Anti-dumping and Judicial Review in South Africa: An Urgent Need for Change

Abstract

This collection of articles analyses the problems with judicial review of trade remedy determinations in ten user countries - Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States - and is a follow-up to similar studies in 2004 and 2007 respectively. Each article succinctly describes the major problems with judicial review in their jurisdictions covering the period from 2001 to 2010 with an aim to examine the effectiveness of judicial review (and/or, where applicable, review by an administrative tribunal) of trade remedy determinations in the light of Article 13 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Two problems have been underlined: (1) the excessively long duration of the judicial review procedures; and (2) the considerable deference given to the administrative authorities on substantive issues by the courts typically on account of the technicality of the anti-dumping determinations and the absence of expert judges versed with trade remedy laws. These two problems have deeply impacted the effectiveness of the judicial review systems in most jurisdictions investigated and the situation is far from what is envisaged in Article 13 of the ADA. Both problems are related to the absence of specialized courts and chambers with judges trained in trade remedy laws. In contrast, the United States and India - the only two countries that have specialized courts - have effective judicial review systems. For the ten year period covered by this study, the ten countries investigated can be divided into two groups as regards the recourse to judicial review of anti-dumping determinations. One group comprises the European Union, India, Mexico and the United States where judicial review of anti-dumping determinations has been frequent. The second group comprises the remaining countries namely Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Indonesia and South Africa where judicial reviews have been more limited. In fact the judicial review systems for trade remedy determinations in countries such as China and Indonesia are in the early stages of development.