Search results

The purpose of this paper is to examine zeroing jurisprudence under the WTO’s Anti-Dumping Agreement and to see if the jurisprudence can still be applied to situations of targeted dumping where dumping takes place in a specific region, at specific timing, or for specific consumer groups.

This paper examines the prior decisions of the WTO panels and the Appellate Body relating to the zeroing practice. It categorizes the key elements of these prior decisions where the zeroing practice has been found WTO-inconsistent. While there has been no specific dispute addressing targeted dumping per se, this paper proves that core elements of the zeroing practice have been anatomized and dissected by the panels and the Appellate Body in prior proceedings. The paper then analyzes whether these key elements still exist in the specific context of targeted dumping and thus whether application of zeroing is still prohibited in targeted dumping situations.

The existing jurisprudence on zeroing from previous WTO disputes should apply to targeted dumping situations as well. Unbridled application of zeroing in the targeted dumping situations will effectively nullify the existing zeroing jurisprudence accumulated through a decade of WTO disputes. If unchecked, this calculation methodology in the context of targeted dumping may open the back door wide open for “zeroing” negative anti-dumping margins. The paper concludes that the existing jurisprudence on zeroing stands for the proposition that zeroing in targeted dumping should also be prohibited.

This paper examines the legality of the zeroing practice in targeted dumping situations, which has been one of the most controversial issues among WTO members for the past several years. The analyses and discussions contained in this paper will provide legal guideline to evaluate zeroing in targeted dumping within the WTO framework. The outcome of the research will provide a platform for continued research and discussion in this area.

The purpose of this paper is to review the use of zeroing in the weighted average-to-transaction (W-T) comparison methodology and targeted dumping under the anti-dumping agreement by reviewing the WTO appellate body’s rulings on the use of zeroing in the W-T comparison methodology in the USA – anti-dumping measures on large residential washers from Korea (DS464). Although the appellate body has ruled that the use of zeroing would not be allowed in the weighted-average-to-weighted-average comparison methodology nor in the transaction-to-transaction comparison methodology, it has not ruled on whether the use of zeroing is allowed in the W-T comparison methodology prior to the instant case.

This paper mainly analyzes the WTO appellate body report on the USA – anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea’s rulings (DS464) and reviews other WTO appellate body reports on the use of zeroing in anti-dumping measures. This paper reviews the relevant provisions of the WTO anti-dumping agreement and the US Anti-Dumping Act, and also referred prior papers on the use of zeroing.

The appellate body upheld the panel’s finding that the USA’s use of zeroing in the W-T comparison methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the anti-dumping agreement. As zeroing inflates dumping margins, increases the amount of duty collected, and hinders the expansion of trade in goods. The use of zeroing should be prohibited or permitted only in very limited circumstances.

Zeroing, which has been the subject of many WTO disputes between the USA and foreign governments, causes dumped sales to be masked by fair value. The WTO appellate body has consistently condemned the US practice of zeroing over the past decade as an unfair commerce practice. The instant case and this paper will help to stop the practice of zeroing in anti-dumping measures.

The text of Article 2.4.2 does not clearly prohibit the use of zeroing. The paper reviews the WTO appellate body’s rulings on the use of zeroing in the W-T comparison methodology in the USA – anti-dumping measures on large residential washers from Korea (DS464). The appellate body report was very recently circulated, on September 9, 2016. The appellate body has not ruled on whether the use of zeroing is allowed in the W-T comparison methodology prior to the instant case. This paper, first, concludes that the W-T comparison methodology is inconsistent with Article 2.4.2 of the anti-dumping agreement.

Eastern Europe and, perhaps most importantly, the Soviet Union are becoming increasingly accessible to the West. With glasnost taking hold and trading relations beginning to thaw, this article examines the opportunities for trade that COMECON present.

Although officially ended in July 2020, China’s dispute about its non-market economy (NME) status at the World Trade Organization (WTO) is far from being resolved. The NME status enables China’s counterparts to disregard Chinese prices in antidumping proceedings and instead use the so-called surrogate country methodology. This paper aims to structure and analyze the complex debate, which emerged with the disputes China has filed against the European Union and the USA at the WTO, and therefore provide a point of reference for future analysis of and debates about China’s NME status.

