Author:
PRUSA THOMAS J.,VERMULST EDWIN
Abstract
AbstractIn July 2009, Chinese steel producers of grain oriented electrical steel filed anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cases against US and Russian producers. The US challenged the duties for a variety a reasons, many of which involved deficiencies in the producers' application to China's investigating authority, the Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China (MOFCOM). The US also challenged certain aspects of MOFCOM's injury analysis. The Panel and Appellate Body ruled in favor of the US on virtually every issue. Given the deficiencies in the application and China's handling of the case, the Panel and AB decisions were justified. In a larger sense, however, we believe China may well emerge as the ‘winner’ in this dispute as this case establishes important standards for allegations and evidence in applications, standards that other countries (including the US) likely have failed to meet when they have imposed AD and CVD orders on the largest target country, China.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Law,Political Science and International Relations,Economics and Econometrics
Cited by
26 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Index;Behind-the-Border Policies;2019-11-07
2. References;Behind-the-Border Policies;2019-11-07
3. A Time for Action;Behind-the-Border Policies;2019-11-07
4. Nontariff Responses to China’s Development Strategy;Behind-the-Border Policies;2019-11-07
5. Behind-the-Border Measures and the New Generation of Trade Agreements;Behind-the-Border Policies;2019-11-07