WTO members report on anti-dumping activity

India initiated 51 investigations during the second semester of 2001, as compared with 21 investigations initiated during the second semester of 2000. The United States had the second highest number of initiations (35) during the second semester of 2001, compared with 38 during the corresponding period in 2000. Argentina had the third highest number of initiations, 16, a decrease from 34 initiations in the comparable period during 2000.

China, with 25 investigations on its exports, is at the top of the list of countries subject to anti-dumping investigations, although this number is a decrease from the 32 investigations initiated on Chinese exports during the second semester of 2000. Brazil, Chinese Taipei, Thailand and the United States were next, each with 9 investigations initiated on their exports in the second semester of 2001. Indonesia, Korea and Japan each had 8 investigations initiated on their exports in the second semester of 2001.

The largest group (60) of investigations initiated during the second semester of 2001 involved products classified in the base metals sector of the Harmonized System of Tariff Classification, which includes iron, steel and aluminium products. The other two sectors most affected were chemicals and plastics, with, respectively, 41 and 34 investigations initiated. The United States initiated 33 out of its 35 investigations on base metals products, while India initiated the majority (28) of its investigations on chemical products. Turkey initiated 12 out of its 13 investigations on products in the plastics sector.

Eight WTO Members imposed a total of 79 final anti-dumping measures against exports from 33 countries or customs territories during the second semester of 2001. This total represents a sharp decline from the 107 measures imposed during the corresponding period of 2000. Notable also is the decline in the number of countries imposing measures, from 16 countries during the second semester of 2000. The United States imposed the most final measures (21) during the second semester of 2001, a significant increase from the 8 final measures imposed by the United States during the corresponding period of 2000. India was a close second to the United States in the number of final measures imposed during the period, with 20 measures. The European Communities and Argentina each adopted 11 measures during the period, which for the Communities was significant decrease from the 32 measures imposed in the second half of 2000. Argentina had imposed 10 measures during the second half of 2000.

Exports from China were the subject of the largest number, 21, of final measures imposed during the second semester of 2001. Chinese Taipei was a distant second, with 6 measures. For China, this represents a slight increase from the 17 measures imposed against its exports during the second semester of 2000.

As was the case for initiations, the sector most affected by final measures was base metals, with 34 final measures imposed on products in that sector. This was followed by the chemicals sector, with 13 measures imposed, and the machinery and electronics sector with 8 measures.

The anti-dumping semi-annual reports by Members for the period 1 July — 31 December 2001 can be found under document series G/ADP/N/85.

Note to editors:

The WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement allows governments to act against dumped imports where there is material injury to the competing domestic industry. In order to do that the importing government has to determine, after investigating, that dumping is taking place, calculate the extent of dumping (how much lower the export price is compared to the exporter’s home market price or “normal value”), and determine that the dumping is causing injury.

GATT Article VI allows countries to take action against dumping. The Anti-Dumping Agreement clarifies and expands Article VI, adding detailed procedural and substantive requirements, and the two operate together. They allow countries to act in a way that would normally break the GATT principles of binding a tariff and not discriminating between trading partners — typically an affirmative finding in an anti-dumping case results in an additional import duty on the particular dumped product from the particular exporting country in order to bring its price closer to the “normal value” or to remove the injury to domestic industry in the importing country.