TERM PAPER

OF

MANAGERIAL ECONOMICS(TOPIC:- Is Dumping Illegal? Comment with authentic view points)

DATE OF ALLOTMENT:- 9-SEP-2010

DATE OF SUBMISSION:- 16-NOV-2010

SUBMITTED TO:- SUBMITTED BY:-

MR MANDEEP SINGH NITESH SHARMA

LECTURER OF MBA, 1ST SEMESTER

MANAGERIAL ECONOMICS SECTION:- S1003

(LSM) ROLL NO:- 87

REG NO:- 11010179.

ABSTRACT

This term paper is all about is dumping illegal or not and what are the impacts of dumping on different sectors and legal issues related with dumping, agriculture support regarding dumping, impact of dumping on WTO and research articles analysis and what are the findings related with this topic that dumping is illegal or not what are the authentic view points regarding this concept.

INDEX:-

INTRODUCTIONION

DEFINITION AND EXTENT AND IMPACT ON WTO

LTERATURE REVIEW / ANALYSIS

SECTORWISE APPLICABLE OF DUMPING

IMPACT OF DUMPING ECONOMICALLY

CONCLUSION

INTRODUCTION OF DUMPING:-

In economics, "dumping" can refer to any kind of predatory pricing. However, the word is now generally used only in the context of international trade law, where dumping is defined as the act of a manufacturer in one country exporting a product to another country at a price which is either below the price it charges in its home market or is below its costs of production. The term has a negative connotation, but advocates of free markets see "dumping" as beneficial for consumers and believe that protectionism to prevent it would have net negative consequences. Advocates for workers and laborers however, believe that safeguarding businesses against predatory practices, such as dumping, help alleviate some of the harsher consequences of free trade between economies at different stages of development (see protectionism). The Bolkestein directive, for example, was accused in Europe of being a form of "social dumping," as it favored competition between workers, as exemplified by the Polish Plumber stereotype. While there are very few examples of a national scale dumping that succeeded in producing a national-level monopoly, there are several examples of dumping that produced a monopoly in regional markets for certain industries. Ron Chenow points to the example of regional oil monopolies in Titan : The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. where Rockefeller receives a message from Colonel Thompson outlining an approved strategy where oil in one market, Cincinnati, would be sold at or below cost to drive competition's profits down and force them to exit the market. In another area where other independent businesses were already driven out, namely in Chicago, prices would be increased by a quarter. [1]

A standard technical definition of dumping is the act of charging a lower price for a good in a foreign market than one charges for the same good in a domestic market. This is often referred to as selling at less than "fair value". Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement, dumping is condemned (but is not prohibited) if it causes or threatens to cause material injury to a domestic industry in the importing country. [2]

1. Persistent dumping

2. Sporadic dumping

3. Predatory dumping

DEFINITION AND EXTENTS AND IMPACT ON WTO:-

While permitted by the WTO, General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) (Article VI) allows countries the option of taking action against dumping. The Anti-Dumping Agreement clarifies and expands Article VI, and the two operate together. They allow countries to act in a way that would normally break the GATT principles of binding a tariff and not discriminating between trading partners—typically anti-dumping action means charging extra import duty on the particular product from the particular exporting country in order to bring its price closer to the “normal value” or to remove the injury to domestic industry in the importing country.

There are many different ways of calculating whether a particular product is being dumped heavily or only lightly. The agreement narrows down the range of possible options. It provides three methods to calculate a product’s “normal value”. The main one is based on the price in the exporter’s domestic market. When this cannot be used, two alternatives are available—the price charged by the exporter in another country, or a calculation based on the combination of the exporter’s production costs, other expenses and normal profit margins. And the agreement also specifies how a fair comparison can be made between the export price and what would be a normal price.

Calculating the extent of dumping on a product is not enough. Anti-dumping measures can only be applied if the dumping is hurting the industry in the importing country. Therefore, a detailed investigation has to be conducted according to specified rules first. The investigation must evaluate all relevant economic factors that have a bearing on the state of the industry in question. If the investigation shows dumping is taking place and domestic industry is being hurt, the exporting company can undertake to raise its price to an agreed level in order to avoid anti-dumping imp Legal issues

If a company exports a product at a price lower than the price it normally charges on its own home market, it is said to be "dumping" the product. Opinions differ as to whether or not this is unfair competition, but many governments take action against dumping in order to defend their domestic industries. The WTO agreement does not pass judgment. Its focus is on how governments can or cannot react to dumping—it disciplines anti-dumping actions, and it is often called the "Anti-Dumping Agreement". (This focuses only on the reaction to dumping contrasts with the approach of the Subsidies & Countervailing Measures Agreement.)

