• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.10 no.3
• /
• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.11 no.3
• /
• 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.

• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.375-397
• /
• 2011

Having ahead the Korea-US FfA come into effect by beginning of the 2012, the interest to U.S. trade law has been highly increased. The abuse of U.S. antidumping measures, especially, have been alleged by many developed countries, that's why it need to be studied. For initiating antidumping investigation, the scope of "subject merchandise" has to be determinated. But there is no regulation about the term "subject merchandise(or product under consideration)" on WTO Antidumping Agreement as well as U.S. Antidumping Law. U.S. antidumping law defines domestic like product as "a product that is like, or in the absence of like, most similar in characteristics and uses with, the article subject to an investigation under this title". Thus, the reference point from which the like product analysis begins is "the article subject to an investigation". The Department of Commerce should interpret the subject merchandise in accordance with customary rules, beginning with its ordinary meaning. The note of caution is that the DOC generally exercises 'broad discretion to define and clarify the scope of an antidumping investigation in a manner which reflects the intent of the petition. This paper investigates the survey scope of product in U.S. antidumping law through related regulations and cases. In addition, it was carefully examined because the scope of subject merchandise has effect on antidumping duty order.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.41
• /
• 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
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• 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.