East Asian Economic Review

Korea Institute for International Economic Policy (대외경제정책연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Use of "Particular Market Situation" Provision and its Implications for Regulation of Antidumping

  • Yun, Mikyung (School of International Studies, The Catholic University of Korea)
  • Received : 2017.09.09
  • Accepted : 2017.09.25
  • Published : 2017.09.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The particular market situation provision of the WTO Antidumping Agreement is increasingly invoked against what may be described as "input-dumping," but this potentially violates the current Antidumping Agreement rules. This paper examines the practice and recent changes regarding the PMS provision in the US by critically examining relevant antidumping investigations in the US in light of GATT/WTO jurisprudence. Such US practice has not yet been extensively subjected to scholarly examination. The paper finds that the recent legal change in the US widens the scope and applicability of the PMS provision to cover input subsidies, allowing the use of not only surrogate prices but also surrogate costs. Further, the required standard of evidence to find PMS seems to have been diminished in the recent application. A widespread use of the PMS provision in such a deviant way calls for a fundamental review of the current trade remedy rules of the WTO.

Keywords

References

  1. Clarida, R. H. 1996. "Dumping: In Theory, in Policy, and in Practice," In Bhagwati, J. and E. H. Robert. (eds.) Fair Trade and Harmonization: Prerequisite for Free Trade? Volume 1, Economic Analysis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. Chapter 9, pp. 357-389.
  2. Furculita, C. 2017. "Cost of Production Calculation in EU Anti-Dumping Law: WTO Consistent 'As Such' after EU-Biodiesel," (accessed July 27, 2017)
  3. Lindsey, B. and D. Ikenson. 2002. "Reforming the Antidumping Agreement: A Road Map for WTO Negotiations," Trade Policy Analysis, no. 21. Cato Institute. pp. 1-43.
  4. Matsushita, M., Schoenbaum, T. J., Mavroidis, P. C. and M. Hahn. 2006. The World Trade Organization: Law, Practice, and Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 395-436.
  5. Miranda, J. 2014. "Interpreting Paragraph 15 of China's Protocol of Accession," Global Trade and Customs Journal, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 94-103.
  6. Stewart, T. P., Fennell, W. P., Bell, S. M. and N. J. Birch. 2014. "The Special Case of China: Why the Use of a Special Methodology Remains Applicable to China after 2016," Global Trade and Customs Journal, vol. 9, no. 6, pp. 272-279.
  7. United States International Trade Commission (USITC). 2015. Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Handbook: Fourteenth Edition. Washington DC.
  8. US Tariff Act of 1930 [As Amended Through P. L 112-99, Enacted March 13, 2012].
  9. US Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015. Public Law 114-27, June 29, 2015.
  10. Vermulst, E., Sud, J. D. and S. J. Evenett. 2016. "Normal Value in Anti-Dumping Proceedings against China Post-2016: Are Some Animals Less Equal than Others?," Global Trade and Customs Journal, vol. 11, no. 5, pp. 212-228.
  11. Watson, K. W. 2014. "Will Nonmarket Economy Methodology Go Quietly into the Night? US Antidumping Policy toward China after 2016," Policy Analysis, no. 763 (Oct. 28). Cato Institute.
  12. World Trade Organization (WTO). 1995. EC-Imposition of Anti-dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton Yarn from Brazil, Report of the Panel, ADP/137.
  13. World Trade Organization (WTO). 1999. The Legal Texts: The Results of the Uruguay Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  14. World Trade Organization (WTO). 2001. Appellate Body Report, United States-Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R.
  15. World Trade Organization (WTO). 2012. WTO Analytical Index: Guide to WTO Law and Practice, Volume 1, 3rd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. World Trade Organization (WTO). 2016. "European Union-Anti-dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina," Report of the Appellate Body, AB-2016-4. WT/DS473/AB/R.
  17. Yun, M. 2016. "An Analysis of the New Trade Regime for State-Owned Enterprises under the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement," Journal of East Asian Economic Integration, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 3-35. https://doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.JEAI.2016.20.1.303
  18. Zhou, W. and A. Percival. 2016. "Debunking the Myth of 'Particular Market Situation' in WTO Antidumping Law," Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 863-892. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgw071