Anti-Dumping Agreement Research Articles

Article 2(5) of the Basic Regulation and the adjustment of production costs in the light of the Anti-Dumping Agreement

The article analyses the practise of the European institutions under Article 2(5), second paragraph of the Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, whereby in determining normal value in anti-dumping investigations the actual production costs of exporting producers are adjusted or replaced by costs incurred by third-country producers when input costs are deemed not to reasonably reflect market prices. This will be systematically done where input costs are significantly below export or world market prices. The author considers the consistency of this provision with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

A Study on Effect and Legitimacy of Zeroing on the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement- Focusing on US-Orange Juice case -

A Study on Effect and Legitimacy of Zeroing on the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement- Focusing on US-Orange Juice case -

Imposition of Antidumping Duty (BAMD) Towards China’s Cold Rolled Coil/Sheet (CRC/S) Products

Steel industry is a strategic sector in the economy of a country. Steel industry in Indonesia has not been able to fulfill their domestic demand that is still necessary to import steel product. However, many of these imported products are sold at dumping prices, especially those from china giving rise to unfair trade. One of trade remedy measures as a result of unfair trade remedies can recover trough the imposition of antidumping duty. In 2013, Indonesia imposes antidumping duty for Cold Rolled Coil/Sheet (CRC/S) from China and other countries. Imposition of antidumping duty will be analyzed descriptively with the antidumping agreement conformity. While, it cannot be denied that political factors also determine imposition of antidumping duty. It is need to use analytical theory of justice in order to enforce fair-trade

China Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States: How the Chickens Came Home to Roost

The WTO panel report on China – Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States was circulated to Members on 2 August 2013. In the report the Panel examined a variety of issues challenged by the United States under various provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the Anti-dumping Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Panel upheld the United States’ claims on the majority of the issues, which covered certain procedural aspects of the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations such as the right to disclosure of essential facts, as well as the substantive determinations including costing issues, the imposition of the all others rate on the basis of facts available, the price effects’ analyses, the sufficiency of the public notices and others. Notably the costing issues that came up in the case, although decided mostly on procedural grounds, provide food for thought and are likely to feature again in future disputes.

Effects of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement on South African case law

In comparison with other countries in the SADC region, South African courts have relatively been active in developing World Trade Organization (WTO) law in the municipal context. This development has widely been confined to dumping/anti-dumping matters and to a very limited extent, safeguards measures. In this paper, I critically analyse one contentious case, namely, Progress Office Machines CC v South African Revenue Services and come to the inescapable conclusion that the decision in the case was wrong. Such a conclusion is borne out of the fact that the Court’s ruling had no textual basis either at WTO law or municipal law. The above criticism notwithstanding, the judgement does make a modest contribution to the development of South African jurisprudence on the subject of dumping/anti-dumping. Therefore, the decision has both positive and negative aspects which this paper attempts to highlights in a balanced critical manner.

United States – Use of Zeroing in Anti-Dumping Measures Involving Products from Korea:It's déjà vu all over again

AbstractThis paper analyzes the dispute between Korea and the United States regarding the method of calculating anti-dumping duties. The case mirrors other recent WTO disputes involving zeroing. Even though it ceased zeroing in original investigations in December 2006, the United States implemented the policy change only prospectively. As a result, the margins applied to the products in this dispute remained unchanged because they had been calculated prior to the policy change. The United States did not contest Korea's claims. The Panel confirmed that zeroing was used and, following the long line of Panel and Appellate Body rulings, found the practice inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. After the Panel Report was adopted, the United States recalculated the margins without zeroing. It, however, refused to refund unliquidated cash deposits that were based on zeroing, highlighting the United States's continued lukewarm compliance with WTO rulings on zeroing. This dispute offers an opportunity to ponder on weaknesses of the WTO Dispute Settlement and the ability of one Member to take advantage of it. Since the facts and their legal assessment were undisputed, why was litigation necessary? Can compliance with WTO law be improved with broader findings and more incisive remedies?

US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam: A Stir-Fry of Seafood, Statistics, and Lacunae

AbstractThis unappealed Panel Report deals with now standard controversies involving US zeroing practices, but also involves a number of novel problems in administrative reviews of US anti-dumping orders that transcend zeroing issues. Most importantly, this dispute highlights the economic, legal, and statistical importance of sample-selection bias when calculating ‘all others’ rates for exporters that were not queried during dumping investigations. Sampling is particularly problematic in this dispute since US investigators found only zero and de minimis margins in the administrative reviews, a situation in which the relevant provision of the Anti-Dumping Agreement appears to provide no guidance (an apparent ‘lacuna’). The Panel did not directly deal with the key sample-selection issues in the case, and so we provide an alternative legal and statistical analysis. These issues are likely to become more important as the practice of zeroing is phased out in the United States. Indeed, sampling may well be the new zeroing.

South Africa and the World Trade Organisation Anti-Dumping Agreement

This paper explores and analyses the position of South Africa in relation to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) dispute Settlement system, especially as the most active African WTO member in the application of WTO rules to disputes in the municipal (domestic) context. Despite being a relatively ‘developed’ member when compared to other African countries, South Africa’s experiences and problems in using the WTO dispute settlement system are similar to those of many other developing countries. The most commonly cited problems facing developing countries including South Africa are the expensive litigation costs, lack of technical capacity, the fear of retaliation and limited, if not inappropriate remedies. However, despite the specific problems mentioned above, in comparison with other countries in the SADC region, South African courts have relatively been active in developing WTO law in the municipal context. This development has widely been confined to dumping/anti-dumping matters hence this paper critically analyses selected disputes in that context and concludes that despite the modest contribution, South African judges have to a large extent succeeded in municipalising WTO law.

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

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.

Administrative and Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Determinations in Brazil

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.

Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Measures in China

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.

Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Determinations in the United States

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.

Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Determinations in Mexico

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.

Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Determinations in Canada

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.

Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Determinations in Indonesia

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.

Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Actions Country Study: India

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.

Judicial Review of Trade Remedy Determinations in Ten User Countries

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.

Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Determinations in the EU

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.

Administrative and Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Measures in Australia

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.

United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Polyethylene Retail Carrier Bags from Thailand: a cat in the bag

AbstractThis paper analyzes the dispute between Thailand and the United States regarding the method of calculating the anti-dumping duty on polyethylene retail carrier bags from Thailand. In December 2006, after a series of WTO Appellate Body reports, the United States ceased zeroing in original investigations. The United States implemented the policy change prospectively, that is only for future cases. Consequently, the margins in this case remained unchanged because they had been calculated in 2004. Thailand challenged the United States' use of zeroing in the final determination. The US did not contest the claim. The Panel confirmed that zeroing was used and, following the long line of Appellate Body rulings, found the United States' practice inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. After the Panel Report was adopted, the United States retroactively applied the policy change to the facts of this case and recalculated the margins without zeroing. The relative simplicity of the panel proceeding and the United States' willingness to amend the calculations following the adoption of the Panel Report may invite other WTO members to pursue a similar course of action in instances where their exporters have been subjected to US zeroing.