1 11 Ph.D Candidate in International Law at the University of Salerno and Visiting Fellow at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law, MILE (WTI), LL.M and BA (Milan). Email: email@example.com. I am extremely grateful to Prof. Giuliana Ziccardi Capaldo, Prof. Nerina Boschiero, Dr. Joanna Gomula and Dr. Paolo Farah for the helpful comments and suggestions I received. Research for this article was conducted with the assistance of funding from the European Social Fund and Regione Lombardia (INGENIO); their support is gratefully acknowledged.
2 For the purposes of the ADA, the term "domestic industry" shall be interpreted as referring to the domestic producers as a whole of the like products or to those of them whose collective output of the products constitutes a major proportion of the total domestic production of those products. Article 4.1 of the ADA. 3 For a more detailed analysis on WTO antidumping rules see generally, Judith Czacko, Johann Human and Jorge Miranda, AHandbookonAntidumpingInvestigations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Edwin Vermulst, T7mW1DAntidumpinyAgreement (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); Mitsuo Matsushita, Thomas J. Schoenbaum and Petros C. Mavroidis, TheWorldTradeOrganization (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), pp. 396-436; John H. Jackson, l7reWorldTradingSystem (Cambridge MA: MIT press, 1997), pp. 247-278 and Paolo D. Farah and Roberto Soprano, Dumping edAntidumping (Milano: u Sole24ore, 2009). 4 International Trade Centre, Bu.sinessGuidetoTradeRemediesintheEuropeanCommunity.Anti-Dumping,Anti-SubsidyandSafeguardL.egislation,PracticesandProcedures (Geneva: International Trade Centre, 2004), p. 24 and Francis G. Snyder, RegionalandGlobalRegulationof InternationalTrade (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2002), p. 111. 1. 5 Clive Stanbrook and Philip Bentley, DumpingandSubsidies -TheLawandProcedureGoverningtheImpositionofAntidumpingandCountervailingDutiesintheEuropeanCommunity (London: Kluwer Law Inteniational, 1996), p. 114. 6 Appellate Body Report, UnitedStates -SafeguardMeasuresonImportsof Fresh,ChilledorFrozenLambMeatfromNewZealandandAustralia(US-Lamb), WT/DS177/AB/R, WT/DS178/AB/R, 1 May 2001, para. 124 and footnote 77.
7 Appellate Body Report, UnitedState— �M�-DMmpfngMeasuresonCertainHot-RolledSteelProducts from Japan(IJS-HotRolledSteel), WT/DS 184/AB/R, 24 July 2001, para. 192. 8 Appellate Body Report, Thailand -Anti-DumpingDutiesonAngles,ShapesandSectionsof IronorNon-AlloySteelandH-Beams fromPoland(Thailand-H-Beams), WT/DS 122/AB/R, 12 March 2001, para. 111. 9 Appellate Body Report, US -HotRolledSteel, para. 193. 10 Article 3.1 ADA. 11 The list includes: actual and potential decline in sales, profits, output, market share, productivity, return on investments, or utilization of capacity; factors affecting domestic prices; the magnitude of the margin of dumping; actual and potential negative effects on cash flow, inventories, employment, wages, growth, ability to raise capital or investments. Article 3.4 ADA. 12 Appellate Body Report, Thailand-H-Beams, para. 128. 13 In the absence of explanations by the ADA on the meaning of material retardation, some guidance can be derived from the 1967 Code which indicates that facts must be based on convincing evidence that such a new industry is forthcoming.
14 Under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (Asctvt) the term "injury" shall, unless otherwise specified, be taken to mean material injury to a domestic industry, threat of material injury to a domestic industry [...]. Footnote n. 45 of the ASCM. As remarked by Stanbrook and Bentley, in countervailing cases an additional factor must be taken into account, namely the nature of the subsidies in question and the trade effects likely to arise therefrom. For example, it is necessary to consider whether it is an export subsidy rather than a domestic subsidy. Stanbrook and Bentley, supra footnote 5, p. 125. �5 Under article 4.1 (b) of the Agreement on Safeguards, the "threat of serious injury" shall be understood to mean serious injury that is clearly imminent, in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 2. A determination of the existence of a threat of serious injury shall be based on facts and not merely on allegation, conjecture or remote possibility. See also, Appellate Body Report, US -Lamb, paras. 126 and 136. 16 The Appellate Body also remarked that the "proper establishment" of facts in a determination of threat of material injury must be based on events that, although they have not yet occurred, must be 'clearly foreseen and imminent'. Appellate Body Report, Mexico-Anti-DumpingInvestigationof HiRhFructoseCornSyrup(Hres) fromtheUnitedStatesRecoursetoArticle21.50�theDSUbytheUnitedStates,(Mexico -ComSympArt21.5), WT/DS132/AB/RW, 22 October 2001, para 85. 17 Vermulst, supra footnote 3, p. 95. 18 According to the Appellate Body a panel must determine whether the investigating authority has provided a reasoned and adequate explanation of (a) how individual pieces of evidence can be reasonably relied on in support of particular inferences, and how the evidence in the record supports its factual findings; (b) how the facts in the record, rather than allegation, conjecture of remote possibility, support and provide a basis for the overall threat of injury determination; (c) how its projections and assumptions show a high degree of likelihood that the anticipated injury will materialize in the near future; and (d) how it examined alternative explanations and interpretations of the evidence and why it chose to reject or discount such alternatives in coming to its conclusion. Appellate Body Report, UnitedStates -Investigationof theIntemationalTradeCommissioninSoftwoodLumberfromCanadaRecoursetoArticle21.5Of theDsubyCanada,(US -SoftwoodLumberVIart.21.5Canada), WT/DS277/AB/RW, 13 April 2006, para. 98.