The legal definitions are more precise, but broadly speaking the WTO agreement allows governments to act against dumping where there is genuine ("material") injury to the competing domestic industry. In order to do that the government has to be able to show that dumping is taking place, calculate the extent of dumping (how much lower the export price is compared to the exporter’s home market price), and show that the dumping is causing injury or threatening to do sort duty.

Procedures in investigation and litigation

Detailed procedures are set out on how anti-dumping cases are to be initiated, how the investigations are to be conducted, and the conditions for ensuring that all interested parties are given an opportunity to present evidence. Anti-dumping measures must expire five years after the date of imposition, unless a review shows that ending the measure would lead to injury.

Anti-dumping investigations are to end immediately in cases where the authorities determine that the margin of dumping is, de minimis, or insignificantly small (defined as less than 2% of the export price of the product). Other conditions are also set. For example, the investigations also have to end if the volume of dumped imports is negligible (i.e., if the volume from one country is less than 3% of total imports of that product—although investigations can proceed if several countries, each supplying less than 3% of the imports, together account for 7% or more of total imports). The agreement says member countries must inform the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices about all preliminary and final anti-dumping actions, promptly and in detail. They must also report on all investigations twice a year. When differences arise, members are encouraged to consult each other. They can also use the WTO’s dispute settlement procedure.

Actions in the European Union

European Union anti-dumping is under the purview of the European Council. It is governed by European Council regulation 384/96. However, implementation of anti-dumping actions (trade defence actions) is taken after voting by various committees with member state representation.

The bureaucratic entity responsible for advising member states on anti-dumping actions is the Directorate General Trade (DG Trade), based in Brussels. Community industry can apply to have an anti-dumping investigation begin. DG Trade first investigates the standing of the complainants. If they are found to represent at least 25% of community industry, the investigation will probably begin. The process is guided by quite specific guidance in the regulations. The DG Trade will make a recommendation to a committee known as the Anti-Dumping Advisory Committee, on which each member state has one vote. Member states abstaining will be treated as if they voted in favour of industrial protection, a voting system which has come under considerable criticism.

As is implied by the criterion for beginning an investigation, EU anti-dumping actions are primarily considered part of a "trade defence" portfolio. Consumer interests and non-industry related interests ("community interests") are not emphasized during an investigation. An investigation typically looks for damage caused by dumping to community producers, and the level of tariff set is based on the damage done to community producers by dumping.

If consensus is not found, the decision goes to the European Council.

If imposed, duties last for five years theoretically. In practice they last at least a year longer, because expiry reviews are usually initiated at the end of the five years, and during the review process the status-quo is maintained.

Agricultural support

European Union and Common Agricultural Policy

The Common Agricultural Policy of the European Union has often been accused of dumping though significant reforms were made as part of the Agreement on Agriculture at the Uruguay round of GATT negotiations in 1992 and in subsequent incremental reforms, notably the Luxembourg Agreement in 2003. Initially the CAP sought to increase European agricultural production and provide support to European farmers through a process of market intervention whereby a special fund - the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) - would buy up surplus agricultural produce if the price fell below a certain centrally determined level (the intervention level). Through this measure European farmers were given a 'guaranteed' price for their produce when sold in the European community. In addition to this internal measure a system of export reimbursements ensured that European produce sold outside of the European community would sell at or below world prices at no detriment to the European producer. This policy was heavily criticised as distorting world trade and since 1992 the policy has moved away from market intervention and towards direct payments to farmers regardless of production (a process of "decoupling"). Furthermore the payments are generally dependent on the farmer fulfilling certain environmental or animal welfare requirements so as to encourage responsible, sustainable farming in what is termed 'multifunctional' agricultural subsidies - that is, the social, environmental and other benefits from subsidies that do not include a simple increase in production

LITERATURE REVIEW :-

The calculation of dumping margins is extremely complicated. Businesses are often shocked to find that they have been accused of pricing unfairly. For example, many businesses are aware that their export sales are profitable overall yet they do not realise that there can still be problems of dumping. The structure of dumping calculations is such that dumping can easily be occurring in such a situation. Great care needs to be taken in making simple calculations to check if dumping is occurring or not.

