and have permitted them to proceed on grounds which may or may not have legal merit

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994) (GATT) works in tandem with the Agreement on the Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1994) (Anti-Dumping Agreement or ADA), to regulate the practice of "dumping". This is significant because the courts in South Africa lean towards disregarding the date from which the provisional payments are imposed in the determination of the overall period of operation of the anti-dumping duties To this end, the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has delivered two significant judgments: firstly in Progress Office Machines v the South African Revenue Service (POM hereafter) and more recently, in Association of Meat Importers v ITAC (AMIE hereafter).. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) has delivered two significant judgments: firstly in Progress Office Machines v the South African Revenue Service (POM hereafter) and more recently, in Association of Meat Importers v ITAC (AMIE hereafter).20 These two cases hinge on the interpretation of the date of the "imposition" of definitive antidumping duties, where provisional measures are involved, which invariably determine the date of expiry of the duties as espoused by Regulations 38 and 53 of the Regulations. In a bid to offer a holistic view, the paper reflects on the impact of the CDA with a view to assessing the impact of the new legislation on the issues currently plaguing the anti-dumping regime of South Africa

Factual background
The central legal issue in Progress Office Machines
Deference to the litigants
The Regulations
Ratification or not
Conclusion
Literature
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call