“Antidumping law, as practiced today,

is a witches’ brew of the worst of policy

making: power politics, bad economics,
and shameful public administration”
Finger, J. Michael,
Editor,
“Antidumping How It Works and Who
Gets Hurt”,

Group 3 SIIB AB 1
 What is meant by DUMPING ?
 How is dumping measured ?
 The role of material injury and de-menimis in AD
 The steps in an AD investigation and duty imposition
 A brief history of AD
 Various minuses of the AD measurement laws.
 AD Duties and their IMPACT.
 Increasing use of AD in WTO
 Top 10 users of AD in the world.
 Case study
And hence make u agree or disagree with
Finger, J. Michael.

Group 3 SIIB AB 2
 ADITI MALIK
(01)
ANKIT SHARMA
(02)
NAVJOT KAUR NAGRA
(20)
PRADEEP KUMAR Group 3 SIIB AB 3
 “Dumping is a situation of international
price discrimination, where the price of
a product when sold to the importing
country is less than the price of the
same product when sold in the market
of the exporting country.”

Group 3 SIIB AB 4
 Asa short-term predatory pricing
strategy to drive competitors out of
the market

 Asa result of market intervention or

state subsidies that enable
companies to artificially lower their
prices

Group 3 SIIB AB 5
 When the price causes or threatens to
cause material injury to the domestic
industry of the importing country can
there be an action against dumping.
 Ananti-dumping investigation can be
started only if there is a written
complaint on behalf of the domestic
industry.(a significant share of the
domestic producers have to support
the complaint).
Group 3 SIIB AB 6
 Normal Value: The comparable price at
which the goods under complaint are sold in
the domestic market of the exporting country.
Can be determined by:
• domestic sales
• comparable representative export price to an
appropriate third country.
• constructed normal value, i.e. the cost of
production in the country of origin with
reasonable addition for administrative, selling
and general costs and reasonable profits.

Group 3 SIIB AB 7
 Export price: The price at which it
is exported to the importing country.
 Dumping Margin: The margin of
dumping is the difference between
the Normal value and the export
price of the goods under complaint.
It is generally expressed as a
percentage of the export price.

Group 3 SIIB AB 8
 Compare Exporter Price
to Normal Value
Exporters Price Normal Value

Normal Value $110.00

Exporter Price $90.00

Difference Attributable
$20.00
to Dumping

Dumping Difference Attributable

= $20.00 / $90.00=22.22%
Margin to Dumping/exporter price

Group 3 SIIB AB 9
 fundamental parameters are determined.
a)Normal domestic selling price of the product
or similar products in the exporting country.
b) Export price being offered in the importing
country.
Both these elements have to be compared
at the same level of trade, generally at ex-
factory level, for assessment of dumping.

Group 3 SIIB AB 10
 Domestic price of exporter >
export price
 Dumping = price discrimination
between national markets

Group 3 SIIB AB 11
 Injury parameters include factors such
as:
o Actual or potential decline in sales
o Loss of profits
o Market share
o Capacity utilization
o Employment
o Wages
o Ability to raise capital
o Lost contracts

Group 3 SIIB AB 12
  NIPis that level of price, which the
industry is, expected to have charged
under normal circumstances in the exporter
market during the period defined.
 The Injury Margin is the difference between
the Non-Injurious Price due to the Domestic
Industry and the Landed Value of the
dumped imports.

Group 3 SIIB AB 13
 Anti-dumping
(Article VI of GATT 1994)  

Group 3 SIIB AB 14
 Based on article VI of GATT, 1994
 Customs tariff act, 1975 sec 9A, 9B
(as amended in 1995)
 Investigations by designated
authority, Ministry of Commerce
 Imposition and collection by Ministry
of Finance

Group 3 SIIB AB 15
 Export price and normal value must
be compared at he same level of
trade, such as at the ex-factory level
 allowance made for differences that
effect price comparability. These are
 Physical characteristics
 Taxation
 Quantities etc..

Group 3 SIIB AB 16
 In the 19th century European Sugar Industries
appealed to their respective governments for
protection against sugar being dumped at unfairly
low prices.
 In 1902, there was a formal agreement on anti-
dumping. Canada adopted the first anti-dumping law
in 1904 followed by the European countries and then
the US in 1916.
 Formed the basis for the original GATT article
(Article VI of GATT) on anti-dumping in 1947.