In order to achieve any element of certainty in avoiding dumped prices, professional assistance is almost certainly required. However, several tips can be provided to companies that are looking to avoid dumping when exporting to certain markets. These tips are based standards set by the WTO anti-dumping agreement. This means that they should be relevant to most export markets.

IMPACT OF DUMPING ON DIFFERNT SECTORS:-Color TV Manufacturers

Perhaps the most publicized antidumping case against China in recent years is the one involving color TV manufacturers. In 1991 a group of European TV makers led by the Netherlands' firm Philips filed dumping charges to the European Union claiming that Chinese companies were selling color TV below normal value in the European market. Due to the lack of interest of Chinese companies to provide the required information, the EU had not other option but to use Singapore as a third country for comparison. The results have been very destructive. The EU imposed a 15.5 percent antidumping tax on color TV in 1991. This tax rate was increase in 1995 to 25.6 percent and in 1998 to 44.6 percent (China Daily, 2000). This tax on TV imports from China has tremendously affected the industry. One company alone was able to export 300,000 TV sets to the European Union in 1993. In 1999, all Chinese TV makers combined only exported approximately 30,000 sets to the EU (China Daily). Chinese enterprises blame the EU's ignorance of the TV industry in China. "In China, domestically-made color TV's are well known for their low prices, the result of several years of price wars among Chinese TV makers" (China Biz). They also claim that it is unfair to use Singapore as the country for comparison since production and labor costs are much lower in China. This recent increase in tax rate has awaken Chinese companies and public statements condemning EU measures has risen in the past two years. In August 2000, seven Chinese TV manufacturers (Amoisonic, Changhong, TCL, Hisense, Skyworth, Panda, and Furi) joined forces to appeal the case and do everything possible to alleviate the situation.

Steel Cable Producers

Another case that also attracted media attention was the one concerning Chinese steel cable producers. In March 2000 the US Department of Commerce, after concluding its investigation, levied antidumping duties ranging from 24 percent to 119 percent on Chinese steel cable imports. However, later in the year, the US International Trade Commission decided to stop investigating the case without adopting antidumping measures. The Commission did not find any evidence to suggest that made-in-China steel cables had done substantial damage or posed threat of damage to US steel cable industry (Elecmotor.com). According to China Chamber of Commerce for Metals, Minerals, and Chemicals Importers and Exporters (CCCMC), the initial dumping margin found by Commerce was based on much higher prices charged by countries other than China. Commerce agreed to reconsider the method of computation and accepted Chinese companies arguments. However, it still maintains that Chinese companies had dumped steel cable in the US market, although not at the rate initially calculated.

Dumping selling goods at less than the normal price, usually as exports in international trade. It may be done by a producer, a group of producers, or a nation. Dumping is usually done to drive competitors off the market and secure a monopoly, or to hinder foreign competition. To counterbalance international dumping, nations often resort to flexible tariffs. In international trade, acute competition from foreign producers often leads to charges of dumping. A policy of dumping depends for its effectiveness on the possibility of maintaining separate domestic and foreign markets, on monopolistic influences maintaining a high price in the home market, on export bounties, or on low import duties in the foreign market. Dumping disturbs those markets that receive dumped goods, and it may drive local producers out of business. Governments may condone, or even sponsor, dumping in other markets for either political reasons or to achieve a more favourable balance of payments. In the late 19th cent., dumping became part of the trade policy of great European cartels, especially German cartels. Britain, France, Japan, and the United States also have practiced dumping. Antidumping legislation was first passed (1904) by Canada. In the United States various tariff acts have been passed to deal with different types of dumping; in particular the 1921 Emergency Tariff Act imposed special duties on goods imported for sale at less than their fair value or cost of production. It was amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1954. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) prohibits dumping and provides for increased import duties to combat the practice.

WTO VIEWS ABOUT DUMPINGSince the World Trade Organization (WTO) was established, China has made large-scale efforts to shape its trade remedy system through legal and organizational changes. Through these changes, China could clarify the meanings of WTO anti-dumping provisions including the provision relating to the definition of domestic industry. Moreover, procedural disciplines on reviews were fortified in Chinese anti-dumping system. While the overall improvements to the trade remedy system of China are evident, definitions of several key legal terms, including the concept of “related producers”, the negligible import standard, and adjustment factors for a fair comparison between normal values and export prices are still absent, and some legal problems relating to price undertakings and the countermeasure system remain to be solved. China should continue to proceed with the task of clarification and improvement of its trade rules.

