Comparative Analysis of Anti-Dumping Laws by Okiotor OSIAH

In this project work I have analysed the differences between the US and EU anti-dumping laws in line with the GATT provisions, and further looked at the attendant problems of dumping of products, which is mostly to drive competitors out of business so that the dumping firms will ultimately be free to raise their prices to monopoly levels. This dissertation concentrated more on the differences of anti-dumping laws than the very concept of dumping. Further, I went on to define what dumping is and showed the effort of the WTO to curb this unfair trade practices. In doing this I discussed a brief review of the history of dumping, that the first use of the term ‘dumping’ was in 1868 in the Commerce and Financial Chronicle (VI. 326/I) where it was said, “New stock secretly issued (was) ‘dumped’ on the market for what it would fetch.” But In the late 19th century dumping became part of the trade policy of great European cartels, especially German cartels. Further again, I discussed some of the reasons why companies indulge in dumping activity. These reasons included the following: that the dumping of goods creates an artificial rather than a true comparative advantage, since the lower export price does not result from cost-efficiency; and that dumping is caused by the isolation of the exporting country's market through high protective barriers or lack of competition in the market of the exporting country, and so on. I went on to furnish a succinct definition of the concept of ‘dumping below cost’, which can occur because the industry which is dumping possesses a structural characteristic which enables it to export its products below the cost of production for a sustained period without going out of business, and discussed also its subdivision which are ‘dumping below average cost’ and ‘dumping below marginal cost’ In chapter 3 I delved into the discussion of the EU anti-dumping system beginning with the different anti-dumping institutions (the Commission, the Council and the Member States, and so on) through the investigation processes, that is, how anti-dumping proceedings are initiated. Here the numerous stages (like filing of complaints, the issuance of questionnaires, and verification visits) were discussed. How does the EU determine injury was also looked at. A discussion of the concepts of normal and constructed value,the domestic market price was also looked at. I also explained how dumped products were the principle cause of material injury. I terminated this chapter with a discussion of technical dumping which could be referred to as a company selling at a profit in a foreign market as opposed to unfair trade pricing. Chapter 4 discussed the US anti-dumping system. Here, just as I did in the previous chapter, I began this chapter with the different anti-dumping institutions that exist in the US. The two main institutions that are vested with authority to handle anti-dumping issues are the Department of Commerce and the International Trade Commission. This chapter also discussed US antidumping investigation techniques in terms of the counsels’ role, how do antidumping duties are enforced, and the determination of anti-dumping duties, and so on. Also dumping determination was discussed under the umbrella of foreign market/home market value, a determination of sales below cost of production, and the very special way of calculating normal value involving imports from non-market economy countries. Material injury determination, that is to be performed by the ITC was also discussed. This chapter covered how the ITC determines material injury by sending questionnaires covering various areas like employment and profits to US producers and importers, and to foreign producers and exporters. The chapter ended with a look at technical dumping. Under US anti-dumping system technical dumping refers to a situation whereby foreign producers meet US prices but are below their domestic price plus a mandated profit margin. Finally, the EU and the US anti-dumping law have a lot of issues in common. Beginning from the injustices meted to new exporters (under EU system) who are automatically brought under the highest levy that could be applied to the exporting country to the Department of Commerce’s practice of setting aside deposit for small exporters who were not initially investigated. Again, the two systems have existing laws which have tendencies inclined towards protecting own industry, and somewhat defeating or frustrating the original purpose of the GATT anti-dumping law. I strongly suggest that the EU and US anti-dumping system introduce reforms to their laws that will be geared towards fair competition. If this is not done, eventually the two systems will find themselves victims of the anticompetitive practice they have set up when developing economics all over the world will begin to introduce their own anti-dumping laws. magnet:?xt=urn:btih:4QKPQDEGMGHOQLACQCWAD7B3WPVLBSK5 practice they have set up when developing economics all over the world will begin to introduce their own anti-dumping laws.

udp://tracker.openbittorrent.com:80
udp://open.demonii.com:1337
udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969
udp://exodus.desync.com:6969