Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures - What Are the Differences?
(2007)Department of Law
- Abstract
- Trade remedies - anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard - are controversial, provoking much argument and differences of opinion. The differences in law between anti-dumping and countervailing measures are marginal. The laws regulating countervailing duties require more sufficient proof (e.g. the existence of subsidy must be shown) than anti-dumping law, and the procedure is often quicker. This is because governments perform the subsidisation. It is politically sensitive to bring a claim against another state&semic therefore, the requirements of evidence are more demanding than those for anti-dumping. In terms of the substantial rules of anti-dumping and countervailing measures, the differences between WTO and EC law are few. Indeed, they... (More)
- Trade remedies - anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard - are controversial, provoking much argument and differences of opinion. The differences in law between anti-dumping and countervailing measures are marginal. The laws regulating countervailing duties require more sufficient proof (e.g. the existence of subsidy must be shown) than anti-dumping law, and the procedure is often quicker. This is because governments perform the subsidisation. It is politically sensitive to bring a claim against another state&semic therefore, the requirements of evidence are more demanding than those for anti-dumping. In terms of the substantial rules of anti-dumping and countervailing measures, the differences between WTO and EC law are few. Indeed, they are almost insignificant, except that WTO law lacks provisions regulating circumvention and EC law contains such provisions. The EC law must comply with the WTO law. The differences in this area depend on the EC authorities' practice. Obviously, unfair trade, subsidisation and dumping do exist and cannot be condoned. However, plain protectionism under the guise of the fight against unfair trade is also a reality that is all the more unexpected because it emanates from countries proclaiming themselves to be liberal. This protectionism has become all the more subtle and difficult to identify as dumping and subsidy calculation methods have become more complex and the standards of evidence almost unattainable. The matter requires a return to a more commen-sense approach. A change can be brought about only by simplification, greater transparency and, as far as the EC is concerned, giving judges access to full fact and authority to review the AD and the SCM Regulations. It is essential to ensure transparency of anti-dumping and countervailing proceedings and measures, not only in interests of the EC, but also elsewhere to assure that these measures are used only when unfair trade occurs. The lack of transparency in anti-dumping and countervailing proceedings is by no means unique to the EC authorities and this deficiency makes it easy to use anti-dumping and countervailing measures for protectionist aims. The importance of anti-dumping and countervailing measures must be evaluated in light of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism's features. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
http://lup.lub.lu.se/student-papers/record/1556057
- author
- Belmonte, Alexandra
- supervisor
- organization
- year
- 2007
- type
- H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
- subject
- keywords
- Förmögenhetsrätt
- language
- English
- id
- 1556057
- date added to LUP
- 2010-03-08 15:55:19
- date last changed
- 2010-03-08 15:55:19
@misc{1556057,
abstract = {{Trade remedies - anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard - are controversial, provoking much argument and differences of opinion. The differences in law between anti-dumping and countervailing measures are marginal. The laws regulating countervailing duties require more sufficient proof (e.g. the existence of subsidy must be shown) than anti-dumping law, and the procedure is often quicker. This is because governments perform the subsidisation. It is politically sensitive to bring a claim against another state&semic therefore, the requirements of evidence are more demanding than those for anti-dumping. In terms of the substantial rules of anti-dumping and countervailing measures, the differences between WTO and EC law are few. Indeed, they are almost insignificant, except that WTO law lacks provisions regulating circumvention and EC law contains such provisions. The EC law must comply with the WTO law. The differences in this area depend on the EC authorities' practice. Obviously, unfair trade, subsidisation and dumping do exist and cannot be condoned. However, plain protectionism under the guise of the fight against unfair trade is also a reality that is all the more unexpected because it emanates from countries proclaiming themselves to be liberal. This protectionism has become all the more subtle and difficult to identify as dumping and subsidy calculation methods have become more complex and the standards of evidence almost unattainable. The matter requires a return to a more commen-sense approach. A change can be brought about only by simplification, greater transparency and, as far as the EC is concerned, giving judges access to full fact and authority to review the AD and the SCM Regulations. It is essential to ensure transparency of anti-dumping and countervailing proceedings and measures, not only in interests of the EC, but also elsewhere to assure that these measures are used only when unfair trade occurs. The lack of transparency in anti-dumping and countervailing proceedings is by no means unique to the EC authorities and this deficiency makes it easy to use anti-dumping and countervailing measures for protectionist aims. The importance of anti-dumping and countervailing measures must be evaluated in light of the WTO dispute settlement mechanism's features.}},
author = {{Belmonte, Alexandra}},
language = {{eng}},
note = {{Student Paper}},
title = {{Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Measures - What Are the Differences?}},
year = {{2007}},
}