China has taken steps to reform and modernize its trade regulatory system in its bid to enter the World Trade Organization (WTO), and as a result of pressure from its trading partners. As China has accelerated its market liberalization process after the establishment of the WTO, tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade have been substantially relaxed. As a result, it has been necessary to protect some domestic industries which are unable to compete with foreign exporters and to provide remedies for injuries to domestic firms caused by unfair trade practices. Therefore,

China has made large-scale efforts to build its trade remedy system in its short history of trade remedy regulation.

The principal law governing foreign trade relations of China is the “Foreign Trade Law of the People's Republic of China”. This law comprises 11 chapters covering general provisions, foreign trade dealers, import and export of goods and technologies, international trade in services, protection of trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, foreign trade order, foreign trade investigations, foreign trade remedies, foreign trade promotion, legal liabilities and supplementary provisions. Anti-Dumping Regulations is included in the chapter on foreign trade remedy measures.

In order to elaborate these rules on the trade remedies, the State Council of China promulgated rules and procedures on anti-dumping and countervailing duties in 1997, which is the “Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Regulations of the People's Republic of China” (often called the “old Regulations”). When the Regulations was drafted, the only experience China had in regard to anti-dumping regulations was defending its firms in anti-dumping investigations conducted by other WTO members. It was not until the end of 1997 that China initiated its first anti-dumping investigation in the newsprint case. Therefore, even though the regulations had been drafted by referring to the WTO Anti-Dumping and Subsidy and Countervailing Measures (SCM) Agreements, many of its provisions were rather general, offering little guidance on how to apply the rules in practice. Moreover, several provisions were different from those of the WTO agreements. During China's accession negotiation to the WTO, some WTO Members raised concerns that as a result of applying these provisions, trade remedy investigations by Chinese authorities would be found to be inconsistent with WTO rules if China were a Member of the WTO.

As part of its accession package, China committed to make its trade laws and regulations compatible with the WTO agreements. Thereafter, China repealed the old regulations and enacted two new Regulations, i.e. the “Anti-Dumping Regulations” and the “Anti-Subsidy Regulations” by separating anti-dumping issues from subsidy-countervailing issues. These Regulations became effective on 1 January 2002, shortly after the National People's Congress of China ratified its accession to the WTO. The new Anti-Dumping Regulations prescribes detailed and comprehensive rules on anti-dumping with 59 articles over six chapters. These rules were elaborated by many provisional rules promulgated by the then MOFTEC and the State Economics and Trade Commission (SETC).

According to Article 71 of the Law on Legislations of China, for subject matters within their spheres of authority, ministries, commissions and other subsidiary bodies under the State Council may issue implementing rules pursuant to national laws, administrative regulations and decisions and orders of the State Council. In practice, these rules often take the form of provisional rules where there is no law or administrative regulations currently in place, or where the National People's Congress or the State Council is not yet ready to draft legislation for a specific subject but there is an urgent need for the regulations. Provisional rules are intended to be gradually replaced by definitive laws or administrative regulations.

This article will analyse the anti-dumping legal system of China focusing on its procedural aspects. For this purpose, the Foreign Trade Law, the Pursuant to the National People's Congress Decision on the Institutional Reform of the State Council and State Council's Notice on Institutional Organization, the central government of China went through a major restructuring in March 2003. As a result, the Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) was established to take over parts of the responsibilities of the MOFTEC and SETC, which include the role of regulating dumping and subsidy practices. In light of this organizational change, the Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Regulations were revised in March 2004 and made effective on 1 June 2004. The Anti-Dumping Regulations of 2004 covers a wide variety of subjects ranging from the determination of dumping, calculation of margins, injury determinations, investigation procedure, anti-dumping duty, price undertaking, sunset review and notifications. In October 2003, MOFCOM promulgated the “Rules on Industry Injury of Anti-Dumping Investigation” and the “Rules on Industry Injury of Anti-Subsidy Investigation.”

Anti-Dumping Regulations, the provisional rules and the MOFCOM rules will be examined. Procedural rules under these laws and regulations will be compared with those of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in order to examine whether the Chinese anti-dumping laws and regulations are consistent with the WTO rules.

