Debunking the Myth of ‘Particular Market Situation’ In WTO Antidumping Law

Zhou, Weihuan; Percival, Andrew

doi:10.1093/jiel/jgw071

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Zhou, 2018a, p. 632;Zhou, 2018bZhou, , 2017Joshi, 2018;de Kok, 2016, pp. 530-532;Zhou and Percival, 2016).…”

Section: World Trade Organization Antidumping Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

China’s NME status at the WTO: analysis of the debate

Hošman

2021

JITLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose 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. Design/methodology/approach 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). Findings 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. Practical implications 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. Originality/value 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.

show abstract

“…Zhou, 2018a, p. 632;Zhou, 2018bZhou, , 2017Joshi, 2018;de Kok, 2016, pp. 530-532;Zhou and Percival, 2016).…”

Section: World Trade Organization Antidumping Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

China’s NME status at the WTO: analysis of the debate

Hošman

2021

JITLP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ADC menyatakan bahwa Indonesia telah melanggar Pasal 2.1 Persetujuan Anti-Dumping (Lakshimkumaran & Attorneys 2020). Kondisi tersebut dikenal dengan istilah 'Situasi Pasar Tertentu' (Particular Market Situation), kondisi yang menggambarkan praktik suatu negara yang melakukan distorsi harga barang yang mereka ekspor sebagai alasan hukum dalam menentukan adanya dumping (Yun 2017;Lesmana dan Koesnaidi 2019;Zhou dan Percival 2016). Australia mempercayai adanya temuan Particular Market Situation (PMS) karena adanya dugaan subsidi industri kertas dari pemerintah Indonesia yang berindikasi pemasokan kayu bahan baku kertas menjadi lebih rendah (Pablo 2018a).…”

unclassified

Anti-Dumping Dispute Settlement of A4 Paper Products Export between Indonesia and Australia

Wicaksono

Nurhayati

2022

JGS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Indonesia sebagai salah satu negara yang sering dituduh melakukan dumping produk kertas A4 menimbulkan sebuah pertanyaan karena Australia menjadi negara terkini yang menuduh tindakan dumping atas produk Kertas A4 asal Indonesia, yang mana sebelumnya Indonesia pernah mendapat tuduhan dari Korea Selatan (2002), Afrika Selatan (2003) dan Jepang (2012). Hal yang seharusnya menjadi perhatian oleh produsen dan pemerintah Indonesia dalam kasus tuduhan dumping oleh negara luar adalah masalah like product serta kekaburan hukum atas klausul PMS (particular market situation), yang mana selama proses persidangan, baik Indonesia, Australia maupun pihak ketiga memiliki argumentasi masing-masing terkait interpretasi dalam menentukan definisi dari PMS karena belum adanya definisi yang jelas. Penelitian ini menganalisis bagaimana WTO menginterpretasikan makna PMS dari kasus sengketa. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian hukum yuridis normatif dan analisis menggunakan metode kualitatif. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa kebijakan Australia mengenakan BMAD terhadap produk Kertas A4 asal Indonesia, telah melanggar Pasal 2.2 dan 2.2.1.1 Perjanjian Anti-Dumping WTO. Lalu, WTO menginterpretasikan makna PMS dari kasus sengketa anti-dumping ekspor A4 antara Indonesia dengan Australia menentukan bahwa tidak adanya elemen atau batasan terkait dengan intervensi pemerintah. Hal tersebut dikarenakan intervensi pemerintah tidak secara otomatis diterjemahkan secara negatif, karena tidak ada batasan pasti terkait kapan dan bagaimana intervensi pemerintah dapat dianggap berbahaya bagi pasar yang berdampak. Kata-Kata Kunci: Anti-Dumping, Particular Market Situation, Penyelesaian Sengketa Dagang Internasional, WTO. Indonesia as one of the countries that are often accused of dumping A4 paper products raises a question because Australia emerged as the latest country that accuse Indonesian products, in which Indonesia had previously been accused by South Korea (2002), South Africa (2003), and Japan (2012). Things that should be of concern to producers and the Indonesian government in cases of dumping accusations by foreign countries are the issue of like the product and legal ambiguity over the PMS (particular market situation) clause, which during the trial process, both Indonesia, Australia, and third parties had their arguments, each comply to their own interpretation in determining the definition of PMS because there is no clear definition. This study will analyze how the WTO interprets the meaning of PMS from dispute cases. The research is normative juridical law research which conducted the analysis using qualitative methods. The results of the study show that Australia's policy of imposing BMAD on A4 paper products from Indonesia has violated Articles 2.2 and 2.2.1.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Then, the WTO interprets the meaning of PMS from the A4 export anti-dumping dispute case between Indonesia and Australia, determining that there are no elements or limitations related to government intervention. This is because government intervention is not automatically translated negatively, as there is no definite limit to when and how government intervention can be deemed harmful to the impacting market. Keywords: Anti-Dumping, International Trade Dispute Resolution, Particular Market Situation, WTO.

show abstract

“… 13 For a detailed background of the ‘particular market situation’ provision, see Yun (2017) and Zhou and Percival (2016). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

US Anti-Dumping Practices Evolving against Market Economies

Kim¹,

Jaeyoun

2022

World Trade Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines how US discretionary practices developed in the past decade have affected antidumping duty rates against exporters. Using the most recent data on dumping margin calculations, we find that the US Department of Commerce (DOC) has developed discretionary practices in a more nuanced manner to inflate dumping margins, which have primarily targeted market economy exporters. Our case studies document that practices known as targeted dumping and particular market situations appear to serve as trade protectionism for market economy exporters, especially those who could otherwise have received a negative determination without such practices. Furthermore, the DOC has brought an apparent change in its application of discretionary practices after the Trade Extension Preferences Act of 2015, leading to much higher dumping margins for the market economy. Along with empirical and case analyses, we further examine the World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisprudence concerning the extent to which the discretion of an investigating authority in anti-dumping proceedings can be condoned in the WTO.

show abstract

Debunking the Myth of ‘Particular Market Situation’ In WTO Antidumping Law

Cited by 14 publications

References 0 publications

China’s NME status at the WTO: analysis of the debate

China’s NME status at the WTO: analysis of the debate

Anti-Dumping Dispute Settlement of A4 Paper Products Export between Indonesia and Australia

US Anti-Dumping Practices Evolving against Market Economies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About