Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T07:16:25.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

United States – Certain Methodologies and Their Application to Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China: Nails in the Coffin of Unfair Dumping Margin Calculation Methodologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2019

THOMAS J. PRUSA  and
EDWIN A. VERMULST
THOMAS J. PRUSA*
Affiliation:
Rutgers University and NBER, USA
EDWIN A. VERMULST*
Affiliation:
VVGB, Belgium
*
*Email: prusa@econ.rutgers.edu,
**Email: edwin.vermulst@vvgb-law.com.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The WTO Appellate Body report United States – Certain Methodologies and Their Application to Anti-Dumping Proceedings Involving China is yet another in a long line of disputes involving US Department of Commerce's dumping margin calculation methodologies. The AB ruled against the United States on three important aspects: (1) the use of the Nails test to rationalize the exceptional method in Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement so as to justify using the weighted average-to-transaction methodology in dumping margin calculations; (2) the treatment of multiple companies in a non-market economy as a single NME-wide entity; and (3) the USDOC's policy of using adverse facts available for such an entity. Yet, some aspects of the AB's decision – most notably affirming the use of average prices – significantly weaken Article 2.4.2's pattern requirement and potentially open the door to greater use of the exceptional method.

Type
Original Articles
Information
World Trade Review , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , April 2019 , pp. 287 - 307
Copyright
Copyright © Thomas J. Prusa and Edwin A. Vermulst 2019 

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.)

Footnotes

The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and all omissions and errors are also those of the authors. We would like to thank Roberta Piermartini, Dukgeun Ahn, and Petros Mavroidis for their comments and perspectives on the GATT/WTO history related to Article 2.4.2 and the zeroing issue.

References

Bown, C. P. and Prusa, T. J. (2011), ‘US Antidumping: Much Ado about Zeroing’, in Martin, W. and Mattoo, A. (eds.), Unfinished Business? The WTO's Doha Agenda, Washington, DC: The World Bank, pp. 355–392.Google Scholar
Hogg, R. V., McKean, J. W., and Craig, A. T. (2012), Introduction to Mathematical Statistics (7th edn), New York: Pearson.Google Scholar
Kim, K. and Ahn, D. (2018), ‘To Be or Not to Be with Targeted Dumping’, Journal of International Economic Law 21, 567–598.Google Scholar
Kubach, S. H. (2010), Memorandum to Ronald K. Lorentzen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, US Department of Commerce, re. Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Certain Coated Paper Suitable for High Quality Print Graphics Using Sheet-Fed Presses from the People's Republic of China: Final Antidumping Duty Determination, Public Document IA/AD/CVD/O8: LN/DK (20 September 2010).Google Scholar
Mavroidis, P. and Prusa, T. J. (2018), ‘Die Another Day: Zeroing in on Targeted Dumping – Did the AB Hit the Mark in US–Washing Machines?’, World Trade Review, 17(2), 239–264.Google Scholar
Prusa, T. J. and Vermulst, E. A. (2011), ‘United States-Continued Existence and Application of Zeroing Methodology: The End of Zeroing?’, World Trade Review, 10(1): 117.Google Scholar
Taverman, G. (2012), Memorandum to Paul Piquado, Assistant Secretary for Import Administration, US Department of Commerce, RE: Issues and Decision Memorandum for the Antidumping Duty Investigation of Large Residential Washers from the Republic of Korea, Public Document AD/CVD/02: KJ (18 December 2012).Google Scholar