Petition for investigation, and determination of the scope of domestic industry

The Foreign Trade Law of China grants “the authority to conduct anti-dumping investigations” to a State Council ministry responsible for foreign trade. According to the National People's Congress Decision on the Institutional Reform of the State Council and State Council's Notice on Institutional Organization, this authority is currently exercised by MOFCOM, which may either initiate the investigations by itself or upon receiving petitions from domestic industry. The Anti-Dumping Regulations of China recognizes the right of petition by providing that “a domestic industry or a natural person, legal person or relevant organization representing a domestic industry may file a written application for an anti-dumping investigation to the MOFCOM”.

The issue of standing to file petitions is prescribed in the Provisional Rules on Initiation of Anti-Dumping Investigations. According to these rules, an application is considered to have been made by or on behalf of the domestic industry and an anti-dumping investigation may be initiated, if the application is supported by those domestic producers whose collective output constitutes more than 50 per cent of the total output of the like products produced by that portion of the domestic industry expressing either support for or opposition to the application and such output accounts for at least 25 per cent of total production of the like domestic product. If the domestic industry is fragmented and involving a large number of producers, MOFCOM may examine the standing of the applicant by using statistically valid sampling methods.

According to the Chinese regulations and provisional rules, the term “domestic industry” means the domestic producers as a whole of the like products within China or those of them whose collective output of the product constitutes a “major

proportion” of the total production of those products, and “major proportion” means “more than 50 per cent.” Certain domestic producers are excluded from the scope of the domestic industry when the producers are “related” to the exporters or importers, or are “themselves importers” of the dumped imports or like products.

In addition, the provisional rules include a “regional industry” concept. According to this, the producers located in a certain area of the domestic market may be regarded as a separate industry (regional industry), provided that they sell all or almost all of their production of the like products in that market, and the demand for the like products in that market is not to any substantial degree supplied by the producers located elsewhere in China. When determining such a regional industry, sales performance and demands for the product in the region must be taken into account.

Several aspects of these Chinese rules and regulations can be examined by comparison with WTO jurisprudence. The first point of analysis is the concept of domestic industry. How to define the concept of “domestic industry” is an issue necessarily related to such matters as standing, injury determination, and the scope of products subject to anti-dumping duties. According to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, the term ‘domestic industry’ refers to the domestic producers as a whole of the like products or to those of them whose collective output of the products constitutes “a major proportion” of the total domestic production of like products.Because the term “a major proportion” is not defined in the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, controversy may arise as to the interpretation of the term.

In Argentina-Poultry Anti-Dumping Duties, for example, Brazil as the complaining party claimed that, because “a major proportion” means “the majority” (i.e., more than 50 per cent), Argentina violated WTO rules by defining the domestic industry as producers whose collective output constituted 46 per cent of the total domestic production and collecting injury data as to those producers.

Against this claim, Argentina (the defending party) and the United States and EC (third parties) argued that the use of the words “a major proportion”—different from “the major proportion”—indicate that there could be more than one major proportion. According to them, “a major proportion” means an “unusually important, serious or significant” proportion, not necessarily the majority. As reasons for this interpretation the United States and EC submitted that:

1. the fact that the drafters of the domestic industry clause did not explicitly state “50 per cent” as opposed to the case of Article 5.4 (50 per cent standing requirement) shows that they intended a different standard;

2. according to Article 5.4, an application may be considered to have been made “on behalf of the domestic industry” even if the producers which support it represent less than 50 per cent of the domestic production. With the same token, “a major proportion” in Article 4.1 can be less than 50 per cent;

3. Article 4.1 merely contains a definition of “domestic industry”, and does not impose any obligation on Members.

While denying the US claim that Article 4.1 is a mere definition clause, the panel agreed with the United States and EC that it is permissible to define the “domestic

industry” in terms of domestic producers of an important, serious or significant proportion of total domestic production.

This issue is also hotly debated in the current DDA negotiations on Rules. The Anti-Dumping Friends Group, for example, has proposed the 50 per cent threshold rule. According to the group, this clear threshold, if adopted, could enhance consistency of injury determinations in anti-dumping investigation procedures. Regardless of which approach is used, the Chinese Regulations seems to be consistent with WTO rules because “more than 50 per cent” certainly qualifies as a “major” proportion. This rule is a good example of clarification of the meaning of WTO provisions.

