Pages

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Country-Specific Safeguard Approach in the Context of Anti-Dumping Agreement



According to Wentong Zheng, Anti-Dumping Duty is nothing but a Trade Remedy Instrument that acts as an indispensable Safety Valve for Protectionist countries. He elaborates that ‘antidumping’ is a faulty safety valve as it provides for arbitrary level of protection for the importing country. Such arbitrary protection results into unnecessary uncertainties for the exporters. The threshold for activation of antidumping duty is too low i.e. the standard for determining the injury is too low[1].

He proposes that antidumping agreement should be replaced by a Country-Specific Safeguard Measure. Such a Safeguard duty will not only correct the anomalies existing in the antidumping agreement but would also eliminate the need to have countervailing duties. It would also address the injury from all sources such as subsidies etc.

Framework of Country-Specific Safeguard Approach

Wentong Zheng proposes a seven pronged strategy in this respect[2]:

1. The name antidumping is a misnomer as instead of targeting unfair trade, it actually targets ‘injury’. The proposed safeguard measure should provide Temporary Trade Protection in the event of injury regardless of whether the underlying cause of the injury is fair or unfair.

2. The new Safeguard Measure must have a higher injury standard and must act as a better safety valve in situations where the domestic market truly deserves trade protection.

3. The new Safeguard Measure must not have a non-discrimination requirement. It should be imposed on a country-by-country basis. This is the reason why such an approach is called as ‘Country-Specific Safeguard’.

4. The new Safeguard Measure would not have to provide compensation to countries affected by the safeguard as long as the safeguard is otherwise consistent with the WTO.

5. The new Safeguard Measure will also allow the countries to impose extra tariff subject to the provisions of WTO agreements. However, the practice of imposing quantitative restrictions will be done away with.

6. There is a need to have a Public Policy Clause in such a Safeguard Measure. The investigating authorities must consider the views and evidence while deciding whether the imposition of safeguard would be in public interest or not.

7. The new Safeguard Measure will have a fixed duration. Once the fixed duration lapses,

“An importing country will be allowed to impose a new country-specific safeguard on the same products for subsequent periods of time not exceeding five years each, provided that the injury standard continues to be met.[3]

Traffic Light System and Country Specific Safeguard: A Comparison

It is undeniable that the present antidumping regime is heavily inclined towards the ‘importing country’. With the adoption of strict interpretation in dumping cases, a change is surely needed in the present antidumping regime.

Both the Traffic Light System and the Country Specific Safeguard are viable alternatives in this respect. However, there are some salient features in Country Specific Safeguard that are indispensable and quite novel. For e.g. providing temporary trade protection is an essential requirement when the injury standard is set to be higher because a higher injury standard would imply that whenever any injury is to occur, immediate actions are required to be taken.

The importance of including a non-discrimination requirement cannot be denied under the Country Specific Safeguard Approach. The duty can be imposed on a country-by-country basis which would give more leeway to the investigating authorities in exercising their discretion as to imposition of the duty. But, such an increase in discretion might prove to be hazardous and counter-productive in some cases.

Finally, both the Traffic Light System and the Country Specific Safeguard advocate for the abolition of the practice of imposing quantitative restrictions. This is clearly a refreshing and a progressive step.

I personally feel that best aspects of both the approaches needs to be incorporated in the present antidumping regime in order to remove the trade imbalance created by the countries adopting a protectionist approach.




[1] Wentong Zheng, Reforming Trade Remedies, 34 MICH. J. INT' L. 151 (2012).
[2] To understand the difference between a Safeguard Measure and an Antidumping Measure, See, CP Bown, How Different are Safeguards from Antidumping?, visited at people.brandeis.edu/~cbown/papers/steel_mfn.pdf
[3] Ibid.

No comments:

Post a Comment