Anti-dumping Disputes Research Articles

Article 17.6(ii) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement: Waiting for Chekhov’s Gun to Go Off

Abstract Article 17.6(ii) of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement is a one-of-a-kind treaty norm that sets out a deferential standard of review for issues of law by requiring panels to accept any ‘permissible’ interpretation. The Appellate Body’s approach to analysis under Article 17.6(ii), which precluded a finding of two competing interpretations being permissible, has long remained a point of criticism by the USA, a frequent respondent in anti-dumping disputes. In the wake of the first arbitration award under the Multi-Party Interim Appeal Arbitration Aarrangement (MPIA), which seeks to give more effect to the deferential standard of review, this article emphasizes the unprecedented character of Article 17.6(ii) in international law, argues that expectations of how it would operate arose from a misapprehension of Chevron deference in US law and that the whole issue may be another reason for having a separate dispute settlement track for trade remedies.

PTAs and the incidence of antidumping disputes

We analyze whether preferential trade agreements (PTAs) affect the incidence and pattern of antidumping (AD) filings. We find PTA membership results in a 29 percent (15 percent) decrease in the incidence of intra-PTA AD actions (measures). We then exploit variation in the content of PTAs and find the reduction is due to PTAs with explicit AD rules. We find that intra-PTA AD filings (measures) decrease by about 46 percent (34 percent) for PTAs with explicit AD rules. Our results are robust in controlling for other PTA-related phenomena, the emergence of China as the largest target of AD actions, and the role played by EU and US PTAs. Our findings highlight the effectiveness of PTA AD rules in curbing AD disputes among members.

Comments on United States – investigation of the International Trade Commission in softwood lumber from Canada, recourse to article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada

This article is based on United States – investigation of the International Trade Commission in softwood lumber from Canada, recourse to article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada（WT/DS277/AB/RW）panel and Based on the report of the Appellate Body, it analyzed the case and proposed to amend the Anti-dumping Agreement and improve domestic laws to reduce anti-dumping disputes.

Under Pressure: Intractable Trade Conflicts and Korea – Pneumatic Valves

AbstractThe Appellate Body (AB) report in Korea–Pneumatic Valves is among the most structurally complex of recent trade remedies reports. The AB weaves a complicated web to explicate the intricacies of the relationship among the relevant provisions on injury determination in anti-dumping disputes in the midst of a contentious and long-running series of disputes between two close regional trading powers. This Article first examines the Korean investigation and its significance in economic terms. Second, it analyzes the AB's conclusions on Article 6.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding regarding the panel request and the significance of the AB's treatment. Third, it studies the AB's comments on the panel's anti-dumping calculations where the AB amplifies its prior pronouncements on the elements of injury and causation. Finally, the Article situates this dispute in the broader political debates playing out both at the AB and between the two disputing parties.

Under Pressure: Intractable Trade Conflicts and Korea -- Pneumatic Valves

The Appellate Body (AB) report in Korea -- Pneumatic Valves is among the most structurally complex of recent trade remedies reports. The AB weaves a complicated web to explicate the intricacies of the relationship among the relevant provisions on injury determination in anti-dumping disputes in the midst of a contentious and long-running series of disputes between two close regional trading powers. This Article first examines the Korean investigation and its significance in economic terms. Second, it analyzes the AB’s conclusions on Article 6.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding regarding the panel request and the significance of the AB’s treatment. Third, it studies the AB’s comments on the panel’s anti-dumping calculations where the AB amplifies its prior pronouncements on the elements of injury and causation. Finally, the Article situates this dispute in the broader political debates playing out both at the AB and between the two disputing parties.

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT BETWEEN INDONESIA AND SOUTH KOREA (Allegations of Dumping Practice by Indonesia on Paper Products)

<p>This research entitled Dispute Settlement Between Indonesia and South Korea (Allegation of Dumping Practice by Indonesia on Paper Product) aims to analyze the dispute settlement between Indonesia and South Korea on the allegations of dumping practice. The research method is Juridical Normative. Indonesia is one of the WTO members which have ratified the Agreement Establishing the WTO by Law Number 7 in 1994. It means that Indonesia is a subject to the provisions of the WTO including the provisions on anti-dumping disputes. On 30 September 2002, Indonesia and South Korea were involved in the import duty case of anti-dumping paper products. It was occurred when a South Korean paper industry proposed anti-dumping petitions against Indonesian paper products to the Korean Trade Commission (KTC). The Indonesian paper products are charged with dumping including 16 products which belong to the group of uncoated paper and paper board used for writing, printing, or other graphic purpose and carbon paper, self-copy paper and other copying.</p>

Transforming Legal Capacity in Brazil: International Trade Law and the Myth of a Booming Practice

We claim that the initial capacity building efforts actually created an oversupply of trade law experts in Brazil. With the decline of WTO litigation work, these lawyers needed to find other areas to use their professional skills. The survival of these highly-specialized lawyers has required boldness and a shrewd approach to remodeling their own legal capacity to meet market demands. In sum, this practice has gravitated to trade remedies (defesa comercial), in particular, anti-dumping disputes that have been brought under Brazilian law. Demands made by Brazilian and foreign clients interested in applying anti-dumping measures, along with the creativeness of the professionals in this area burgeoned new organizational models for legal practice in international trade law in Brazil. As we show in this paper, Brazilian lawyers in this field have increasingly participated in global consulting networks, created “foreign desks” in large law firms, worked at firms specialized in government relations, and lobbied government agencies.

