Specific provisions of Section 15 of the Protocol of Accession of China to the WTO expired on 11th December, 2016.
Article VI:5 of GATT prevents a situation of double remedy/compensation for the “same situation” of “dumping” or “export subsidization” in relation to concurrent Anti-dumping and Countervailing duty investigations.
Law as enshrined in Article 2.4.2 of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994 permits use of an alternative methodology for computation of the dumping margin if there is targeted dumping.
Article 9 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement provides for the possibility to limit the amount of duty that can be applied to remedy dumping.
The Indian authorities have recently recommended discontinuation of anti-dumping duty in respect of two products, finding absence of causal link.
United Kingdom has decided by referendum to leave the European Union and once it officially pulls out, UK will have to establish its own tariffs and trade relations with the EU and third countries such as India.
Market economy status for China, in the backdrop of ongoing crisis in the steel industry, is the topic of discussion in the Article in this issue.
Recent WTO discussions have centered on the question of China’s entitlement to Market Economy Status (MES) post 11th December, 2016.
United States maintains a licensing mechanism known as the Steel Import Monitoring and Analysis (SIMA) System, according to which any business importing steel mill products covered under the licensing program is required to procure a license.
Disclosure of information by the Designated Authority in an anti-dumping investigation is regulated to a large extent by Rule 6(7) as well as Rule 7 of the Anti-dumping Rules.
Since 2001 when China joined the WTO, it has been treated as a non-market economy country. Because of the non-market economy treatment, in most anti-dumping investigations, China’s domestic cost and selling price are not considered by the investigating authorities.