Second, the scope of producers excluded from the concept of domestic industry is another point of analysis. The WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement enables its members to exclude from the scope of domestic industry the so-called “related producers”, i.e. domestic producers who are “related” to the exporters or importers or are “themselves importers” of the allegedly dumped product. The Agreement has the following definition clause for the word “related” which uses the relationship of “control” as the major criterion. Producers shall be deemed to be related to exporters or importers only if (a) one of them directly or indirectly controls the other; or (b) both of them are directly or indirectly controlled by a third person; or (c) together they directly or indirectly control a third person, provided that there are grounds for believing or suspecting that the effect of the relationship is such as to cause the producer concerned to behave differently from non-related producers. Under the Chinese rules, investigating authorities may exclude domestic producers who are “related” to the exporters or importers or are “themselves importers” of the allegedly dumped product. A problem of inconsistency may arise, however, if an excessive exclusion occurs. What is enabled by the WTO agreement is to exclude certain related producers as defined by the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Anti-Dumping Agreement imposes two-fold conditions to qualify as “related producers”: (i) existence of the relationship of “control”; and (ii) any grounds for suspecting that effects of the relationship will cause the producer concerned to behave differently from non-related producers. Given that they are substantive requirements for the exclusion of related producers, the burden of proving whether these conditions are met in a specific case must be borne by the side that is attempting to exclude certain producers from the scope of domestic industry by the reason of alleged existence of control relationship. That is, if an investigation authority tries to circumscribe a domestic industry by excluding certain domestic producers, the authority is not only required to establish that there is a control relationship between the producers and exporters or importers, but also is required to present any grounds of suspicion that the relationship will cause their different behaviour. Therefore, if the authority, when making related producer determinations, omits examinations of either condition or shifts its burden of proof to exporters or petitioners, WTO rules in this regard will be violated.

It is possible that MOFCOM may define related producers in a broader sense than as defined under the WTO agreement. This may happen, for example, when the second condition is not examined, or in the case of the shift of the burden of proof. If such broader interpretation occurs, any producers who are otherwise unrelated to exporters or importers could be treated as related producers and excluded from the scope of domestic industry. Given that there is no definition clause of the term

“related” under the Chinese law and regulations (as opposed to in the WTO agreement), such possibility of excessive exclusion and WTO inconsistency is always latent.

Third, it seems that the regional industry provision under the Chinese Regulations is consistent with the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in that both are stipulating the same factors (i.e. sales performance and demands) as criteria to recognize a separate domestic industry. Even though it has been rarely used, in practice, by the MOFCOM, this provision is very useful to China given the great size of the Chinese territory. According to WTO rules, once a regional industry is recognized, anti-dumping duties should be levied in principle only on the products in question consigned for final consumption to that specific region.This point must be kept in mind by Chinese authorities in making decisions.

Determination of dumping margin

The margin of dumping is the amount by which the export price of an imported product is less than its normal value. Therefore, how to compare the export price with the normal value is an important issue in determining dumping margins.

According to Anti-Dumping Regulations of China, MOFCOM may choose two methods of comparison: first, compare the weighted average normal value with the weighted average prices in all comparable export transactions (“A-to-A comparison”); second, compare the normal value with the export price on a transaction-to-transaction basis (“T-to-T comparison”). Where the export prices differ significantly among different purchasers, regions or time periods, and therefore it is difficult to make comparison by using these methods, comparison may be made between the weighted average normal value and prices of individual export transactions (“A-to-T comparison”). These provisions resulted from efforts to elaborate and improve the rules under the old Regulations, which had simply provided that export prices and normal values should be compared according to “fair and reasonable means”.

According to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, the investigating authorities may use the A-to-T comparison method only in exceptional circumstances. If the method is used, the authorities must “provide an explanation” as to why it is not appropriate to take normal A-to-A or T-to-T comparison methods. This means that a burden of showing an existence of the exceptional circumstances must be borne by the investigating authorities.

Under Chinese Regulations, the authorities may adopt the A-to-T method in exceptional circumstances, but there is no explicit obligation for the authority to explain its reason. As a consequence, in many investigations, the burden of proving exceptional circumstances might be shifted from the authority to the exporters or producers subject to investigations. Moreover, under the WTO anti-dumping rules, WTO panels may only determine whether the authorities' establishment of the facts was proper and whether their evaluation of those facts was unbiased and objective. Hence, if a WTO dispute arises against MOFCOM's use of A-to-T methods, the complaining party must not only prove that there were no special circumstances, but also show that MOFCOM's evaluation of facts (i.e. MOFCOM's decision that there

exist special circumstances) was biased and not objective. This is a heavy burden for the exporters or producers subject to anti-dumping investigations. If MOFCOM, upon using the A-to-T method, does not explain why normal methods of comparison cannot be used in light of a pattern of export prices which differ significantly among different purchasers, regions or time periods, violation of WTO rules may occur.

