• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제10권3호
• /
• pp.143-162
• /
• 2008

The Title 19 of the U.S. Code covers custom duties and is the heart of international trade regulation in the U.S.. Among the provisions in Title 19, is Chapter 4, the Tariff Act of 1930. Under U.S. Antidumping duty law, dumping occurs when `subject merchandise' is imported into the U.S. and sold at less than `fair value.' The administration of U.S. Antidumping duty law is shared between the Department of Commerce('Commerce') and International Trade Commission('USITC'). The U.S. Court of International Trade ("CIT") and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") decided the review of antidumping duty ("AD") determinations and administrative review results issued by the Commerce and the USITC, as well as the review of countervailing duty ("CVD") decisions. In Eurodif S.A. v. United States, the CAFC considered the important issue of whether the antidumping and countervailing duty laws apply to sales and purchases of services--in this case, the sale or purchase of enrichment services. Although the federal courts had considered the issue of whether a sale of enrichment services constitutes a sale of goods, the issue had never arisen in the context of the antidumping and countervailing duty laws. Also this is the first time that the Supreme Court has ever agreed to consider an antidumping case.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제11권3호
• /
• pp.265-286
• /
• 2009

Dumping describes the practice of international price discrimination whereby a producer or exporter sells merchandise in an export market at less than fair value. The U.S. antidumping statutory framework is embodied in the Tariff Act of 1930. The Act states that "dumping" refers to the sale or likely sale of goods at less than fair value. 19 U.S.C. $\S$ 1677(34). The Commerce Department and the Commission are jointly responsible for administering the antidumping law. Commerce determines whether foreign merchandise is being sold in the United States at less than fair value, and the Commission determines whether a domestic industry producing a product like the imported merchandise has been materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of that product. Recently, in U.S. v. Eurodif, the Supreme Court held the question whether the Commerce can reasonably determin that foreign merchandise has been sold within the meaning of the antidumping law in U.S.. Should 19 U.S.C. Section 1673, which calls for "antidumping" duties on foreign goods, but not services, that sell at less than fair value in the U.S., apply to imported low enriched uranium? Yes. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice David H. Souter, the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Department's view of imported low enriched uranium, as the sale of goods rather than services, was permissible. It reasoned that, since 19 U.S.C. Section 1673 did not specify whether it applied to the production of low enriched uranium, it was left to the reasonable interpretation of the Commerce Department to determine. Accordingly, the Court found the Commerce Department interpreted the statute reasonably.

• 통상정보연구
• /
• 제13권4호
• /
• pp.375-397
• /
• 2011

한 미 FTA 발효를 앞두고 미국 통상법에 대한 관심이 더욱 높아지고 있다. 특히, 미국의 반덤핑조치 남용은 이미 여러 선진국들을 통하여 문제가 제기 되어 왔기 때문에 이에 대한 연구가 필요하다. 반덤핑조사를 개시하기 위하여 먼저 "조사대상상품"의 범위를 결정하여야 하지만, WTO 반덤핑협정을 비롯하여 미국 반덤핑법에서도 아무런 규정을 하고 있지 않다. 미국 반덤핑법은 국내 동종상품을 (관세법에 의거하여) 조사 중인 상품과 같거나, 같은 상품이 없는 경우 성질과 용도 면에서 가장 유사한 상품이라고 정의하고 있다. 이처럼 동종상품 분석은 조사대상상품에서 비롯된다. 상무부는 통상의 의미로 조사대상상품을 해석하여야 한다. 유의할 것은 상무부가 일반적으로 조사신청자의 의도를 반영하는 방법으로 반덤핑조사의 범위를 정의할 수 있는 광범위한 재량을 향유하고 있다는 것이다. 그러므로 본 연구는 미국 반덤핑법의 조사대상상품의 범위와 관련한 규정들을 살펴보고, 관련 사례들을 분석하였다. 더욱이, 조사대상상품의 범위는 이후 반덤핑관세명령의 범위에도 영향을 미치기 때문에 이에 대하여도 검토하였다.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제41권
• /
• pp.237-266
• /
• 2009

KORUS-FTA are consist of articles 8. In order to the subjects are, application of a safeguard measures, conditions and limitations, provisional measures, compensation, global safeguard actions, definitions, antidumping and countervailing duties, committee on trade remedies. In especially, regarding application of a safeguard measures under KORUS-FTA, if as a result of the reduction or elimination of a customs duty under this agreement, an originating good of the other party is being imported into the territory of a party in such increased quantities, in absolute terms or relative to domestic production, and under such conditions that the imports of such originating good from the other party constitute a substantial cause of serious injury, or threat thereof, to a domestic industry producing a like or directly competitive good, the party may: suspend the further reduction of any rate of customs duty on the good provided for under this agreement; increase the rate of customs duty on the good to a level not to exceed the lesser of: the most-favored-nation (MFN) applied rate of duty on the good in effect at the time the action is taken; and the MFN applied rate of duty on the good in effect on the day immediately preceding the date this Agreement enters into force; or in the case of a customs duty applied to a good on a seasonal basis, increase the rate of duty to a level that, for each season, does not exceed the lesser of: the MFN applied rate of duty on the good in effect for the corresponding season immediately preceding the date of application of the safeguard measure; and the MFN applied rate of duty on the good in effect for the corresponding season immediately preceding the date this agreement enters into force.

• 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.