SEE
ALSO:
press
releases
WTO news
archives
Mike
Moore's speeches
|
India initiated 51 investigations during the second semester of 2001,
as compared with 21 investigations initiated during the second
semester of 2000. The United States had the second highest number of
initiations (35) during the second semester of 2001, compared with 38
during the corresponding period in 2000. Argentina had the third
highest number of initiations, 16, a decrease from 34 initiations in
the comparable period during 2000.
China,
with 25 investigations on its exports, is at the top of the list of
countries subject to anti-dumping investigations, although this number
is a decrease from the 32 investigations initiated on Chinese exports
during the second semester of 2000. Brazil, Chinese Taipei, Thailand
and the United States were next, each with 9 investigations initiated
on their exports in the second semester of 2001. Indonesia, Korea and
Japan each had 8 investigations initiated on their exports in the
second semester of 2001.
The
largest group (60) of investigations initiated during the second
semester of 2001 involved products classified in the base metals
sector of the Harmonized System of Tariff Classification, which
includes iron, steel and aluminium products. The other two sectors
most affected were chemicals and plastics, with, respectively, 41 and
34 investigations initiated. The United States initiated 33 out of its
35 investigations on base metals products, while India initiated the
majority (28) of its investigations on chemical products. Turkey
initiated 12 out of its 13 investigations on products in the plastics
sector.
Eight
WTO Members imposed a total of 79 final anti-dumping measures against
exports from 33 countries or customs territories during the second
semester of 2001. This total represents a sharp decline from the 107
measures imposed during the corresponding period of 2000. Notable also
is the decline in the number of countries imposing measures, from 16
countries during the second semester of 2000. The United States
imposed the most final measures (21) during the second semester of
2001, a significant increase from the 8 final measures imposed by the
United States during the corresponding period of 2000. India was a
close second to the United States in the number of final measures
imposed during the period, with 20 measures. The European Communities
and Argentina each adopted 11 measures during the period, which for
the Communities was significant decrease from the 32 measures imposed
in the second half of 2000. Argentina had imposed 10 measures during
the second half of 2000.
Exports
from China were the subject of the largest number, 21, of final
measures imposed during the second semester of 2001. Chinese Taipei
was a distant second, with 6 measures. For China, this represents a
slight increase from the 17 measures imposed against its exports
during the second semester of 2000.
As was the case for initiations, the sector most
affected by final measures was base metals, with 34 final measures
imposed on products in that sector. This was followed by the chemicals
sector, with 13 measures imposed, and the machinery and electronics
sector with 8 measures.
The
anti-dumping semi-annual reports by Members for the period 1 July
— 31 December 2001 can be found under document series
G/ADP/N/85.
Note
to editors:
The
WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement allows governments to act against dumped
imports where there is material injury to the competing domestic
industry. In order to do that the importing government has to
determine, after investigating, 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 or “normal value”),
and determine that the dumping is causing injury.
GATT
Article VI allows countries to take action against dumping. The
Anti-Dumping Agreement clarifies and expands Article VI, adding
detailed procedural and substantive requirements, 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 an affirmative finding in an
anti-dumping case results in an additional import duty on the
particular dumped 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.
|
|