Another problem in the Chinese legal system is that notwithstanding amendment of the old Regulations, it has not specified what kinds of adjustment factors must be considered in making a fair comparison between normal values and export prices. For such consideration, the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement elaborates various factors in terms of time and transaction level of comparison. The issues of conversion of currencies and fluctuations in exchange rates are also addressed. By comparison, Chinese Regulations have a simple clause of principle providing that “A fair and reasonable comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value of an imported product, with due allowance for factors which affect price comparability”. What are these factors and how to consider them are questions that are totally left to the discretion of Chinese authorities. Such wide discretion might be inconsistent with WTO rules.

Price undertakings 

During the period of an anti-dumping investigation, an exporter of the dumped imports may offer MOFCOM an undertaking to revise its prices or to cease exporting at dumped prices. This undertaking is called the “price undertaking”. Provisional Rules on Price Undertaking of China defines it as follows: The term “Price Undertakings” mentioned in these Rules refers to undertakings voluntarily offered to [MOFCOM] by exporters and producers who have responded to an antidumping investigation by way of revising prices or ceasing exports of the product under investigation at dumped prices, and accepted by [MOFCOM], in order to suspend or terminate the said investigation. MOFCOM may make price undertaking offers, but it must not force exporters to accept the offers. The fact that exporters or producers do not offer a price undertaking or do not accept a suggested price undertaking must in no way prejudice the proper investigation and determination of dumping and dumping margin If MOFCOM considers that price undertaking offers made by exporters are acceptable, it may decide to suspend or terminate the anti-dumping investigation without applying provisional anti-dumping measures or imposing anti-dumping duties. The decision of suspension or termination must be published. If MOFCOM does not accept a price undertaking offer, it must provide reasons for the non-acceptance to the exporters concerned. Price undertakings must not be sought or accepted unless the investigating authorities have made a preliminary affirmative determination of dumping and injury.

Notwithstanding the suspension or termination of the investigation, MOFCOM may still continue the investigation of dumping and injury upon the request of the exporters or if itself deems necessary Upon the conclusion of such investigation, the price undertaking will either automatically lapse if a negative determination is made on dumping or injury, or remain in force if the determination is affirmative.7MOFCOM may require the exporter from whom an undertaking has been accepted to periodically provide information and documentation relevant to the fulfillment of such

an undertaking, and verify such information and documentation. These powers of the MOFCOM are necessary to monitor status of implementations of undertaking agreements.

Other than these provisions, Chinese rules and regulations have many detailed procedural provisions on price undertakings. Most of them do not conflict with the WTO Agreement because they address procedural issues that are not covered in the WTO Agreement.

However, two aspects of Chinese rules might be inconsistent with WTO rules. First, the Provisional Rules on Price Undertakings provide that MOFCOM may accept only undertaking proposals submitted by “exporters who have been sufficiently cooperative during the investigation procedure”. According to the WTO Agreement, undertakings offered need not be accepted if the authorities consider their acceptance “impractical” or for reasons of “general policy”, and upon rejecting, authorities should provide to the exporter the reasons of rejection and an opportunity to make comments.

Absent a standard of determination of being “sufficiently cooperative” and without a consistent application of the standard to actual cases, it will be difficult to see that any rejection of undertaking offers by reason of lack of “sufficient cooperation” is based on any reason consistent with WTO rules. In addition, if Chinese authorities do not provide the exporter the reasons of rejection or an opportunity to make comments, violation of WTO rules will arise. In its written reply to questions from Mexico in the Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices, China explained that, if a company does not cooperate during the investigation process, it would be difficult to determine whether the company's observance of such price undertaking could be effectively monitored. Thus, China deems that it is impractical to accept such offers. This rationale is not persuasive, however, because there is no necessary correlation between the behaviours of the companies during the investigation process and the undertaking implementation process. Moreover, Article 8.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement has already provided the anti-dumping authorities with effective tools of monitoring uncooperative exporters, i.e. the power to collect information from the exporters and to apply provisional measures using the best information available in the event of violation of an undertaking.