Group 3 SIIB AB 17
 Subsequently, codes on anti dumping were
developed during the Kennedy Round (1962-67)
and Tokyo Round (1973-79).

 However, these were not binding on all GATT

members; they were open to signature by those
countries that wished to do so.

 But the Uruguay Round, (1986-94) anti-dumping

agreement is an agreement binding on all GATT or
WTO members.

Group 3 SIIB AB 18
 It is a measure to rectify the situation
arising out of the dumping of goods and its
trade distortive effect.
 Re-establish fair trade.
 The use of anti dumping measure as an
instrument of fair competition is permitted
by the WTO.
 It provides relief to the domestic industry
against the injury caused by dumping.

Group 3 SIIB AB 19
ANTIDUMPING DUTY
 To guard against unfair
trade practices
  trade remedial
measures.
 not necessary in the
nature
 levied against exporter /
country in as much as
they are country specific
and exporter specific.
Group 3 SIIB AB
NORMAL CUSTOMS DUTY
 means of raising
revenue and for overall
development of the
economy.
 trade and fiscal policies
of the Government
 Necessary in nature
 universally applicable to
all imports irrespective
of the country of origin
and the exporter.
20
 If there is dumping but no injury then
no duty can be imposed.

 Duty remains in force for 5 years.

 Re-determination at a “sunset review”.

 Yearly administrative reviews if

requested by
domestic industry or exporter.

Group 3 SIIB AB 21
Sufficient evidence to the effect that ;
 there is dumping
 there is injury to the domestic
industry; and
 there is a causal link between the
dumping and the injury, that is to
say, that the dumped imports have
caused the alleged injury.

Group 3 SIIB AB 22
 No anti dumping duty shall be
recommended without a finding of this
causal relationship. That is to say,
 Dumping should lead to Injury
 The causal link is to be established
generally in terms of the following effects
of dumped imports on domestic industry: -
 volume effect
 price effect

Group 3 SIIB AB 23
 The volume effect of dumping
relates to the market share of the
domestic industry.
 for price effect, significant price
under cutting by the dumped
imports as compared with the price
of the like product in the importer
country.

Group 3 SIIB AB 24
 Against In Favour

 Consumers  Importing country

 Exporters currently protected
 Economists industries
 Regional Agreements  Importing country
(NAFTA) Labor Unions

Group 3 SIIB AB 25
 anti dumping duty imposed against
that countries, which could go up to
the dumping margin.
 may terminate investigation if the
exporter concerned furnished an
undertaking to revise his price

Group 3 SIIB AB 26
 Any exporter whose margin of dumping is less
than 2% of the export price shall be excluded
 Investigation is terminated if the volume of the
dumped imports from a particular country
accounts for less than 3% of the total imports of
the like product.
 The cumulative imports of the like product from all
these countries who individually account for less
than 3%, should not exceed 7% of the import of
the like product.

Group 3 SIIB AB 27
 Rule 5(4) of the Anti Dumping Rules
provides for suo-motu initiation of
anti dumping proceedings by the
Designated Authority.
 The Authority can initiate the anti
dumping investigation on its own
without any complaint/petition filed
in this regard

Group 3 SIIB AB 28
 Should not be less than six months and not
more than eighteen months.
 The most desirable period of investigation
is a financial year. (period should be as
representative a possible)
 For the purposes of injury analysis, the
domestic industry has to furnish the
relevant data for the past three years.

Group 3 SIIB AB 29
 Lodging of
45 Analysis of complaint
complaint
days Initiation
Preparation and
sending of
questionnaires Sending of
Analysis of questionnaires
questionnaire
9 responses

months On-spot verification

visits
Internal decision +
consultation of MS + Imposition of
translation provisional measures
if warranted and
Analysis of disclosure disclosure of
reactions
decision to interested
Additional on-spot parties
AD 6 months
verification visits if
AS 4 months needed

Internal decision
+ consultation of Final disclosure to
MS + translation interested parties
Imposition of
Total Duration Measures
Measures are definitive measures
AS 13 months normally
normally if warranted
imposedfor
imposed for5
AD 15 months
5years
years
Group 3 SIIB AB 30
 The application is scrutinized to ensure
that it is fully documented
 provides sufficient evidence for initiating
an investigation.
 If evidence not adequate, then a
deficiency letter is issued.
 Till then cannot be considered as
application pending before authority.

