Anda di halaman 1dari 82

Antidumping law, as practiced today, is a witches brew of the worst of policy making: power politics, bad economics, and

shameful public administration

Finger, J. Michael, Editor, Antidumping How It Works and Who Gets Hurt,
Group 3 SIIB AB

What is meant by DUMPING ? How is dumping measured ? The role of material injury and de-menimis in AD The steps in an AD investigation and duty imposition A brief history of AD Various minuses of the AD measurement laws. AD Duties and their IMPACT. Increasing use of AD in WTO Top 10 users of AD in the world. Case study And hence make u agree or disagree with Finger, J. Michael.

Group 3 SIIB AB 2

Group 3 SIIB AB 3

Dumping is a situation of international price discrimination, where the price of a product when sold to the importing country is less than the price of the same product when sold in the market of the exporting country.

Group 3 SIIB AB

As a short-term predatory pricing strategy to drive competitors out of the market As a result of market intervention or state subsidies that enable companies to artificially lower their prices

Group 3 SIIB AB

When the price causes or threatens to cause material injury to the domestic industry of the importing country can there be an action against dumping.
An anti-dumping investigation can be started only if there is a written complaint on behalf of the domestic industry.(a significant share of the domestic producers have to support the complaint).
Group 3 SIIB AB 6

Normal Value: The comparable price at which the goods under complaint are sold in the domestic market of the exporting country.

domestic sales comparable representative export price to an appropriate third country. constructed normal value, i.e. the cost of production in the country of origin with reasonable addition for administrative, selling and general costs and reasonable profits.

Group 3 SIIB AB 7

Can be determined by:

Export price: The price at which it is exported to the importing country. Dumping Margin: The margin of dumping is the difference between the Normal value and the export price of the goods under complaint. It is generally expressed as a percentage of the export price.

Group 3 SIIB AB

Compare Exporter Price to Normal Value

Exporters Price

Normal Value

Normal Value Exporter Price Difference Attributable to Dumping Dumping Margin Difference Attributable = to Dumping/exporter price

$110.00 $90.00 $20.00

$20.00 / $90.00=22.22%

Group 3 SIIB AB

fundamental parameters are determined. a) Normal domestic selling price of the product or similar products in the exporting country. b) Export price being offered in the importing country. Both these elements have to be compared at the same level of trade, generally at exfactory level, for assessment of dumping.
Group 3 SIIB AB 10

Domestic price of exporter > export

price Dumping = price discrimination between national markets

Group 3 SIIB AB


o o o o o o o o

Injury parameters include factors such as:

Actual or potential decline in sales Loss of profits Market share Capacity utilization Employment Wages Ability to raise capital Lost contracts
Group 3 SIIB AB 12

NIP is that level of price, which the industry is, expected to have charged under normal circumstances in the exporter market during the period defined. The Injury Margin is the difference between the Non-Injurious Price due to the Domestic Industry and the Landed Value of the dumped imports.
Group 3 SIIB AB 13

Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994)

Group 3 SIIB AB


Based on article VI of GATT, 1994 Customs tariff act, 1975 sec 9A, 9B (as amended in 1995) Investigations by designated authority, Ministry of Commerce Imposition and collection by Ministry of Finance

Group 3 SIIB AB


Export price and normal value must be compared at he same level of trade, such as at the ex-factory level allowance made for differences that effect price comparability. These are Physical characteristics Taxation Quantities etc..
Group 3 SIIB AB 16

In the 19th century European Sugar Industries appealed to their respective governments for protection against sugar being dumped at unfairly low prices. In 1902, there was a formal agreement on antidumping. Canada adopted the first anti-dumping law in 1904 followed by the European countries and then the US in 1916. Formed the basis for the original GATT article (Article VI of GATT) on anti-dumping in 1947.

Group 3 SIIB AB



codes on anti dumping were developed during the Kennedy Round (1962-67) and Tokyo Round (1973-79).
these were not binding on all GATT members; they were open to signature by those countries that wished to do so. the Uruguay Round, (1986-94) anti-dumping agreement is an agreement binding on all GATT or WTO members.



Group 3 SIIB AB


It is a measure to rectify the situation arising out of the dumping of goods and its trade distortive effect. Re-establish fair trade. The use of anti dumping measure as an instrument of fair competition is permitted by the WTO. It provides relief to the domestic industry against the injury caused by dumping.
Group 3 SIIB AB 19



To guard against unfair trade practices trade remedial measures. not necessary in the nature levied against exporter / country in as much as they are country specific and exporter specific.

means of raising revenue and for overall development of the economy. trade and fiscal policies of the Government Necessary in nature universally applicable to all imports irrespective of the country of origin and the exporter.