Secondly, according to the Chinese Anti-Dumping Regulations, if exporters breach price undertaking arrangements, Chinese authorities may resume investigations based on the best information available, and decide to apply provisional measures and levy anti-dumping duties retroactively on the products imported within 90 days prior to the application of such provisional anti-dumping measures, provided that the products imported before the violation of the undertaking are not subject to such retroactive duties. This rule of a “90 days retroactive application” has no problem of inconsistency because basically it conforms to WTO rules.

The Provisional Rules on Price Undertakings further stipulates that if the definitive anti-dumping duty established in the final determination is lower than the amount of cash deposit established in the preliminary determination, the difference must be refunded. This provision is compatible with the principle of refund under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

However, a serious problem of inconsistency with WTO rules arises from the subsequent part of the rules stating that “if the definitive anti-dumping duty established in the final determination is higher than the amount of cash deposit established in the preliminary determination, the difference shall be levied”.

According to the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, in case of violation of an undertaking, the authorities may take provisional measures using the best information available. In such cases, definitive duties may be levied “in accordance with this Agreement” on products entered for consumption not more than 90 days before the application of such provisional measures. Another WTO provision stipulates that “if the definitive anti-dumping duty is higher than the provisional duty paid or payable, the difference shall not be collected”. This provision has no exception clause that is applicable for the case of violation of price undertakings.

From these WTO rules, it can be concluded that any collection of the differences (if the definitive anti-dumping duty is higher than the provisional duty paid or payable) in the case of violation of undertakings cannot be qualified as levying definitive duties “in accordance with this Agreement” within the meaning of WTO rules. Such collection will lead to violation of the WTO Agreement.

Indeed, it is difficult to find any policy rationale to collect such differences from the exporter or producer who had breached undertakings. It is not likely that exporters or producers trying to breach undertakings will be discouraged from doing so because of possible retroactive collection of differences. The exporters or producers are fully aware that they will be subject to the disadvantage of the best information rule available in the case of breach, and therefore, any possible retroactive collection is not likely to further discourage them. In other words, as deterrence against breach of undertakings, immediate imposition of provisional duties based on the best information available will be sufficient. Additional punishment of the retroactive collection of duties only upon exporters or producers who have breached undertakings can hardly be justified.

The requirements of an anti-dumping complaint

The particular requirements of a complaint will be set out in the legislation of the country concerned. However, as a minimum, complaints will have to contain the information required by the WTO anti-dumping agreement .

• Identity of the complainant (either an individual company or an association of producers) and the products produced by it which are affected by the allegedly dumped imports.

• Volume and value of domestic production of product concerned accounted for by complainants.

• Description of the allegedly dumped products.

• The exporting countries concerned and the identity of all producers/exporters who are known together with details of known importers.

• Information on prices at which product is sold, both domestically and when exported to market of complainants.

• How these imports have affected the development of the domestic market and led to injury to the domestic industry particularly in terms of trends in key economic indicators such as market share, production and profitability.

CONCLUSION:-

China's modern legal system, dating from reforms begun in 1978, is barely over two and a half decades old. Trade remedy regulations of China merely dates back to the establishment of the WTO. During this short period of time, China made large-scale efforts to shape its trade remedy system through legal and organizational changes. While the overall improvements to the trade remedy system of China are evident, definitions of several key legal terms are absent, and some legal problems and issues remain to be solved and clarified. Of course, the silence in Chinese law and regulations per se does not lead to violations of WTO obligations. In many parts of the Chinese laws and regulations, such as Article 142 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China and Article 9 of Rules on Administrative Cases on International Trade, it is declared that the domestic laws of China must be interpreted in a way that is most compatible with its international obligations. In addition, the Chinese government has frequently indicated its willingness to observe WTO rules when there are no corresponding provisions in its domestic laws.118 Beyond this declaration of the principle of interpretation of domestic laws and expression of political will, China should continue to proceed with the task of clarification and improvement of its trade rules.

It seems that with the establishment of MOFCOM, organizational reforms in the Chinese trade remedy system have been completed. The Ministry, as a new organization in charge of trade remedy matters, will adopt many procedural rules replacing temporary rules made by MOFTEC and SETC. In this process, such problems and issues as identified in this article must be duly dealt with in order to make the system more transparent and consistent with international norms.

Given the size of Chinese economy and the influence of Chinese trade remedy policies, this issue is vital and pressing not only to Chinese domestic enterprises and consumers, but also to most of the trading communities in the world.