Group 3 SIIB AB 31
 Designated Authority determines that the
application has been made by or on behalf of
the Domestic Industry.
 It also examines the accuracy and adequacy
of the evidence provided
 The Initiation notice will be issued normally
within 5 days from the date of receipt of a
properly documented application.

Group 3 SIIB AB 32
C. Access to Information:
 The Authority provides access to the non-
confidential evidence
 available for inspection to all interested parties on
request after receipt of the responses.
D. Preliminary Findings:
 The Designated Authority will proceed
expeditiously with the conduct of the
investigation
 It makes a preliminary finding containing the
detailed information on the main reasons behind
the determination.

Group 3 SIIB AB 33
E.

E. Provisional Duty:
 A provisional duty not exceeding the margin of
dumping may be imposed by the Central
Government on the basis of the preliminary
finding
 Can be imposed only after the expiry of 60 days
from the date of initiation of investigation.
 The provisional duty will remain in force only for
a period not exceeding 6 months, extendable to
9 months under certain circumstances.

Group 3 SIIB AB 34
F.

F. Oral Evidence
 Interested parties can request the
Designated Authority for an opportunity
to present the relevant information orally.
 Such information shall be taken into
consideration only when it is
subsequently reproduced in writing.
G. Disclosure of information:
 Based on these submissions and
evidence gathered the Authority will
determine the basis of its final findings.

Group 3 SIIB AB 35
 the Designated Authority will inform all interested
parties of the essential facts, which form the basis
for its decision before the final finding is made.
H. Final Determination:
 The interested parties submit their response to the
disclosure and
 The Authority examines these final submissions of
the parties and comes out with final findings.

Group 3 SIIB AB 36
 Anti-dumping measures taken by WTO
members have increased from 129 in 1994 to
208 in 2008; 83%.
 New users: Argentina, India, Brazil, South
Africa.
 Traditionalusers: Canada, U.S., European
Union, Australia, Mexico.
 Most affected industries: Metal, Chemical,
plastic, textiles, machinery and equipment,
agriculture and food.

Group 3 SIIB AB 37
Group 3 SIIB AB 38
 17%

4% 39%
7%

9%
11% 13%

METAL CHEMICAL PLASTIC TEXTILES M&E A&F OTHER

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping

Database Group 3 SIIB AB 39
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
5

6
9

0
9

0
1

2
Metals Chemicals Plas Tex/Cloth

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping

Database Group 3 SIIB AB 40
Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping
Database Group 3 SIIB AB 41
Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping
Database Group 3 SIIB AB 42
 DevelopingCountries Use
Antidumping more intensely than
developed countries.

Group 3 SIIB AB 43
 Total 1 400
MEASURES:1 900

Developing
75%
Developing
75%

Total
Developed
500
Developing
Developed Members
Developed
Developing Members
25% 25%
80%

Source: WTO Secretariat,

Developed
Rules Division Anti-
20%
dumping Database
Group 3 SIIB AB 44
Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping
Database Group 3 SIIB AB 45
 218

181
173
Total 1 529 150
139
116

77 79

43 44

Kor e
a co da Braz
il Aust
r nt S Afr India US EC
Mexi Cana Arge

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping

Database Group 3 SIIB AB 46
46
 284

Total 1 516 192

144
127

89
80
73
65
55

Braz
il da Aust
r nt ey Chin
a EC US Inda
Cana Arge Turk

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping

Database Group 3 SIIB AB 47
47
 Total 55
Countervailing
Measures Safeguards
11 11

Anti-Dumping
33

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules

Division Anti-dumping Database
Group 3 SIIB AB 48
48
 Pros
 Prevents Monopolies
 Protects Vulnerable
Industries
 Allows Firms to
Compete
 Preserves Jobs
Group 3 SIIB AB
Cons
 Against Free Trade
Concept
 Trade Barrier – Lowers
Economic Growth
 Distorts the Market
 Protects Firms from
Competition
 Hurts Consumers
49
 Proportion of AD cases initiated by the countries

0.3

0.25

0.2
0.15
0.1

0.05

0
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

India United States Canada China European Community

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping
Database Group 3 SIIB AB 50
 6 6
5 5
Total 33

