EU anti-circumvention rules : do they beat the alternative?

This article discusses EU law and practice with regard to tackling circumvention of trade defence instruments, notably anti-dumping measures. The author considers that, while strong legal arguments can be made that anti-circumvention rules are WTO-illegal, as a practical matter transparent and predictable anti-circumvention rules are to be preferred over vague and multi-interpretable non-preferential origin rules that vary from country to country. Furthermore, the many findings of transhipment in EU anti-circumvention investigations show that circumvention may constitute a real problem which warrants quick and effective relief. Therefore, the article suggests that the way forward is to agree on detailed anti-circumvention rules within the WTO with focus on further improvements in transparency and predictability

Anti-Diversion Rules in Antidumping Procedures: Interface or Short-Circuit for the Management of Interdependence?

Part II of this article will diagnose the phenomenon of diversion in the context of antidumping law. Parts III and IV will address the present approaches towards diversion in the United States and the European Communities respectively. Part V will briefly compare the Australian and Canadian approaches. Part VI will evaluate the assorted propositions made in the Uruguay Round. Part VII will probe the GATT Panel report on the EC\u27s parts amendment and its possible repercussions for the anti-diversion debate in GATT. Part VIII will provide conclusions and suggest possible improvements

Panel Discussion: Europe 1992

Transcript of a panel on Europe in 1992

China : anti-dumping and countervailing duty measures on broiler products from the United States : how the chickens came home to roost

The WTO panel report on China – Anti-dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States was circulated to Members on 2 August 2013. In the report the Panel examined a variety of issues challenged by the United States under various provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, the Anti-dumping Agreement and the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Panel upheld the United States’ claims on the majority of the issues, which covered certain procedural aspects of the anti-dumping and countervailing investigations such as the right to disclosure of “essential facts”, as well as the substantive determinations including costing issues, the imposition of the “all others” rate on the basis of “facts available”, the price effects’ analyses, the sufficiency of the public notices and others. Notably the costing issues that came up in the case, although decided mostly on procedural grounds, provide food for thought and are likely to feature again in future disputes