Antidumping

Hello,

One of the main requisite of initiating an Antidumping Investigation is that the quantity of imports should exceed the deminimis level of 3% of total imports of like product.

I would like to know how this can be ensured by the Investigating authorities in the following case:

The product under investigation is defined as say, all types of T-shirts with only round collar. Let us further assume that there is no specific customs code for round collar T-shirts and such a model may be found partly in atleast 50 different customs code under the chapter of T-shirts. While statistics will obviously be available for each of the 50 customs code, there are no means to determine the composition of the subject product within these 50 codes because the invoice, packing list etc donot distinguish the T-shirts on the basis of neck type.

In the above circumstances,

a. How do the Investigating authorities convince themselves of the quantum of imports of the subject product and the deminimis level?
b. Are there are any GATT/WTO jurisprudence on whether such a product definition ( included partly under various codes) which cannot be quantified through customs statistics, can at all be sustained in an AD investigation?
c. If such an AD investigation on the subject product is indeed initiated despite this limitation, what is the defence available to the exporter?

On the first question, while this information may be difficult to get, presumably it is available somewhere. The petitioner would need to come up with evidence of some sort in order to have the investigation initiated. If they cannot get actual data on round collar shirts, perhaps they can estimate the percentage of shirts with round collars, and from that extrapolate the number of round collar shirts based on the total shirt imports.

For the second, I don't believe there are any cases directly on point. However, the concept of "like product" under AD Agreement Article 2.6 may be relevant here. It could be argued that you cannot look only at "round collar" shirts, but rather must examine the whole range of "like products." Thus, other T-shirts must be considered as well, because the "round collar" does not cause the shirts to be un-"like" other T-shirts. Therefore, an investigation based on "round collar" shirts is not consistent with the AD Agreement because it does not consider the full range of like products. One WTO panel has rejected a similar argument, but the AB has not yet ruled on this.

On the last question, one answer is that the exporter can argue that the investigating authority has not conducted a proper "like product" analysis.

Hope that helps. Sorry I can't offer more, but that's the best I can do with this one!

Effective January 23, 2009, antidumping duty orders on diamond saw blades from the PRC and Korea will be issued. For more information:

-------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
International Trade Administration
[A-570-900, A-580-855]

Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from the People's Republic of China and the Republic of Korea: Notice of Court Decision Not In Harmony With Final Determination of the Antidumping Duty Investigations

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.

SUMMARY: On January 13, 2009, the United States Court of International Trade ("CIT") affirmed the International Trade Commission's ("ITC") amended determination upon remand that an industry in the United States is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of diamond sawblades and parts thereof ("diamond sawblades") from the People's of China ("PRC") and the Republic of Korea ("Korea"). Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, No. 06-00247, Slip Op. 09-05 (CIT January 13, 2009) ("DSMC"). The case arises out of the ITC's final determination in the antidumping duty investigations. See {Investigations Nos. 731-TA-1092 and 1093 (Final) Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof From China and Korea, 71 FR 39128 (July 11, 2006) ("Final Determination"). The judgment in this case was not in harmony with the ITC's Final Determination. If the CIT's opinion in this case is not appealed, or is affirmed on appeal, then antidumping duty orders on diamond sawblades from the PRC and Korea will be issued. In accordance with the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ("CAFC") in Timken Co. v. United States, 893 F.2d 337, 341 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ("Timken"), the Department will order the suspension of liquidation of the subject merchandise.

EFFECTIVE DATE: January 23, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alex Villanueva, AD/CVD Operations, Office 9, Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-3208.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 11, 2006, the ITC published its final determination that an industry in the United States was not materially injured or threatened with material injury by reason of imports of diamond sawblades from the PRC and Korea. Final Determination, 71 FR 39128. The petitioners
________________________________________
FOOTNOTE 1 in the antidumping duty investigation instituted an action challenging the ITC's final determination. On February 6, 2008, the CIT issued Diamond Sawblades Mfrs. Coalition v. United States, No. 06-247, Slip Op. 2008-18 (CIT February 6, 2008), which remanded the determination to the ITC for reconsideration. Upon remand, the ITC changed its determination and found that a U.S. industry is threatened with material injury by reason of imports of diamond sawblades from the PRC and Korea. See ITC Pub. 4007 (May 2008), Diamond Sawblades and Parts Thereof from China and Korea: Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1092 and 1093 (Final)(Remand), which can be accessed directly at:
http://www.usitc.gov/trade-remedy/73...ions/index.htm

The CIT issued a confidential opinion regarding the ITC's determination on remand on January 13, 2009. DSMC, Slip Op. 09-05. The ITC informed the Department of Commerce ("Department") by letter dated January 22, 2009, that the CIT's January 13, 2009, opinion in DSMC sustains the ITC's threat-of-material-injury determination. Accordingly, upon notice from the ITC of no appeal or, if appealed, of a "conclusive" decision by the CAFC affirming DSMC, antidumping duty orders on diamond sawblades from the PRC and Korea will be issued. I found this at CyberRegs | Management of Change for Regulatory Documents

UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1092 and 1093 (Final)
DIAMOND SAWBLADES AND PARTS THEREOF FROM CHINA AND KOREA
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_r...1152129704.pdf


UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C.
Investigation Nos. 731-TA-1092-1093 (Final)
DIAMOND SAWBLADES AND PARTS THEREOF FROM CHINA AND KOREA
http://www.usitc.gov/secretary/fed_r...1137515763.pdf

Helpful info!!