2 2 2 2 2
1

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules Division Anti-dumping

Database 51
 Unclear concept of “ordinary course of trade”.
 For computation of the normal value complicated
cost calculations and allocations
 Arbitrariness steps in especially when there is a
conflict between accounting practices in the
exporting country and the importing country.
 This is so because investigating authorities
typically follow accounting practices of the
importing country

Group 3 SIIB AB 52
Business Standard - 15
December, 2009
Group 3 SIIB AB 53
  Indiato impose antidumping duties on
some equipment imported from China.
 Chinese companies entered the Indian
telecom market, offering products and
services at prices about a third cheaper
than that of global competitors.
 Indian manufacturers hurt as well

Group 3 SIIB AB 54
  FibrehomeTelecommunication
Technologies Ltd. will have to pay a
duty of 236%, Alcatel-Lucent
Shanghai Bell Co. 29% and Israel's
ECI Telecom Ltd. 93% on equipment
imported from China

Group 3 SIIB AB 55
The Indian Shrimp
Industry Organizes
to Fight the Threat
of Anti-Dumping
Action
(CASE STUDY)

Group 3 SIIB AB 56
 The Ad Hoc Shrimp Trade Action
Committee (ASTAC), an association of
shrimp farmers in eight southern states
of the United States, filed an anti-
dumping petition against six countries
— Brazil, China, Ecuador, India,
Thailand and Vietnam. 
 The petition alleged that these
countries had dumped their shrimps in
the US market.
Group 3 SIIB AB 57
  on 21 January 2004 the US Department of
Commerce (DOC) announced the initiation of
anti-dumping investigations against the six
countries.
 The Department notified the International
Trade Commission (ITC) of its decision on
initiation.
 On 17 February 2004 the International Trade
Commission announced its decision that there
was a reasonable indication that the US shrimp
industry was affected due to Anti-dumping. 

Group 3 SIIB AB 58
 TheDepartment of Commerce
continued with its investigations and
gave its preliminary determination
on 28 July 2004.
 The ratio of preliminary duty varies
between 3.56% and 27.49% by the
DOC.

Group 3 SIIB AB 59
 The weighted average rate for India
is 14.2%,
 The average rate for
▪ China is 49.09%,
▪ Brazil 36.91%,
▪ Vietnam 16.01%,
▪ Ecuador 7.3%
▪ Thailand 6.39%.

Group 3 SIIB AB 60
  On 26 February 2002, Reggie Dupre,
a Louisiana state senator, alleged
that tainted farm-raised Asian
shrimp was being diverted from
Europe and dumped on the US
market. 

Group 3 SIIB AB 61
 Vietnam, one of the countries identified almost at the
beginning of the SSA(South America Shrimp Association)
exercises and also highly dependent on the US market
for shrimp exports, was the first to protest. 
  Foreign Ministry spokeperson Phan Thuy Thanh said in a
statement on 12 September 2002 that ‘I can say with
certainty that Vietnam has never dumped its shrimp,
and its shrimp have been sold at market prices.’ 

Group 3 SIIB AB 62
Source: WTO Secretariat, Rules
Division Anti-dumping Database
Group 3 SIIB AB 63
 Rokhmin Dahiri, the Indonesian Maritime and
Fisheries Minister, denied allegations that the
Indonesian government subsidized its shrimp
farmers.
 He said that the price of shrimp on the
domestic market was much lower than the
export price.
 “The dumping charge was baseless and,
therefore, the United States should exclude
Indonesia from the proposed anti-dumping
investigations. ”

Group 3 SIIB AB 64
 The Indian government and the Indian
shrimp industry were aware of the
threat.
 Arun Jaitley, the then Minister for
Commerce, made a statement in June
2003 after his official visit to the United
States: ‘We are anticipating an action
against our shrimp exports because our
share in the US market is on the rise.

Group 3 SIIB AB 65
 The six named countries accounted for 74% of
shrimp imports in the US market.
 Imports from the six countries increased from
466 million lbs. in 2000 to 650 million lbs in
2002.
 Import prices of the targeted countries had
dropped by 28% in the previous three years.
 The average unit value of the targeted countries
in 2000 was $3.54; this had fallen to $2.55 in
2002, on a headless, shell-on equivalent basis.