19 Panel Report, UnitedStates -InvestigationoftheIntemationalTradeCommissioninSoftwoodLumberfromCanada(US-SoftwoodLumberVI), WT/DS277/R, 22 March 2004, para. 7.58. The panel in the Egypt-SteelRebar, underlined that in a threat of injury investigation, the central question is whether there will be a 'change in circumstances' that would cause the dumping to begin to injure the domestic industry. Panel Report, Egypt -DefinitiveAnti-DumpingMeasuresonSteelRebar fromTurkey, WT/DS211/R, 8 August 2002, para. 7.91. 2IJ A GATT document pointed out that "anti-dumping relief based on the threat of injury must be confined to those cases where the conditions of trade clearly indicate that material injury will occur imminently if demonstrable trends in trade adverse to domestic industry continue, or if clearly foreseeable adverse events occur. As any prediction of future injury is based on a forecast of likely effects in the marketplace, an examination of whether future injury is 'clearly foreseen' must focus on the reasonableness and reliability of different forecasts. Moreover no matter how reliable a forecast of future injury might be, the time when that injury will actually materialize may be too remote to merit the taking of anti-dumping action. The determination of whether future injury is 'imminent' in this context must depend on the facts and commercial realities in each case". GATT Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices Ad-Hoc Group on the Implementation of the Anti-Dumping Code, DraftRecommendationConcemingDeterminationofThreatofMaterialInjury, ArJP/W /821Rev.2, 17 December 1984, p. 2. See also, Pierre Didier, WroInstmmentsinEU Law (London: Cameron May, 1999), p. 93. 21 Petros C. Mavroidis, Patrick A. Messerlin and Jasper M. Wauters, TheLawandEconomiaofContingentProtectionintheWTO (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008), p. 116. zz Panel Report, US -SoftwoodLumbervt, para. 7.67. 23 Panel Report, Mexico -ComSyrup, para. 7.132.
za Negotiating Group on Rules, NewDraftConsnlidatedChairTextsoftheADandSeNtAgreements, TN/RL/W/236, 19 December 2008, p. 8. z5 Panel Report, Mexico -ComSyrup, para. 7.126. 26 Ibid., 7.132. 27 Panel Report, US -SoftwoodLumbervt, para. 7.105. See also Mavroidis, Messerlin and Wauters, supra footnote 21, p.114. 28 Panel Report, Mexico -CornSyrup, para. 7.131. See also Czacko, Human and Miranda, supra footnote 3, p. 274. zy Panel Report, US -SoftwoodLumbervt, para. 7.68. 3U Ibid.mIbid., para. 7.67.
5z Peter Van den Bossche, TheLawandPolicyoftheWorldTradeOrganization:Text,CasesandMaterials (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 533. '3 Panel Report, US -SoftwoodLumberm, para. 7.33. 3a Article 10.4 sets forth: "except as provided in paragraph 2, where a determination of threat of injury or material retardation is made (but no injury has yet occurred) a definitive anti-dumping duty may be imposed only from the date of the determination of threat of injury or material retardation, and any cash deposit made during the period of the application of provisional measures shall be refunded and any bonds released in an expeditious manner". Under article 10.5 "where a final determination is negative, any cash deposit made during the period of the application of provisional measures shall be refunded and any bonds released in an expeditious manner". Article 10.2 ADA sets forth: "where a final determination of injury (but not of a threat thereof or of a material retardation of the establishment of an industry) is made or, in the case of a final determination of a threat of injury, where the effect of the dumped imports would, in the absence of the provisional measures, have led to a determination of injury, anti- dumping duties may be levied retroactively for the period for which provisional measures, if any, have been applied".