Group 3 SIIB AB

If there is dumping but no injury then no duty

can be imposed.
Duty remains in force for 5 years. Re-determination at a sunset review. Yearly administrative reviews if requested by

domestic industry or exporter.

Group 3 SIIB AB 21

Sufficient evidence to the effect that ; there is dumping there is injury to the domestic industry; and there is a causal link between the dumping and the injury, that is to say, that the dumped imports have caused the alleged injury.

Group 3 SIIB AB


No anti dumping duty shall be recommended without a finding of this causal relationship. That is to say, Dumping should lead to Injury The causal link is to be established generally in terms of the following effects of dumped imports on domestic industry: volume effect price effect
Group 3 SIIB AB 23

The volume effect of dumping relates to the market share of the domestic industry. for price effect, significant price under cutting by the dumped imports as compared with the price of the like product in the importer country.

Group 3 SIIB AB



In Favour

Consumers Exporters Economists Regional Agreements (NAFTA)

Importing country currently protected industries Importing country Labor Unions

Group 3 SIIB AB


anti dumping duty imposed against that countries, which could go up to the dumping margin. may terminate investigation if the exporter concerned furnished an undertaking to revise his price

Group 3 SIIB AB


Any exporter whose margin of dumping is less than 2% of the export price shall be excluded Investigation is terminated if the volume of the dumped imports from a particular country accounts for less than 3% of the total imports of the like product. The cumulative imports of the like product from all these countries who individually account for less than 3%, should not exceed 7% of the import of the like product.
Group 3 SIIB AB 27

Rule 5(4) of the Anti Dumping Rules provides for suo-motu initiation of anti dumping proceedings by the Designated Authority. The Authority can initiate the anti dumping investigation on its own without any complaint/petition filed in this regard

Group 3 SIIB AB


Should not be less than six months and not more than eighteen months. The most desirable period of investigation is a financial year. (period should be as representative a possible) For the purposes of injury analysis, the domestic industry has to furnish the relevant data for the past three years.
Group 3 SIIB AB 29

45 days

Analysis of complaint
Preparation and sending of questionnaires Analysis of questionnaire responses

Lodging of complaint Initiation Sending of questionnaires


On-spot verification visits

Internal decision + consultation of MS + translation Analysis of disclosure reactions

AD 6 months AS 4 months

Additional on-spot verification visits if needed Internal decision + consultation of MS + translation

Imposition of provisional measures if warranted and disclosure of decision to interested parties

Total Duration AS 13 months AD 15 months

Measures Measures are normally normally imposed for 5 imposed for 5 years Group 3 SIIB AB

Final disclosure to interested parties Imposition of definitive measures if warranted


The application is scrutinized to ensure that it is fully documented provides sufficient evidence for initiating an investigation. If evidence not adequate, then a deficiency letter is issued. Till then cannot be considered as application pending before authority.

Group 3 SIIB AB


Designated Authority determines that the application has been made by or on behalf of the Domestic Industry. It also examines the accuracy and adequacy of the evidence provided The Initiation notice will be issued normally within 5 days from the date of receipt of a properly documented application.

Group 3 SIIB AB 32

C. Access to Information: The Authority provides access to the nonconfidential evidence available for inspection to all interested parties on request after receipt of the responses. D. Preliminary Findings: The Designated Authority will proceed expeditiously with the conduct of the investigation It makes a preliminary finding containing the detailed information on the main reasons behind the determination.
Group 3 SIIB AB 33


E. Provisional Duty: A provisional duty not exceeding the margin of dumping may be imposed by the Central Government on the basis of the preliminary finding Can be imposed only after the expiry of 60 days from the date of initiation of investigation. The provisional duty will remain in force only for a period not exceeding 6 months, extendable to 9 months under certain circumstances.
Group 3 SIIB AB 34

F. Oral Evidence Interested parties can request the Designated Authority for an opportunity to present the relevant information orally. Such information shall be taken into consideration only when it is subsequently reproduced in writing. G. Disclosure of information: Based on these submissions and evidence gathered the Authority will determine the basis of its final findings.
Group 3 SIIB AB 35

the Designated Authority will inform all interested parties of the essential facts, which form the basis for its decision before the final finding is made. H. Final Determination: The interested parties submit their response to the disclosure and The Authority examines these final submissions of the parties and comes out with final findings.

Group 3 SIIB AB 36

Anti-dumping measures taken by WTO members have increased from 129 in 1994 to 208 in 2008; 83%. New users: Argentina, India, Brazil, South Africa. Traditional users: Canada, U.S., European Union, Australia, Mexico.