China's WTO participation in anti-dumping disputes (2001-2011)

The anti-dumping war between the US and China has attracted much attention lately, especially after a March WTO ruling and a November US domestic court ruling on the issue in 2011. While the former held that the current US method of applying countervailing and anti-dumping duties simultaneously on imports from China and other non-market economies was 'inconsistent' with the WTO rules, the latter ruled that such action was 'illegal' under the US countervailing law. China has been one of the most frequent anti-dumping investigation targets by both developed and developing countries for decades. Although it currently has more than one hundred anti-dumping actions against its trading partners at the domestic level, China is a very new player of anti-dumping litigation at the WTO level. China filed its first WTO claim on anti-dumping in December 2007 against the US, since when it has made frequent appearance at the WTO dispute settlement in this regard. This Article examines China's participation in anti-dumping disputes during the first ten years of its WTO membership, five as complainant and four as respondent. The alleged undervalued Chinese currency has been claimed to provide unfair price advantages to Chinese products and consequently tops trade frictions between China and its trading partners. It to some extent contributes to the rising anti-dumping disputes of China. With the continuing pressure to appreciate the Chinese currency globally as well as the current debit crisis in the EU, more anti-dumping and countervailing investigations against China are expected to emerge as countries are pushing more exports to assist the gloomy domestic economies. This becomes more likely taking into account the mounting claims on the job lost in the US due to the flux of cheap and competitive Chinese products.

Mapping Anti-Dumping Disputes from 1995 to 2011: The Changing Pattern

Anti-dumping is one of the most frequently litigated areas under the WTO agreements. While battles on this front were previously the domain of developed economies, the last decade has seen significant changes in this front. This paper examines these changes. It shows that while there has been a significant decline in such disputes between the developed economies, this has been more than offset by the increase in disputes between developed and developing economies. These changes highlight at least three developments: the successful globalization of the world's economies, the increasing competition as between the world's economies (both developed and developing), and the increasing might of the advanced developing economies - all of which augurs well for the growth of world trade - bearing in mind that anti-dumping is essentially a weapon of offence. These developments suggest that anti-dumping disputes will no doubt continue to be a bone of contention as between the major trading nations.

Standard of Review of Dispute Settlement Body (WTO) in Anti-Dumping Disputes

Contrasted from the international regime, the 'Dispute Settlement Understanding' of the World Trade Organisation stands aloof from other multilateral dispute settlement provisions in the sense that it is the only mechanism having compulsory jurisdiction over all the Members and its decision requiring complete compliance at both the national and international plane. The structuring of the WTO has been such that the Members are required to streamline their national laws and policies as compatible to the WTO norms and obligations. Article XXII and XXIII of the GATT, read with the provisions of the DSU, require the establishment of Panels to look into the complaints of the Members vis-a-vis each other as regards (i) 'violation' nullification or impairment action, (ii) 'non-violation' nullification or impairment action, or (iii) 'any other situation' action, as regards international trade transactions under the WTO are concerned. The standards adopted by these Panels to adjudge these claims, therefore, assume huge significance. This paper seeks to analyse one such specific standard of review, as applicable to the evaluation of municipal investigating authorities' anti-dumping determinations by the WTO Panels. Quiet peculiar to the WTO dispute settlement system, a specific standard of review has been prescribed towards this end in the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the same forms the basis of analysis in the paper. This paper attempts to trace the factual and legal necessities compelling such a standard and the outcome of its application thereof. The chapterization of the paper is as under; I. Introduction II. Standard of Review: Meaning and Connotation (A) What is standard of review? (B) Why standard of review? (C) DSU provisions on Standard of Review III. Standard of Review in Anti-Dumping Disputes (A) Background (B) Text of Article 17.6 (C) DSB interpretation of Article 17.6 a. Clause (i) b. Clause (ii) (D) Article 17.6: Reform and future IV. Conclusion V. Select Bibliography

Anti-Dumping Disputes in the GATT/WTO – Navigating Dire Straits

“Over the last fifteen years, many countries have come to recognize the crucial vole that dispute settlement plays for any treaty system. This is particularly the case for a treaty system designed to address the myriad of economic questions of international relations today and to facilitate the cooperation among nations that is essential to the peaceful and welfare-enhancing vole of these relations. Dispute settlement procedures assist in making rules effective, thereby adding an essential measure of predictability and effectiveness for the operation of a rule-oriented system in the otherwise relatively weak realm of international norms.” J.H. Jackson and S. Croley “. . . dispute settlement in the area of anti-dumping will be one of the major challenges facing the WTO system. . . In view of the factual and legal complexity of the issues typically raised in disputes in the area of anti-dumping, effective implementation of this more judicial dispute settlement process will not be an easy task.” Mark Koulen