The analysis is based on the existing academic literature on the topic and on the legal WTO-related documents (e.g. multilateral agreements, China’s Accession Protocol, legal findings of the WTO dispute panels).

Four different interpretations of the respective legal documents about China’s NME status are discussed and strong and weak aspects of these interpretations are pointed out. Also, several misunderstandings and mistakes appearing in the debate are clarified.

As the question of China’s position at the WTO and its NME status has not been resolved yet and some authors believe that China will pursue its case again once the WTO Appellate Body revives its functionality, the analysis of the debate can serve as a point of reference for the academic debate and the future research on this topic. Moreover, it offers an introduction to China’s NME position at the WTO for the newcomers to this topic.

Although China’s NME status has been much discussed, there is no literature review that would structure the debate and point out some of the (dis)advantages of the respective arguments and interpretations. Rather than adding to the large corpus of literature about the NME status, this study takes this corpus as the object of its analysis.

It is argued that the evolution of trade between the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and the European Union (EU) falls into three phases: limited contact; both sides seeking rapid growth and becoming mutually dependent; and high mutual trade levels with political considerations re‐emerging, China being kept at arm’s length by GATT/WTO and the EU restraining trade through increasing quotas, tariffs and anti‐dumping actions. Nevertheless, high levels of Intra Industry Trade (IIT) demonstrate mutual dependence. Cultural and political differences, as well as incompatible statistical records, prevent trade reaching its full potential at present.

We first discuss what fairness may mean in the context of the dispute settlement process, noting the crucial relation between fairness in dispute settlement and the functioning of the trading system as a whole. We explore this relation further through an analysis of three main groups of dispute settlement cases. These are cases that turn around the question of defining fair competition; cases that arise from the use of contingency measures; and cases that draw the boundaries between domestic regulatory measures and the trade-related norms and rules of the WTO. There follows an analysis of experience with compliance and with the use of countermeasures in various cases. Finally, taking together the rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body and the procedures for compliance and the use of countermeasures, we conclude that while the present dispute settlement process serves to protect the fairness of the trading system as a whole, there are some aspects of dispute settlement that remain problematic from the standpoint of fairness.

In WTO proceedings The Dispute Settlement Body has generally adopted a standard of review that is less than deferential even in the Anti‐Dumping agreement which envisages a deferential standard of review. What should be the applicable standard of review in WTO proceedings? The purpose of this paper is to present an analysis of the concept of “deference as respect” as developed by David Dyzenhaus and discuss its application to the WTO. This paper argues that the WTO should apply a standard of “deference as respect” in the interest of preserving economic sovereignty and the legitimacy of the WTO.

The paper involves the analysis of relevant case law and also the analysis and application of the concept of “deference as respect” in WTO proceedings. It also uses a comparative methodology in that it highlights the application of domestic legal principles at the international level.

The main finding is that within the WTO there is need to balance the requirements of trade liberalisation which eschews protectionism and the requirements of sovereignty and legitimacy. This balance can partly be achieved when a standard of review akin to “deference as respect” is applied.

This paper is different from previous writings on WTO standard of review in that it applies the concept of “deference as respect”. This analysis and application will provide academics and members of the DSB with a new way of assessing the standard of review in the WTO.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an economic analysis of the sources of supply to the US shrimp market.

The paper uses monthly time series data to estimate a simultaneous equations model with equations for domestic supplies from the Gulf of Mexico, imports, and prices.

Estimated long-run elasticities suggest that the domestic shrimp supply appears to be explained by seasons, diesel fuel price, hurricane activity, and shrimp price. The authors find evidence of a downward-slopping supply curve for the domestic harvesters that is likely to be temporary. Furthermore, anti-dumping duties have been ineffectual in curtailing imports produced by exploitation of natural shrimp biomass in developing countries and by technological advancements in aquaculture production. The authors also find evidence of a low exchange rate pass through. Finally, while domestic and import prices are not cointegrated, there is a two-way causality between them.

The authors found evidence that shrimp prices have fallen as import supply, due to technological advances in aquaculture, has risen faster than the US domestic demand over time suggesting a downward sloping supply curve. Also, the falling value of the US dollar has discouraged the imports, while the anti-dumping duties appear to have had little influence on the aggregate level of imports.

It provides a thorough investigation of the supply side of an important component of the US seafood market displaying the complexity of domestic producers’ reaction to falling prices, and ineffectual protectionism.