The document discusses antidumping law and investigations. It provides background on key concepts like dumping, injury determination, calculation of dumping margins, the antidumping investigation process, history and criticisms of antidumping measures. It also includes case studies on Indian telecom equipment and the US shrimp industry organizing against antidumping actions.
In 1944, the United States and Britain held a conference (Bretton Woods) that established:
1. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) (IBRD)
2. International Monetary Fund (IMF)
it is an usefull information and material for the students who is preparing their studies
it about WTO ,stucture,scope,trade agreements functions etc.,
The structure of the WTO. The structure of the WTO is dominated by its highest authority, the Ministerial Conference, composed of representatives of all WTO members, which is required to meet at least every two years and which can take decisions on all matters under any of the multilateral trade agreements.
An anti-dumping duty is a protectionist tariff that a domestic government imposes on foreign imports that it believes are priced below fair market value. To protect local businesses and markets, many countries impose stiff duties on products they believe are being dumped in their national market.
In 1944, the United States and Britain held a conference (Bretton Woods) that established:
1. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank) (IBRD)
2. International Monetary Fund (IMF)
it is an usefull information and material for the students who is preparing their studies
it about WTO ,stucture,scope,trade agreements functions etc.,
The structure of the WTO. The structure of the WTO is dominated by its highest authority, the Ministerial Conference, composed of representatives of all WTO members, which is required to meet at least every two years and which can take decisions on all matters under any of the multilateral trade agreements.
An anti-dumping duty is a protectionist tariff that a domestic government imposes on foreign imports that it believes are priced below fair market value. To protect local businesses and markets, many countries impose stiff duties on products they believe are being dumped in their national market.
International trade is distorted by countries applying tariff and non tariff trade barriers.
Want more FREE resources? Checkout the B2B Whiteboard youtube channel:
www.youtube.com/b2bwhiteboard
Or join us on Facebook today: www.facebook.com/b2bwhiteboard
This research paper is an evaluation as to how far
the anti-dumping laws and rules enabled WTO to resolve
relevant trade disputes and to protect the interests of
developing countries. The paper primarily examines in a
legal and procedural paradigm, whether anti-dumping
measures provided in the WTO-DSB forum and
incorporated into respective foreign trade laws of countries
have been effective or merely costing the importing
countries, while countries that keep dumping do so with
impunity, because dumping is just condemned, not
prohibited. The Article VI of the General Agreement on
Trade and Tariffs (GATT) deals with Anti-dumping and
Countervailing Duties. Interpretation of the Article VI.1
would reveal that: ‘that dumping is an act by which
products of one country are introduced into the commerce
of another country at less than the normal value of the
products’. ‘In connection with the effect of Article VI on the
practice of dumping itself, in the Havana Meet in 1954-55, it
was agreed that contracting parties should, within the
framework of their legislation, refrain from encouraging
dumping, as defined in that paragraph, by private
commercial enterprises’. This lopsidedness in the GATT
regulations was not corrected in the WTO regulations. The
cost of anti-dumping investigations and substantiating the
same and all the associated consultative processes are time
consuming and not evenly poised on the two parties to the
dispute concerned. One instance is the unsustainable
practice of DSB constituting Panel with members drawn
from the country which initiated action. This goes against
the very root of natural justice. One of the principles of
natural justice and the related legal maxim is that, ‘No
person shall sit in judgment of his/her own cause’. Fairness
demands that the members should be drawn from a third
country. The structure of the panel should be three; one
each from developed and developing countries and the third
to be elected by majority of the parties. This structure is to
facilitate to decide by majority voting, in case where
consensus fails. In sum, the legal paradigm and the
procedural drags involved in anti-dumping measures, have
costed the developing import-intensive countries more while
countries that exported keep dumping, at will, because
dumping is just condemned, not prohibited.
Dumping its impact and measures in indiaSadhana Gowda
Dumping reflects a distorted market where production is supported independently of demand leading to depressed international agricultural prices, dumping causes unfair competition for small farmers in rural areas of developing countries, where 70% of the world’s poor live. The main causes for continuing dumping in international markets are export subsidies and support payments to producers that allow production without controlling supply.
The Trading System: Debate over Free Trade – Functions of GATT and WTO, The Uruguay Round and World
Trade Organization, Trade Blocs – EU, OECD, OPEC, SAARC, ASEAN, NAFTA, Threats to Open Trading System,
Developments in International Trade Theory, Bi-lateral, Multilateral Trade Agreements, Impact of Trade wars in
liberalized economy
3. Group 3 SIIB AB ADITI MALIK (01) ANKIT SHARMA (02) NAVJOT KAUR NAGRA (20) PRADEEP KUMAR (26) RISHABH SOOD (29) YOGESH SHARMA (37)
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. Exporters Price Normal Value Compare Exporter Price to Normal Value Normal Value $110.00 Exporter Price $90.00 Difference Attributable to Dumping $20.00 Difference Attributable to Dumping/exporter price $20.00 / $90.00=22.22% Dumping Margin = Group 3 SIIB AB
10.
11.
12.
13.
14. Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994) Group 3 SIIB AB
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30. Lodging of complaint Initiation Analysis of complaint Preparation and sending of questionnaires Analysis of questionnaire responses On-spot verification visits Internal decision + consultation of MS + translation Imposition of provisional measures if warranted and disclosure of decision to interested parties Sending of questionnaires Analysis of disclosure reactions Additional on-spot verification visits if needed Internal decision + consultation of MS + translation Imposition of definitive measures if warranted Final disclosure to interested parties Measures normally imposed for 5 years 45 days 9 months AD 6 months AS 4 months Measures are normally imposed for 5 years Total Duration AS 13 months AD 15 months Group 3 SIIB AB
44. MEASURES:1 900 Developing 75% Developed 25% Developing 80% Developing 75% Developed 25% Developed 20% Total 500 Total 1 400 Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping Database Group 3 SIIB AB
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Group 3 SIIB AB](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/finalgoup3final-100220083552-phpapp02/85/Anti-dumping-1-320.jpg)
![[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Group 3 SIIB AB]()