As table 1 shows, the United States has applied its 'unfair trade' laws - anti-dumping and countervailing duties - to a variety of countries. Even excluding Japan, the Republic of Korea, the various European Union (EU) countries and other OECD countries - all frequent targets - there is an amazing number and range of cases against developing countries.

 

Table 1. Anti-dumping and countervailing duties applied, by country, 1980-2005

 

Country	Anti-dumping duties	Countervailing duties
Argentina	17	16
Armenia	3	0
Azerbaijan	3	0
Bangladesh	1	1
Belarus	4	0
Brazil	48	34
Chile	6	2
China	99	4
Colombia	5	4
Costa Rica	5	2
Cuba	0	1
Czech Republic	5	1
Dominican Republic	1	0
Ecuador	3	1
Egypt	1	1
El Salvador	1	1
Estonia	2	0
Georgia	3	0
Hong Kong (China)	5	0
Hungary	7	1
India	22	18
Indonesia	11	6
Iran (Islamic Republic of)	1	3
Iraq	1	1
Kazakhstan	5	0
Kenya	1	1
Kyrgystan	7	0
Latvia	3	0
Lithuania	2	0
Macao (China)	1	7
Malaysia	7	30
Mexico	34	2
Pakistan	0	1
Panama	0	7
Peru	1	2
Philippines	2	1
Poland	10	0
Republic of Moldova	5	1
Romania	14	1
Russian Federation/USSR	19	3
Saudi Arabia	1	7
Singapore	6	0
Slovakia	1	13
South Africa	11	1
Sri Lanka	0	8
Taiwan Province (China)	60	0
Tajikistan	3	11
Thailand	15	0
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia	4	2
Trinidad and Tobago	7	7
Turkey	3	0
Turkmenistan	13	0
Ukraine	0	1
Uzbekistan	3	0
Venezuela	19	14
Yugoslavia	8	0
Zimbabwe	0	1

 

The frequency of such investigations increases or decreases depending on the economic cycle in the United States. When the United States economy is strong, it is harder for the United States domestic industry to show 'injury', which is necessary to win the case. The United States domestic industry is therefore less likely to file when the United States economy is performing well. But when the economy weakens, the number of cases increases. Figures 1, 2, 3 and 4, based on official United States Government summaries, show these trends.

 

Figure 1. Anti-dumping investigations case activity

 

(1 January 1980 - 31 December 2001) - Anti-dumping initiations

 

 

Figure 2. Anti-dumping investigations case activity

 

(1 January 1980 - 31 December 2001) - Anti-dumping duty orders issued

 

 

Figure 3. Countervailing duty case activity

 

(1 January 1980 - 31 December 2001) - Countervailing duty initiation

 

 

Figure 4. Countervailing duty case activity

 

(1 January 1980 - 31 December 2001) - Countervailing duty orders issued

 

 

Thus, based on these Department of Commerce statistics, the United States has conducted 981 anti-dumping investigations over the past 24 years, averaging 41 investigations per year. Anti-dumping investigations are by far the most frequently used trade remedy. (Note that these statistics for anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations reflect each country as a separate investigation, even if the same product is involved.)

 

Over the same period, the United States conducted 351 countervailing duty investigations, averaging 15 investigations per year. As figure 3 shows, the frequency of countervailing duty investigations has dropped somewhat over time. The reason is that countervailing duty investigations have historically yielded lower duty margins than anti-dumping investigations. As a result, domestic industries generally prefer anti-dumping investigations as they are more likely to lead to severe trade restrictions.

 

For both anti-dumping and countervailing duty investigations, these numbers reflect the number of times foreign companies have been burdened by these investigations. The investigations sometimes end with negative determinations, and no duties are imposed. In addition, five years after the order goes into effect, there is a 'sunset review' (see 'Sunset reviews' in chapter 16) to decide whether the order should be continued or terminated. On 22 March 2002 there were about 260 outstanding anti-dumping orders against 44 countries and about 50 outstanding countervailing duty orders against 23 countries.

 

These cases have also hit a wide range of products. The most frequently targeted product is steel in any form. The United States domestic steel industry is the single most aggressive user of these laws, and alone accounts for about half of the cases filed between 1998 and 2001. The remaining cases still cover a remarkably wide variety of products, as shown in table 2.

 

Table 2. Non-steel products affected by anti-dumping duties, by country, 15 April 2005

 

