Journal of Korea Trade

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Issues on Particular Market Situation to Calculate Dumping Margin of Korean Steel Products by the USA

  • Received : 2020.09.11
  • Accepted : 2021.01.12
  • Published : 2021.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose - The U.S. Trade Preference Expansion Act (TPEA) of 2015 enables the US Department of Commerce (DOC) to inflate dumping margin when the particular market situation (PMS) exists in the exporter's home market. DOC applied PMS provisions to the steel products from Korea. This paper analyzes whether DOC's calculation by using the regression analysis is consistent with WTO rules. Design/methodology - This paper analyzes the PMS application in law and regression analysis that extends the data period from 10 years to 18 years using the same economic model with DOC, and changes the country group according to the quantities of steelmaking capacity. Findings - Results show that DOC's argument conflating the sales-based with cost-based PMS designed to inflate dumping margins might not be consistent with WTO Antidumping Agreement Article 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 in which costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter, providing generally accepted accounting principles and reasonably reflection of the costs and PMS that exists in the Korean steel product markets. Even if it will be consistent, DOC's calculated margin by the regression analysis using a 10-year data is a big gap (5 times) compared with an 18-year data projection and different countries' data through the same methodology, which is a huge gap of regression coefficient. It means that dumping margin would be very wide range from 7.8% to 38.54% and unstable to calculate. Inflating dumping margin by DOC using regression analysis would not only be inconsistent with WTO rules, but also projection result is unreliable. Originality/value - Literature papers have mainly analyzed WTO law itself. This paper however, would be the first attempt to analyze the DOC's new way of dumping margin calculation in both manners of law and an empirical methodology perspective at the same time.

Keywords

References

  1. Chang, Seung-Wha (2019), "WTO Consistency of the PMS under the US TPEA: A Focus on the US Commerce Department's Antidumping Duties on Steel Products from Korea", Korean Journal of International Economic Law, 17(1), 7-47. https://doi.org/10.46271/kjiel.2019.03.17.1.7
  2. Choi, Chang-Hwan (2019), "Legal issues on Particular Market Situation rule to Calculate Dumping Margins", Journal of Trade Remedy, 57, 1-22.
  3. Choi, Chang-Hwan (2017), "How Initiation Affect Trade Measure on Other Countries?", Korea International Commercial Review, 32(4), 429-442.
  4. Chung, Chan-Mo(2017), "The Application of 'Particular Market Situation' in the US Antidumping Law and the WTO Agreements'", Korean Society of International Economic Law, 15(3), 45-69. https://doi.org/10.46271/KJIEL.2017.11.15.3.45
  5. Ellis, N.R. (2017), "U.S. Department of Commerce Employs New "Particular Market Situation" Approach to Calculate Dumping Margins", Sidley Austin LLP.
  6. Jeong, Hye-Seon (2018), "Recent Application and Implications of Particular Market Situation (PMS) in the United States", Korea International Trade Association, Vol.1.
  7. Kang, Min-Ji (2018), "Revised and Implications of Trade Remedy Measures in the U.S. and EU", Korea Institute for International Economic Policy,18(4).
  8. Lee, Jae-Min (2018), "PMS Methodology in Antidumping Investigations - New Implications for Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Investigation Laws, Regulations and Practices of Korea", The Korean Association of Trade and Industry Studies (KATIS), 23(4), 127-168.
  9. Mark Wu. 2012, "Antidumping in Asia's Emerging Giants", Harvard International Law Journal, 53(1).
  10. Nicely, M. R. and B. Gatta (2016), "U.S. Trade Preferences Extension Act(TPEA) of 2015 Could Lead to Increased Use of 'Particular Market Situation' in Calculation Normal Value in AntiDumping Cases", Global Trade and Customs Journal, 11(5).
  11. Nozomu (2017), "Where is the Excess Capacity in the World Iron and Steel Industry?: A focus on East Asia and China", (Policy RIETI Discussion Paper Series 17-E-026).
  12. Yun, Mik-Yung (2017), "The Use of 'Particular Market Situation' Provision and its Implications for Regulation of Antidumping", East Asian Economic Review, 21(3), 231-257. https://doi.org/10.11644/KIEP.EAER.2017.21.3.330
  13. Zhou, W.H. and A. Percival (2016a), "Debunking the Myth of 'Particular Market Situation' in WTO Antidumping Law", 19(4), Journal of International Economic Law, 863-892. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgw071
  14. Zhou, W.H. and A. Percival (2016b), "Panel Report on EU-Biodiesel: A Glass Half Full? - Implications for the Rising Issue of 'Particular Market Situation"', The Chinese Journal of Global Governance 2 (2016) 142-163. https://doi.org/10.1163/23525207-12340019
  15. Zhou, W.H. (2018), "Appellate Body Report on EU-Biodiesel: The Future of China's State Capitalism under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement", World Trade Review, 17(4), 609-633. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1474745617000507
  16. Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the GATT 1994 ("Anti-dumping Agreement")
  17. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994(GATT 1994)
  18. Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015, PUBLIC LAW 114-27-JUNE 29, 2015
  19. Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 81 FR 71074 (October 14, 2016) and accompanying Memorandum.
  20. Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea (Dep't of Commerce Mar 8, 2017) (placing email from Peter Navarro, Director, National Trade Council, on the public record of the OCTG AD review).
  21. Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2014-2015, 82 FR 18105 (April 17, 2017) and accompanying Memorandum.
  22. Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from the Republic of Korea: Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review; 2015-2016, 82 FR 46963 (October 10, 2017) and accompanying Memorandum.
  23. Countervailing Duty Investigation of Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Flat Products from the Republic of Korea, 81 FR 53439 (August 12, 2016).
  24. WTO Appellate Body Report, European Union- Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina (EU-Biodiesel), WT/DS473/R, 29 March 2016.
  25. WTO Appellate Body Report, European Union - Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina (EU-Biodiesel), WT/DS473/AB/R, 6 October 2016, para. 6.17.
  26. USCIT, Nexteel Co., Ltd. v. United States, Slip Op. 19-1, Consol. Court No. 17-00091, Jan 2, 2019.
  27. USCIT, Saha Thai Steel Pipe Public Co., Ltd. & Thai Premium Pipe Co., Ltd. & Pacific Pipe Public Co., Ltd. v. United States & Wheatland Tube Co., Ltd. Slip Op. 19-165, Consol. Court No. 18-00214, Dec 18, 2019.
  28. USDOC, "2017-2018 Administrative Review of Antidumping Duty Order on Welded Carbon Steel Standard Pipes and Tubes from India: Decisions on Particular Market Situation Allegations", July 10, 2019.