Group 3 SIIB AB 66
 The average dockside price for one count size
of gulf shrimp dropped from $6.08 to $3.30 per
pound from 2000 to 2002.
 The United States was the most open market in
the world.
 High tariff rates in other large importing
countries provided a powerful incentive for
exporters to increase shrimp shipments to the
United States.
Group 3 SIIB AB 67
 The anti-dumping investigations against Indian shrimp
imports might be initiated was hinted at during bilateral talks
when the then Commerce and Industry Minister Arun Jaitley
had met his counterpart in Washington at that time. 
 The reason given was that India’s shrimp exports to the
United States had been rising rapidly during the previous
three years, from $255.93 million during 2000-1 to $299.05
million during 2002-3.

Group 3 SIIB AB 68
 The United States, traditionally a
buyer of small-sized shrimp from
India, has now started buying many
other varieties, including black tiger
shrimp, resulting in its occupying the
top slot in India’s export markets of
marine products, replacing Japan in
2002-3.

Group 3 SIIB AB 69
 Commerce Minister on the possible
threat to Indian shrimp exports to
the United States, SEAI(Seafood
Exporters Association of India (Kochi,
Kerala, India). and MPEDA(The
Marine Products Export Development
Authority) went into action.

Group 3 SIIB AB 70
 The SEAI (Sea food export Association of
India) has estimated a total budgetary
requirement of Rs. 70 million to fight the
case. Of this, SEAI would mobilize Rs. 40
million internally and the remaining Rs
30 million would be collected from its
members, depending on the volume and
value of their individual exports to the
US market.

Group 3 SIIB AB 71
 First,there are specific variations
between the shrimp caught off the
south-west coast of the United States
and in Indian waters, so that prices are
bound to be different.
 India’s shrimp exports are
predominantly of black tiger and
scampi varieties which are not
cultivated in the United States’,
according to the president of SEAI.
Group 3 SIIB AB 72
 Second, while fishing in the United States
is a capital-intensive activity calling for
major investment, in India shrimp capture
is carried out with a very low level of
capital and requiring hardly any
investment.
 This makes the cost of production
considerably lower in India compared
with that for shrimp sea-caught off the US
coast.

Group 3 SIIB AB 73
  Department of Commerce observed
that India had a strong case as India
was exporting mainly ‘tiger shrimps
which are not found there and that
too, in unprocessed form’. Noting
that 80% of shrimp consumption in
the United States is met through
imports.

Group 3 SIIB AB 74
 Shrimp exports to the United States
had come almost to a standstill due
to the uncertainty regarding the
contingent applicability and
incidence of the anti-dumping duty.

Group 3 SIIB AB 75
 In 1976 US banned shrimps ,It was on the ground
that trawling for shrimp by mechanized means had
been adversely affecting certain varieties of sea
turtles.
 The WTO ruled against the United States and asked
it to make the regime WTO-compatible.
 However, since that had not yet happened, India’s
exports to the United States of aqua-culture shrimp
and shrimp caught by non-mechanized means were
being made on the basis of certification by the
MPEDA, as required under the law.

Group 3 SIIB AB 76
 Several visits by the representatives
of those two bodies to Washington at
critical points also helped to bring an
understanding of the nature of the
problem and how to face it. 
 This resulted in the selection and
appointment of the legal counsel, in
September 2003. 

Group 3 SIIB AB 77
 The speedy resolution of the issue of
financing helped Indian case.
 The shrimp industry in India
shouldn’t have been focused on
only one or two major markets for
growth.
 Previously it was Japan and during
the last few years, it has been the
United States.
Group 3 SIIB AB 78
 India learnt the importance of diversification.

 A.
J. Tharakan, the SEAI president, has said that
they are exploring alternative markets to make
up for the loss of the lucrative US market.

 ‘But
it will be a long drawn-out process. It is not
easy to establish your presence.’

Group 3 SIIB AB 79
“On 27 th Jan exports to
US were resumed.”
Business line newspaper– 1st
Feb, 2010

Group 3 SIIB AB 80
 Websites
 www.google.com
 www.e-businessline.com
 exim.indiamart.com
 commerce.nic.in/Anti-Dum.PDF
 www.wto.org/english/tratop_E/adp_e/adp_e.htm
Texts and literature
Anti-dumping and countervailing
Measures-A detailed study.
Group 3 SIIB AB 81
Group 3 SIIB AB 82