Country	Product
Argentina	Honey
Bangladesh	Cotton shop towels
Belarus	Solid urea
Belgium	Sugar
Brazil	Brass sheet and strip Frozen concentrated orange juice Frozen or canned warm-water shrimp and prawns Industrial nitrocellulose Silicomanganese
Canada	Brass sheet and strip Hard red spring wheat Pure and alloy magnesium Softwood lumber
Chile	Individually quick frozen red raspberries Preserved mushrooms
China	Chloropierin Cotton shop towels Barium chloride Greig polyester cotton printcloth Natural bristle paintbrushes Petroleum wax candles Tapered roller bearings Industrial nitrocellulose Automotive replacement glass windshields Barium carbonate Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 Colour television receivers Ferrovanadium Folding gift boxes Heavy forged hand tools Honey Ironing tables Lawn and garden fence posts Polyvinyl alcohol Polyethylene retail carrier bags Refined brow aluminium vide Tetrahydrofurfyl alcohol Saccharin Sparklers Sulphur chemicals (sodium thiolate) Silicol metal Sulphanilic acid Helical spring lock washers Sebacic acid Paper clips Pencils, cased Siliconeganese Coumarin Garlic, fresh Pure magnesium Furfuryl alcohol Glycine Polyvinyl alcohol Melamine institutional iterare Brake rotors Persulphates Freshwater crawfish tail meat Preserved mushroom Apple juice non-frozen Crepe paper Bulk aspirin Frozen or canned warm-water shrimp and prawn Magnesium Tissue paper Creatine monohydrate Wooden bedroom furniture
Ecuador	Frozen arcaned warm-water shrimp and prawns
Estonia	Solid urea
France	Sorbitol Industrial nitrocellulose Sugar Anhydrous sodium Brass sheet and strip Antifriction bearings Low enriched uranium
Germany	Large newspaper printing presses Sugar Brass sheet and strip Antifriction bearings Industrial nitrocellulose Sulphur chemicals
Hungary	Sulphanilic acid
India	Sulphanilic acid Preserved mushrooms Carbazole Violet Pigment 23 From or canned warm-meter shrimp and prawns Silicomanganese Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film
Indonesia	Melamine institutional dinnerware Preserved mushrooms Extruded rubber thread
Iran (Islamic Republic of)	Raw in shell pistachios
Italy	Pressure sensitive plastic tape Brass sheet and strip Granular polytetrafluoroethylene rest Antifriction bearings Pasta, certain
Japan	Polychloroprene rubber Tapered roller bearings, under 4 inches Melamine in crystal form Tapered roller bearings, over 4 inches Internal combustion IND forklift trucks Brass sheet and strip Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin Antifriction bearings Electrolytic manganese dioxide Mechanical transfer presses Drafting machines and parts thereof Industrial nitrocellulose Grey Portland cement and clinker Polyvinyl alcohol Large newspaper printing presses and components Gas turbo compressors Vector super computers
Lithuania	Solid urea
Malaysia	Extruded rubber thread Polyethylene retail carrier bags
Mexico	Porcelain-on-steel cooking ware Grey Portland cement and clinker
Norway	Fresh and chilled Atlantic salmon
Republic of Korea	Stainless steel cooking ware Industrial nitrocellulose Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film Polyester staple fibre Polyvinyl alcohol
Romania	Urea
Russian Federation	Solid area Ferrandium and nitrided vanadium
Singapore	Ball bearings, antifriction
Taiwan Province (China)	Porcelain-on-steel cooking ware Helical spring lock washers Polyvinyl alcohol Melamine institutional dinnerware Static random access memory Polyester staple fibre Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
Tajikistan	Solid urea
Thailand	Furfuryl alcohol Canned pineapple fruit Polyethylene retail carrier bags Frozen or canned warm-water shrimp and prawns
Turkey	Aspirin Pasta, certain
Turkmenistan	Solid urea
Ukraine	Solid urea Ammonium nitrate Silicomanganese
United Kingdom	Antifriction bearings Industrial nitrocellulose Sulphur chemicals
Uzbekistan	Solid urea
Viet Nam	Frozen fish fillets Frozen or canned warm-water shrimp and prawns

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Section 201 'safeguard' actions are much less commonly used. Since the legal standards to obtain safeguard remedies are higher than in anti-dumping cases, domestic industries generally prefer anti-dumping cases. In addition, even if the tough legal standards are met, the President still has discretion under Section 201 to deny relief to the domestic industry — and often does. Thus, from 1974 to 2000 the United States conducted about 70 safeguard investigations. In about half of these investigations the International Trade Commission found no injury, and in about half of the affirmative findings the President decided not to grant any relief. Thus, only about 20% of the cases led to any import restrictions. Not surprisingly, domestic industries do not view Section 201 as their trade remedy of first choice.

 

More recently, however, relief has been granted in some cases, leading to renewed interest in Section 201.

 

Section 337 is used more frequently. According to the International Trade Commission database, by 1 August 2001 there had been 460 investigations under Section 337. Of these there were 30 outstanding exclusion orders, barring certain products from entering the United States. Since these cases frequently force companies into licensing agreements for the intellectual property at issue, there is less need to impose trade restriction sanctions.

 

Section 301 has also been used frequently. The United States has initiated more than 120 Section 301 investigations since the law was enacted. Few of these investigations, however, have resulted in actual trade sanctions. Prior to a WTO decision in 2000 declaring that sanctions under Section 301 violate countries' WTO obligations, the United States had threatened or imposed sanctions in some cases. For example, there was a very high-profile case involving Japanese automobiles in which the United States threatened 100% duties on Japanese exports of luxury automobiles. That case, however, was settled before the duties went into effect. Another Section 301 case involving Japanese semiconductors resulted in the imposition of 100% tariffs on Japanese exports of computers to the United States for several years; these tariffs were eventually lifted. Note that although many of these cases focused on the EU, Japan and other developed countries, over 45 of the Section 301 cases involved various developing countries.

 

There are many different ways in which domestic United States companies can seek trade restrictions against their foreign competitors. If your company has not yet had the unpleasant experience of coping with one of these legal proceedings, the risk of future problems remains very real. The remaining chapters in this book are designed to help you better understand how these different United States laws work and how you can best cope with proceedings under these laws.

 

Source: Business Guide to Trade Remedies in the United States: Anti-dumping, countervailing and safeguards legislation practices and procedures