Home
About Us
It’s baaaack— zeroing, the US Department of Commerce, and US — Shrimp II (Viet Nam)
15/12/2015 12:00
It’s baaaack— zeroing, the US Department of Commerce, and US — Shrimp II (Viet Nam) written by James C. Hartigan is published by European University Institute, Robet Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies.
EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2015/67
Abstract
In its Final Modification for Reviews the U.S. DOC announced on February 14, 2012 that it would cease the use of zeroing in the calculation of anti-dumping (AD) margins in all reviews as of April 16, 2012. However, it did not pertain to targeted dumping. In its Final Rule of April 22, 2014, it codified substantial discretion in calculating AD duties, including the use of zeroing, in targeted dumping. Thus the panel in Shrimp II erred in not finding “as such” inconsistency by the U.S. with the AD Agreement, despite this not being a targeted dumping complaint. Given the record of the U.S. in complying with zeroing petitions, it should have incurred the burden of proof, which is not satisfied by these pronouncements. Market structure should be used by panels in “as applied” inconsistency determinations. Viet Nam should have included an Art. 3 violation in its complaint.
This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the working paper, or other series, the year and the publisher.
EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2015/67
Abstract
In its Final Modification for Reviews the U.S. DOC announced on February 14, 2012 that it would cease the use of zeroing in the calculation of anti-dumping (AD) margins in all reviews as of April 16, 2012. However, it did not pertain to targeted dumping. In its Final Rule of April 22, 2014, it codified substantial discretion in calculating AD duties, including the use of zeroing, in targeted dumping. Thus the panel in Shrimp II erred in not finding “as such” inconsistency by the U.S. with the AD Agreement, despite this not being a targeted dumping complaint. Given the record of the U.S. in complying with zeroing petitions, it should have incurred the burden of proof, which is not satisfied by these pronouncements. Market structure should be used by panels in “as applied” inconsistency determinations. Viet Nam should have included an Art. 3 violation in its complaint.
This text may be downloaded only for personal research purposes. Additional reproduction for other purposes, whether in hard copies or electronically, requires the consent of the author(s), editor(s). If cited or quoted, reference should be made to the full name of the author(s), editor(s), the title, the working paper, or other series, the year and the publisher.
| Tải tài liệu | |
|---|---|
| zeroing-the-us-department-of-commerce-and-us--shrimp-ii-viet-nam | |
Các tin khác
- The Dispute Settlement Crisis in the World Trade Organization: Causes and Cures (16/03/2018)
- Modification of trade defence rules regarding non-market economy costs and prices (23/02/2018)
- Research Paper: Options for Disciplining the Use of Trade Remedies in Clean Energy Technologies (03/08/2017)
- Addressing the rise of Trade Remedies against Environmental Goods (03/08/2017)
- Anti-dumping Retaliation - —A Common Threat to International Trade (15/11/2016)
