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

Disciplining the Use of TDI against China through WTO Dispute Settlement

After having spent the better part of its first ten years as a WTO member either answering cases as a respondent or registered as a third party, China has recently begun to assert itself as a complainant, particularly with regard to the various trade defence instruments (TDIs) used against it. The year 2011 alone saw the circulation by the Appellate Body (AB) of three such reports - one pertaining to anti-dumping duties (ADDs), another safeguards, and another both concurrently imposed ADDs and countervailing duties (CVDs) - which all dealt at least in part with issues germane to TDI practice against China specifically or non-market economies (NMEs) generally. The article reviews some of the more pertinent issues of first impression ruled upon by the AB in those cases, concluding that China has registered some substantial victories that should be expected to limit the use of TDI against it but also that the AB has, in some respects, allowed for substantial leeway for investigating authorities to modify their current practices in such a way that, without further litigation, the impact of those victories could be reduced.</jats:p

Judicial Review of Anti-dumping Determinations in the EU

This collection of articles analyses the problems with judicial review of trade remedy determinations in ten user countries - Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, India, Indonesia, Mexico, South Africa, and the United States - and is a follow-up to similar studies in 2004 and 2007 respectively. Each article succinctly describes the major problems with judicial review in their jurisdictions covering the period from 2001 to 2010 with an aim to examine the effectiveness of judicial review (and/or, where applicable, review by an administrative tribunal) of trade remedy determinations in the light of Article 13 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Two problems have been underlined: (1) the excessively long duration of the judicial review procedures; and (2) the considerable deference given to the administrative authorities on substantive issues by the courts typically on account of the technicality of the anti-dumping determinations and the absence of expert judges versed with trade remedy laws. These two problems have deeply impacted the effectiveness of the judicial review systems in most jurisdictions investigated and the situation is far from what is envisaged in Article 13 of the ADA. Both problems are related to the absence of specialized courts and chambers with judges trained in trade remedy laws. In contrast, the United States and India - the only two countries that have specialized courts - have effective judicial review systems. For the ten year period covered by this study, the ten countries investigated can be divided into two groups as regards the recourse to judicial review of anti-dumping determinations. One group comprises the European Union, India, Mexico and the United States where judicial review of anti-dumping determinations has been frequent. The second group comprises the remaining countries namely Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Indonesia and South Africa where judicial reviews have been more limited. In fact the judicial review systems for trade remedy determinations in countries such as China and Indonesia are in the early stages of development.</jats:p