Most affected industries: Metal, Chemical, plastic, textiles, machinery and equipment, agriculture and food.
Group 3 SIIB AB 37

Group 3 SIIB AB


17% 4% 7% 39%

9% 11% 13%








Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Group 3 SIIB AB Database


160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Group 3 SIIB AB Database

19 95 19 96 19 97 19 98 19 99 20 00 20 01 20 02 20 03 20 04 20 05 20 06
Metals Chemicals Plas Tex/Cloth

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Group 3 SIIB AB Database


Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Group 3 SIIB AB Database


Developing Countries Use Antidumping more intensely than developed countries.

Group 3 SIIB AB


Total 1 400


Developing 75%

Developing 75%

Total 500
Developed 25%

Developing 80%
Developed 20%

Developed 25%

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Antidumping Database

Group 3 SIIB AB

Developed Members

Developing Members

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Group 3 SIIB AB Database



Total 1 529
139 116 77 43 44 79 150



a Kor e

i co Mex

da Cana



r Aust

nt Arge

r S Af




Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Group 3 SIIB AB Database




Total 1 516
192 144 127 80 89









nt Arge







Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Group 3 SIIB AB Database



Total 55
Countervailing Measures 11

Safeguards 11

Anti-Dumping 33

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Group 3 SIIB AB Division Anti-dumping Database





Prevents Monopolies Protects Vulnerable Industries Allows Firms to Compete Preserves Jobs

Against Free Trade Concept Trade Barrier Lowers Economic Growth Distorts the Market Protects Firms from Competition Hurts Consumers

Group 3 SIIB AB


Proportion of AD cases initiated by the countries

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1995 India 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

United States



European Community

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Group 3 SIIB AB Database

Total 33

2 1











Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Database


Unclear concept of ordinary course of trade. For computation of the normal value complicated cost calculations and allocations Arbitrariness steps in especially when there is a conflict between accounting practices in the exporting country and the importing country. This is so because investigating authorities typically follow accounting practices of the importing country

Group 3 SIIB AB 52

Business Standard - 15 December, 2009

Group 3 SIIB AB 53

India to impose antidumping duties on some equipment imported from China. Chinese companies entered the Indian telecom market, offering products and services at prices about a third cheaper than that of global competitors. Indian manufacturers hurt as well

Group 3 SIIB AB


Fibrehome Telecommunication Technologies Ltd. will have to pay a duty of 236%, AlcatelLucent Shanghai Bell Co. 29% and Israel's ECI Telecom Ltd. 93% on equipment imported from China

Group 3 SIIB AB


The Indian Shrimp Industry Organizes to Fight the Threat of AntiDumping Action (CASE STUDY)

Group 3 SIIB AB


The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action Committee (ASTAC), an association of shrimp farmers in eight southern states of the United States, filed an anti-dumping petition against six countries Brazil, China, Ecuador, India, Thailand and Vietnam. The petition alleged that these countries had dumped their shrimps in the US market.
Group 3 SIIB AB 57

on 21 January 2004 the US Department of Commerce (DOC) announced the initiation of anti-dumping investigations against the six countries. The Department notified the International Trade Commission (ITC) of its decision on initiation. On 17 February 2004 the International Trade Commission announced its decision that there was a reasonable indication that the US shrimp industry was affected due to Anti-dumping.

Group 3 SIIB AB 58

The Department of Commerce continued with its investigations and gave its preliminary determination on 28 July 2004. The ratio of preliminary duty varies between 3.56% and 27.49% by the DOC.

Group 3 SIIB AB


The weighted average rate for India is 14.2%, The average rate for
China is 49.09%, Brazil 36.91%, Vietnam 16.01%, Ecuador 7.3% Thailand 6.39%.

Group 3 SIIB AB


On 26 February 2002, Reggie Dupre, a Louisiana state senator, alleged that tainted farm-raised Asian shrimp was being diverted from Europe and dumped on the US market.

Group 3 SIIB AB


Vietnam, one of the countries identified almost at the beginning of the SSA(South America Shrimp Association) exercises and also highly dependent on the US market for shrimp exports, was the first to protest. Foreign Ministry spokeperson Phan Thuy Thanh said in a statement on 12 September 2002 that I can say with certainty that Vietnam has never dumped its shrimp, and its shrimp have been sold at market prices.
Group 3 SIIB AB


Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Group 3 SIIB AB Division Anti-dumping Database


Rokhmin Dahiri, the Indonesian Maritime and Fisheries Minister, denied allegations that the Indonesian government subsidized its shrimp farmers. He said that the price of shrimp on the domestic market was much lower than the export price. The dumping charge was baseless and, therefore, the United States should exclude Indonesia from the proposed anti-dumping investigations.

