Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Footloose and duty-free? Reflections on European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Footwear from China

  • JEFFREY L. DUNOFF (a1) and MICHAEL O. MOORE (a2)
Abstract
Abstract

European Union (EU) anti-dumping duties imposed on Chinese leather footwear imports led to a challenge before the WTO Dispute Settlement body. The Panel ruled that the EU's presumption that Chinese exporters are subject to economy-wide non-market-economy anti-dumping duties was inconsistent with WTO obligations. The EU declined to appeal this outcome and subsequently changed its anti-dumping regulation in response. This dispute also illustrates the rapidly changing structure of global manufacturing and how these changes can scramble the traditional political economy of import restrictions. In addition, the case highlights how EU members' positions on trade remedy actions can depend importantly on national production patterns and firms' responses to economic pressures from globalization and the further development of global supply chains.

Copyright
Corresponding author
*Email: jeffrey.dunoff@temple.edu.
**Email: mom@gwu.edu.
References
Hide All
adidas Group (2012), Pushing Boundaries: adidas Group Annual Report 2012, available at http://www.adidas-group.com/en/investorrelations/assets/pdf/annual_reports/2012/GB_2012_En.pdf.
BKP Development Research and Consulting (2012), ‘Evaluation of the European Union's Trade Defence Instruments’, Contract No. SI2.581682.
Bown C. P. (2012), ‘Global Antidumping Database’, available at http://econ.worldbank.org/ttbd/gad/.
Broude T. and Moore M. (2013), ‘US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp from Viet Nam: A Stir-Fry of Seafood, Statistics, and Lacunae’, World Trade Review, 12(2): 433462.
Charnovitz S. and Hoekman B. (2013), ‘US–Tyres: Upholding a WTO Accession Contract-Imposing Pain for Little Gain’, World Trade Review, 12(2): 273296.
Eckhardt J. (2011), ‘Firm Lobbying and EU Trade Policymaking: Reflections on the Anti-Dumping Case against Chinese and Vietnamese Shoes (2005–2011)’, Journal of World Trade, 45(5): 965991.
Euractiv (2006), ‘EU Governments Divided over Duties on Asian Shoes’, last modified 31 August 2006, available at http://www.euractiv.com/trade/eu-governments-divided-duties-as-news-216975.
European Union (EU) (2005), ‘Commission Notice (EC) No. 2005/C 166/06: Notice of Initiation of an Anti-dumping Proceeding Concerning Imports of Certain Footwear with Uppers of Leather Originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam’, Official Journal of the European Union, C 166/14, 7 July.
European Union (EU) (2006a), ‘Commission Regulation (EC) No. 553/2006: Imposing a Provisional Anti-dumping Duty on Imports of Certain Footwear with Uppers of Leather Originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam’, Official Journal of the European Union, L 98/3, 23 March.
European Union (EU) (2006b), ‘Council Regulation (EC) No. 1472/2006: Imposing a Definitive Anti-dumping Duty and Collecting Definitively the Provisional Duty Imposed on Imports of Certain Footwear with Uppers of Leather Originating in the People's Republic of China and Vietnam’, Official Journal of the European Union, L 275/1, 5 October.
European Union (EU) (2009), ‘Council Regulation (EC) No. 1225/2009: On Protection Against Dumped Imports from Countries Not Members of the European Community’, Official Journal of the European Union, L 343/51, 30 November.
EU Observer (2006), ‘EU States Split Over Anti-dumping Duties on Shoes’, 17 March 2006, available at http://euobserver.com/?aid=21156 (last visited 7 May 2013).
Financial Times (2006a), ‘EU Curbs on Shoe Imports Attract Only Three Votes’, 17 March 2006.
Financial Times (2006b), ‘UK in Secret Deal with Italy on China Trade’, 22 September 2006, available at http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/7d6ff982-4a7e-11db-8738-0000779e2340.html#axzz2Zsb0gT43.
Helpman E., Melitz M. J., and Yeaple S. R. (2004), ‘Export versus FDI with Heterogeneous Firms’, American Economic Review, 94(1): 300316.
Holmes O. W. (1881), The Common Law, Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Howse R. L. and Neven D. J. (2003), ‘Argentina – Ceramic Tiles’, in Horn H. and Mavroidis P. C. (eds.), The American Law Institute Reporters’ Studies on WTO Case Law: Legal and Economic Analysis, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 168182.
KPMG (2012), Competitiveness Alternatives: KPMG's Guide to International Business Location Costs: 2012 edn, available at http://www.competitivealternatives.com/reports/2012_compalt_report_vol1_en.pdf.
Melitz M. J. (2003), ‘The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity’, Econometrica, 71(6): 16951725.
Palmeter D. (2003), ‘The Capture of the Antidumping Law’, in The WTO as a Legal System: Essays in International Trade Law and Policy, London: Cameron May, pp. 1330.
Thayer J. B. (1890), ‘The Burden of Proof’, Harvard Law Review, 4(2): 4570.
The Guardian (2006), ‘Chinese Shoes Draw Mandelson into New Tariff Tussle’, 19 February.
Wigmore J. H. (1981), Evidence in Trials at Common Law, Vol. 9, sec. 2486, Revised by Chadbourn James H., Boston: Little, Brown & Company.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

World Trade Review
  • ISSN: 1474-7456
  • EISSN: 1475-3138
  • URL: /core/journals/world-trade-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 10
Total number of PDF views: 82 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 506 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 15th December 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.