Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T22:55:35.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper: Opening a Door to More Anti-Dumping Investigations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 June 2021

Antonia Eliason  and
Matteo Fiorini
Antonia Eliason*
Affiliation:
University of Mississippi School of Law, Oxford, Mississippi, USA
Matteo Fiorini
Affiliation:
European University Institute, Fiesole, Italy
*
*Corresponding author: Email: aeliason@olemiss.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyzes the Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper panel report, the second recent WTO dispute to involve a challenge to Indonesia's paper industry. The Indonesian paper industry benefits from reduced-cost inputs because of the Indonesian government's influence and subsidies over the timber and pulp market. The report offers the first interpretation of ‘particular market situation’ under Article 2.2 of the WTO's Anti-Dumping Agreement. At the same time, it raises questions regarding the appropriateness of using anti-dumping measures to address what are fundamentally subsidy issues. While the panel ultimately found that Australia's measure was inconsistent with Article 2.2, the paper shows that the panel's interpretation of ‘particular market situation’ increases the relative attractiveness of using anti-dumping duties instead of countervailing measures. Two key points on the welfare implications of the decision can be made. The first relates to the motivations of the Australian paper industry and the imperfectly competitive market in which Australian Paper operates. The second is the importance of challenging subsidies rather than imposing anti-dumping duties where the subsidies in question have negative environmental effects.

Keywords

Anti-Dumping Agreementsubsidiescountervailing measuresanti-dumpingparticular market situationenvironment
Type
Original Article
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 20 , Special Issue 4: WTO Case Law , October 2021 , pp. 479 - 490
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. 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.)

References

ADC (2017) ‘Report No. 341 A4 Copy Paper - Brazil, China, Indonesia and Thailand’, Australian Government, Department of Industry, Innovation and Science.Google Scholar
Blonigen, B. and Prusa, T. (2016) ‘Dumping and Antidumping Duties. Chapter 3, Volume 1, Part B, pp 107–159’, in Bagwell, K. and Staiger, B. (eds.), Handbook of Commercial Policy. Amsterdam, North Holland.Google Scholar
Crowley, M. and Hillman, J. (2018) ‘Slamming the Door on Trade Policy Discretion? The WTO Appellate Body's Ruling on Market Distortions and Production Costs in EU–Biodiesel (Argentina)’, World Trade Review 17(2), 195–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Environmental Paper Network (2018) ‘The State of the Global Paper Industry: Shifting Seas – New Challenges and Opportunities for Forests, People and the Climate’.Google Scholar
Fischer, C. and Meyer, T. (2020) ‘Baptists and Bootleggers in the Biodiesel Trade: EU–Biodiesel (Indonesia)’, World Trade Review 19(2), 297–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Messerlin, P. (1990) ‘Anti-Dumping Regulations or Pro-cartel Law? The EC Chemical Cases’, The World Economy 13(4), 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar