Hostname: page-component-6766d58669-bkrcr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-20T00:51:02.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

US Anti-Dumping Practices Evolving against Market Economies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 June 2022

Kyounghwa Kim  and
Jaeyoun Roh
Kyounghwa Kim
Affiliation:
Center for Trade Studies and Cooperation, Korea International Trade Association, Seoul, the Republic of Korea
Jaeyoun Roh*
Affiliation:
School of International Economics & Business, Yeungnam University, Gyeongsan, the Republic of Korea
*
*Corresponding author: Email: acts8@yu.ac.kr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines how US discretionary practices developed in the past decade have affected antidumping duty rates against exporters. Using the most recent data on dumping margin calculations, we find that the US Department of Commerce (DOC) has developed discretionary practices in a more nuanced manner to inflate dumping margins, which have primarily targeted market economy exporters. Our case studies document that practices known as targeted dumping and particular market situations appear to serve as trade protectionism for market economy exporters, especially those who could otherwise have received a negative determination without such practices. Furthermore, the DOC has brought an apparent change in its application of discretionary practices after the Trade Extension Preferences Act of 2015, leading to much higher dumping margins for the market economy. Along with empirical and case analyses, we further examine the World Trade Organization (WTO) jurisprudence concerning the extent to which the discretion of an investigating authority in anti-dumping proceedings can be condoned in the WTO.

Keywords

Anti-dumpingdumping marginsparticular market situationtargeted dumpingadverse facts available

Information

Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 21 , Issue 4 , October 2022 , pp. 479 - 496
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ahn, D. and Messerlin, P. (2014) ‘United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Shrimp and Diamond Sawblades from China: Never Ending Zeroing in the WTO?’, World Trade Review 13(2), 267–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, R.E. and Moore, M.O. (1991) ‘Political Aspects of the Administration of the Trade Remedy Laws’, in Boltuck, R. and Litan, R.E. (eds.), Down in the Dumps, Chapter 7. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, pp. 253–287.Google Scholar
Blonigen, B.A. (2006) ‘Evolving Discretionary Practices of US Antidumping Activity’, Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique 9(3), 874–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blonigen, B.A. and Prusa, T.J. (2016) ‘Dumping and Antidumping Duties’, in Bagwell, K. and Staiger, R.W. (eds.), Handbook of Commercial Policy, Vol. 1B. Chapter 3. Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp. 107–159.Google Scholar
Bown, C.P. and Prusa, T.J. (2010) ‘US Antidumping: Much Ado about Zeroing’, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 5352, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1632798.Google Scholar
Ikenson, D.J. (2020) ‘Tariffs by Fiat: The Widening Chasm between US Antidumping Policy and the Rule of Law’, Cato Institute, Policy Analysis 896, 1–16.Google Scholar
Kim, K. (2021) ‘Trade Remedy Policies under the Biden Administration: Focusing on Anti-Dumping Practices’, KITA Trade Report Vol. 10. 1–20.Google Scholar
Kim, K. and Ahn, D. (2018) ‘To Be or Not To Be With Targeted Dumping’, Journal of International Economic Law 21(3), 567–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, B. (1999) ‘The US Antidumping Law: Rhetoric versus Reality’, Journal of World Trade 34(1), 1–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindsey, B. and Ikenson, D.J. (2002) Antidumping 101: The Devilish Details of ‘Unfair Trade’ Law. Washington. DC: Center for Trade Policy Studies, Cato Institute.Google Scholar
Yun, M. (2017) ‘The Use of ‘Particular Market Situation’ Provision and Its Implications for Regulation of Antidumping’, East Asian Economic Review 21(3), 231–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, W. and Percival, A. (2016) ‘Debunking the Myth of ‘Particular Market Situation’ in WTO Antidumping Law’, Journal of International Economic Law 19(4), 863–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhou, W. and Xiaomeng, Q. (2021) ‘Confronting the “Non-Market Economy” Treatment: The Evolving WTO Jurisprudence on Anti-Dumping and China's Recent Practices’, UNSW Law Research Paper, (21–51).CrossRefGoogle Scholar