35 Xiaochen Wu, AntidumpingLawandPracticeofChina (Austin: Wolters Kluwer, 2009), pp. 83-84. 36Resolucidn final delainvestigaci6nantidumpingsobrelasimportacionesde jarabedemaizdealta fructosa,mercanciaclasificadaen lasfraccionesarancelarias1702.40.99y1702.60.01delaTarifadelaLeydelImpuestoGeneraldeImportaci6n,originarias delosEstadosUnidosdeAmerica,independientementedelpaisdeprocedencia.DiarioOficialdelaFederacion, 23 January, 1998. 3� OralLiquidParacetamol ftomtheRepublicof Ireland, Non Confidential Final Report, Trade Remedies Group Ministry of Economic Development, 15 March 2005. 38 TheDumpinginCanadaof ReJinedSugarOriginatinginorExportedfromtheUnitedStates,Denmark,TheFederalRepublicofGermany,theNetherlands,theUnitedKingdom,andtheRepublicof Korea,andtheSubsidizingorRefinedSugarOriginatinginorExported fromtheEuropeanUnion, NQ-95-002, finding November 6, 1995; Statement of Reason, 21 November, 1995. The CITT is the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, a quasi-judicial administrative body that issues enforceable orders on the question of material injury. See, Lawrence L. Herman, CanadianTradeRemediesLawandPractice (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publication, 1997), pp. 12 and 94-95. 3v Cnt"1 press release, March 10, 2008. 4°CertainSoftwoodLumberProductsfromCanada:FinalAffirmativeThreatofInjuryDetermination (NAF'rn ch. 19 Panel, 31 August 2004) quoted in: Murphy Sean D., UnitedStatesPracticeinInternationalLaw,2002-2004, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), p. 175. See also, Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration, HydroxyethylideneDiphosphonicAcid fromIndiaandthePeople'sRepublicofChina, Antidumping Duty Orders, Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 80, 28 April 2009, Notices, pp. 19197. 41 USITC decision, Pub. 2230, 28 December 1990. °z The following are AD and CvD investigations: United States International Trade Commission, NarrowWovenRibbonswithWovenSelvedge fromChinaandTaiwan, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-467 and 731-TA-1164-1165 (Preliminary), Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 172, 8 September 2009, Notices, p. 46224 and United States International Trade Commission, CertainSteelGrating fromChina, Investigation Nos. 701-TA-465 and 731-TA- 1161 (Preliminary), Federal Register, Vol. 74, No. 137, Monday, July 20, 2009, Notices, p. 35204.
a3 Commission Decision terminating the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of refinedantimonytnoxide fromthePeople'sRepublicofChina, OJ L176, 9 July 1994, p. 41 and Commission Decision terminating the antidumping proceeding concerning imports of paint,distemper,vamishandsimilarbrushesoriginatinginthePeople'sRepublicofChina, No. 93/325/EEC, OJ L127, 25 May 1993, p. 15. 44 Commission Regulation imposing a provisional antidumping duty on imports of methylaminefromthe(GermanDemonaticRepublicandRomania, No. 2243/82, OJ L238, 13 August 1982, pp. 35-36. a5 Court of First Instance, Case C-245/95, judgment of 10 February 1998, CommissionoftheEuropeanCommunitiesvs.NTWCorporationandKoyoSeikoCo.Ltd. See also, Council Regulation imposing anti-dumping duties on imports of ballbeanngsuuthagreatestexternaldiameterexceeding30mmoriginatingin Japan, No. 1739/85, OJ 1992, L286, p. 2. 46 Multilaw research paper, BreakingtheMould:ThreatofInjuryinEUAnti-dumpin,qCase, available at http://www.multilaw.com/index.cfm?p=157&id=144 (accessed 20 November 2009). a� Commission Regulation imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certainseamlesspipesandtubesof ironorsteeloriginatinginthePeople'sRepublicof China, No. 289/2009, OJ L94, 7 April 2009. aa The commission considered it relevant for the analysis because normally stocks are kept by traders and not by producers. l6id. recital 124. a9Ibid. recital 125. In this investigation the European Commission found that none Chinese companies met MET criteria.
50 Press release, "Declaration ofSummit on Financial Markets and the World Economy", The White House, November 17, 2008. 51 European Commission, FifthReportonPotentiallyTradeRestrictiveMeasures, available at http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/november/tradoc_145270.pdf (accessed 22 November 2009). 52 Statistics available at www.wto.org (accessed 21 November 2009). 53 Maurizio Zanardi, "Anti-dumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?", TheWorldEconomy, Vol. 27, No. 3, 2004, pp. 403-433. See also, Michael Finger and Andrei Zlate, "Antidumping - Prospects for Discipline from the Doha Negotiation", JoumalofWorldInvestmentandTrade, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 531-547; Emmanuel Nyahoho, Cedric Lefebvre and Claire Malbouires, "Les mesures antidumping: un phenomene commercial largement repandu" EtudesInternationales, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2007, pp. 361-381; Bibek Debroy, and Debashis Chakraborty (eds.),Anti-Dumping:GlobalAbuseofaTradePolicyInstrument, (New Delhi: Academic Foundation, 2007).
sa Stanbrook and Bentley supra footnote 5, p. 123. 55 Andreas Lowenfeld, InternationalEconomicLaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), p. 268.