Author: Raj Krishna, Former Legal Advisor, International Trade, World Bank
 
In recent years antidumping (hereinafter sometimes “AD”) has been catapulted to the forefront of the most controversial practices in international trade. While politicians scarcely hide their support for antidumping, there is little love lost between it and economists as well as trade reformers. Interestingly in World Bank’s trade policy loans or loans in which trade policy reforms are a significant element, antidumping has generally not been a major issue either within the Bank or between the Bank and the borrowing Government. In most cases antidumping has been dealt with according to the exigencies of the situation. In view of the importance of antidumping to international trade and the fact that States do not appear to be too eager to renounce it in the near future, this paper discusses some significant issues involved and the changes introduced by the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, with the hope that such discussion will be useful to policy and decision-makers in the international trade arena.
 
The last fifteen years have witnessed a phenomenal growth in the literature relating to dumping in international trade. The politicians, economists and lawyers have all participated in the ongoing debate on dumping with a zeal that is somewhat unprecedented even in respect of a trade issue. To a considerable extent the intensity of the debate is the direct outcome of the proliferation of antidumping laws and the increase in the incidence of the antidumping actions in the principal practitioners of this art among the developed countries and some developing countries who seem well set to catch up with the former. Although both Canada and U.S. have emerged as major users of antidumping and countervailing against each other as well as against other countries including developing countries and the U.S. is regarded as the “world’s leading prosecutor of unfair trade”, Brazil, Korea and Mexico “have been rapidly attempting to turn the tables.” According to the U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) from 1980 through 1993, 682 antidumping and 358 CVD cases were filed in the United States. Of these, 39.4% of the antidumping and 21.2% of CVD cases resulted in affirmative final determinations and remedies.
 
Antidumping and CVD investigations dramatically increased during the 1980s. Boltuck and Litan show that between 1980-89, the number of antidumping investigations in the U.S. alone reached 451 and that of (CVD) to 301 and that while the majority of investigations related to steel and lumber products even products of everyday use have not escaped such investigations. The table below shows that 1789 AD investigations were launched between 1980-89 in the U.S., EU, Australia and Canada. The number is much larger if investigations under various modalities of safeguard actions are taken into account.
 
In the last two years, however, as reported to GATT/WTO, a downward trend in the antidumping actions taken globally is discernible. During the period July 1, 1993 - June 30, 1994 the total number of antidumping investigations reached 222, two less than the previous corresponding period. The initiation of actions reported was: EU (47), U.S. (47), Australia (45), Brazil (30), Mexico (23), Canada (22), New Zealand (2), India (1), Japan (1) and Korea (4). During the period July 1, 1994-June 30, 1995, the total number of antidumping investigations declined further. Of the 142 investigations initiated during this period, Argentina reported (6), Australia (6), Brazil (12), Canada (9), Colombia (1), EU (37), India (9), Korea (3), Mexico (18), New Zealand (9), Singapore (2), and the U.S. (30). By June 1995, the total number of measures in force was 724 of which the U.S. accounted for (305), EU (178), Canada (91), Australia (86) and Mexico (42).
 
With the increase in its pending investigations, Mexico has now earned the dubious distinction of having the greatest antidumping caseload in the world. A recent entrant into this field is India and China is likely to follow soon. Along with trade liberalization measures of the early 90s, India energized its antidumping procedures which had been lying dormant in the statute book for about a decade. By January 1995, one final determination of dumping had been made and ADD imposed, one provisional antidumping ADD imposed and six investigations were in the pipeline. From 1993 through July 1996 about 40 complaints are said to have been received. Another new user of antidumping is Thailand. Two investigations have been carried out so far with one resulting in the imposition of antidumping duty against India. The spread of antidumping actions to developing countries was anticipated and should not come as a shock or surprise.
 
While the number of countries resorting to antidumping weaponry has increased, the overall growth rate of AD actions, as pointed out earlier, appears to be slowing down for the principal users. This may very well be the result of the enhanced discipline introduced by the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations.
 
Antidumping actions have often proved to be dilatory and cumbersome. At times more than 25 companies have been subject to investigations. The filing of 72 trade cases against 20 countries by the U.S. steel producers in 1992 and the subsequent imposition of preliminary ADD and CVD “provoked outrage in the world steel community.” The U.S. Department of Commerce ruled that steel products from 19 countries were being dumped in the U.S.