Group 3 SIIB AB 64

The Indian government and the Indian shrimp

industry were aware of the threat. Arun Jaitley, the then Minister for Commerce, made a statement in June 2003 after his official visit to the United States: We are anticipating an action against our shrimp exports because our share in the US market is on the rise.

Group 3 SIIB AB


The six named countries accounted for 74% of shrimp

imports in the US market.

Imports from the six countries increased from 466 million lbs. in 2000 to 650 million lbs in 2002.

Import prices of the targeted countries had dropped by 28%

in the previous three years. The average unit value of the targeted countries in 2000 was

$3.54; this had fallen to $2.55 in 2002, on a headless, shell-on

equivalent basis.
Group 3 SIIB AB 66

The average dockside price for one count size of gulf shrimp dropped from $6.08 to $3.30 per pound from 2000 to 2002.

The United States was the most open market in the world.
High tariff rates in other large importing countries provided a powerful incentive for exporters to increase

shrimp shipments to the United States.

Group 3 SIIB AB


The anti-dumping investigations against Indian shrimp imports might be initiated was hinted at during bilateral talks when the then Commerce and Industry Minister Arun

Jaitley had met his counterpart in Washington at that time.

The reason given was that Indias shrimp exports to the United States had been rising rapidly during the previous three years, from $255.93 million during 2000-1 to $299.05 million during 2002-3.
Group 3 SIIB AB 68

The United States, traditionally a buyer of small-sized shrimp from India, has now started buying many other varieties, including black tiger shrimp, resulting in its occupying the top slot in Indias export markets of marine products, replacing Japan in 2002-3.

Group 3 SIIB AB


Commerce Minister on the possible threat to Indian shrimp exports to the United States, SEAI(Seafood Exporters Association of India (Kochi, Kerala, India). and MPEDA(The Marine Products Export Development Authority) went into action.

Group 3 SIIB AB


The SEAI (Sea food export Association of India) has estimated a total budgetary requirement of Rs. 70 million to fight the case. Of this, SEAI would mobilize Rs. 40 million internally and the remaining Rs 30 million would be collected from its members, depending on the volume and value of their individual exports to the US market.
Group 3 SIIB AB 71

First, there are specific variations between the shrimp caught off the south-west coast of the United States and in Indian waters, so that prices are bound to be different. Indias shrimp exports are predominantly of black tiger and scampi varieties which are not cultivated in the United States, according to the president of SEAI.
Group 3 SIIB AB 72

Second, while fishing in the United States is a capital-intensive activity calling for major investment, in India shrimp capture is carried out with a very low level of capital and requiring hardly any investment. This makes the cost of production considerably lower in India compared with that for shrimp sea-caught off the US coast.
Group 3 SIIB AB 73

Department of Commerce observed that India had a strong case as India was exporting mainly tiger shrimps which are not found there and that too, in unprocessed form. Noting that 80% of shrimp consumption in the United States is met through imports.

Group 3 SIIB AB


Shrimp exports to the United States had come almost to a standstill due to the uncertainty regarding the contingent applicability and incidence of the antidumping duty.

Group 3 SIIB AB


In 1976 US banned shrimps ,It was on the ground that trawling for shrimp by mechanized means had been adversely affecting certain varieties of sea turtles. The WTO ruled against the United States and asked it to make the regime WTO-compatible. However, since that had not yet happened, Indias exports to the United States of aqua-culture shrimp and shrimp caught by non-mechanized means were being made on the basis of certification by the MPEDA, as required under the law.

Group 3 SIIB AB 76

Several visits by the representatives of those two bodies to Washington at critical points also helped to bring an understanding of the nature of the problem and how to face it. This resulted in the selection and appointment of the legal counsel, in September 2003.

Group 3 SIIB AB


The speedy resolution of the issue of financing helped Indian case. The shrimp industry in India shouldnt have been focused on only one or two major markets for growth. Previously it was Japan and during the last few years, it has been the United States.

Group 3 SIIB AB


India learnt the importance of diversification. A. J. Tharakan, the SEAI president, has said that they are exploring alternative markets to make up for the loss of the lucrative US market. But it will be a long drawn-out process. It is not easy to establish your presence.
Group 3 SIIB AB 79

On 27 th Jan exports to US

were resumed.
Business line newspaper 1st Feb, 2010

Group 3 SIIB AB



Texts and literature Anti-dumping and countervailing Measures-A detailed study.

Group 3 SIIB AB 81

Group 3 SIIB AB