• 무역학회지
• /
• 제46권4호
• /
• pp.113-130
• /
• 2021

This study aims to analyze the WTO-inconsistent aspects of the single rate presumption of the United States in establishing and imposing anti-dumping duties for non-market economy exporters. By examining the drafting history in the GATT/WTO negotiations and the practice of the single rate presumption for non-market economies by the United States from a comparative perspective, it critically addresses the inherent lack of pertinent disciplines under the framework of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in establishing dumping margins for exporters of non-market economies. The WTO Dispute Settlement Body leaves open the possibility of allowing the investigating authority to consider multiple exporters and the exporting country as a single entity. However, the study argues that it is difficult in practice for the investigating authority to make a single-entity decision in a WTO-consistent manner. The study also finds an incompatibility in the notion between establishing dumping margins for 'individual' exporters and 'non-market economies.' A proper discipline for non-market economies under the multilateral anti-dumping norm needs to be reconsidered in the era of persistent trade conflicts between the United States and China.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제38권
• /
• pp.265-302
• /
• 2008

This paper intends to analyse some legal issues on "Zeroing" which is based on the article 2.4.2 under the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. "Zeroing" stands for a specific methodology in calculating a general dumping margin for a product in question under which negative individual dumping margins are treated as zero (thus "zeroed") before aggregating all individual dumping margins. The article 2.4.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement regulates three types of calculating methodology on dumping margin as first symmetrical method(average-to-average: A-A), second symmetrical method(individual-to-individual: I-I) and asymmetrical method(average-to-individual: A-I). However, this article does not have any provisions about the "Zeroing" practice. In their anti-dumping practices, the EC and the United-States calculated dumping margin based on the "Zeroing", but this methodology has been disputed in the Dispute Settlement Body(DSB) of the WTO. This paper analysed their legal problems with some WTO cases in particular concerning EC-Bed Linen, U.S.-Softwood Lumber Zeroing, U.S.-Zeroing(EC) and U.S.-Sunset Review(Japan) cases. On the basis of theses analysis, we can therefore ask some questions as follows; To begin with, although the article 2.4.2 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement does not clearly refer to the "Zeroing", how do some developing countries, as the U.S.A and the E.U. calculate dumping margin as the "Zeroing"? Secondly, what is the relationship between the symmetrical method and asymmetrical method to the dumping margin? And if we adopt the zeroing method, what is the different rate to anti-dumping margin? Thirdly, although the Panel decided that the zeroing methodology of dumping margin used by th U.S.A in administrative review between the U.S.A and the E.U, why does the Appellate Body made the decision that the american methodology is incompatible with the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement? Lastly, what will be affected the upper decision taken by the Appellate Body to the DDA negotiation of anti-dumping matters? Even though the WTO Appellate made a decision that the zeroing method is incompatible with the principles of the WTO law, this methodology contains a lot of problems. Some members of the WTO as the U.S.A and the E.U did not officially declare this methodology to abandon, and the debate concerned is arguing. Therefore this paper tried to present the adequate solution in order to promote the zeroing methodology in the international anti-dumping system and practices.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제13권4호
• /
• pp.323-349
• /
• 2011

중국은 WTO 회원국으로써 WTO 협정에서 정하고 있는 반덤핑 제도 관련 규범 및 기타 각종 규범들을 여타의 WTO 회원국과 마찬가지로 국내법과 제도운용에 있어서 WTO의 그것과 합치시켜 운용할 의무가 있다. 그럼에도 불구하고 중국 정부의 반덤핑 법규는 덤핑마진의 산정, 경미수입물량에 대한 조사 종결기준, 일몰재심 등과 관련된 세부규정에 미흡함을 지적받고 있어 법적 불확실성을 초래하고 있다. 또한 가격약속과 관련된 규정들 중 일부 규정은 WTO 협정과 일치하지 않는다. 그러므로 우리정부는 단독 혹은 WTO 여타 회원국과 함께 중국 정부에게 반덤핑 법규를 WTO 관련 협정에 부합 되도록 개정해 줄 것 을 요구함과 동시에 중국 정부가 자의적으로 운용할 여지가 있는 모호한 규정들을 구체화시켜 줄 것 을 요구해야 한다. 이와는 별도로 우리나라는 중국이 반덤핑 제소를 개시하면 WTO 관련 협정과 차이가 나는 중국의 반덤핑 법규를 중국 당국이 어떻게 적용하는 지에 대해 면밀히 파악하여, 규정상의 모호성을 WTO 관련 협정의 내용과 부합되게 적용하는지 혹은 위배되는 적용을 하는지에 대하여 초점을 맞추어 그 대응책을 준비해야 한다.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권1호
• /
• pp.89-111
• /
• 2021

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.