“If a company exports a product at a price lower than the price it normally charges on its own home market, it is said to be “dumping” the product. Is this unfair competition? Opinions differ, but many governments take action against dumping in order to defend their domestic industries. The WTO agreement does not pass judgement. Its focus is on how governments can or cannot react to dumping — it disciplines anti-dumping actions, and it is often called the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”. (This focus only on the reaction to dumping contrasts with the approach of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement.)

The legal definitions are more precise, but broadly speaking the WTO agreement allows governments to act against dumping where there is genuine (“material”) injury to the competing domestic industry. In order to do that the government has to be able to show 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), and show that the dumping is causing injury or threatening to do so.

GATT (Article 6) allows countries to take action against dumping. The Anti-Dumping Agreement clarifies and expands Article 6, 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 anti-dumping action means charging extra import duty on the particular 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.” – Excerp from WTO

WTL  has a deep knowledge and experience in anti-dumping investigations. By taking advantage of this valuable asset WTL achieves the best possible outcome for the exporters/producers in trade remedies.

“If a company exports a product at a price lower than the price it normally charges on its own home market, it is said to be “dumping” the product. Is this unfair competition? Opinions differ, but many governments take action against dumping in order to defend their domestic industries. The WTO agreement does not pass judgement. Its focus is on how governments can or cannot react to dumping — it disciplines anti-dumping actions, and it is often called the “Anti-Dumping Agreement”. (This focus only on the reaction to dumping contrasts with the approach of the Subsidies and Countervailing Measures Agreement.)

The legal definitions are more precise, but broadly speaking the WTO agreement allows governments to act against dumping where there is genuine (“material”) injury to the competing domestic industry. In order to do that the government has to be able to show 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), and show that the dumping is causing injury or threatening to do so.

GATT (Article 6) allows countries to take action against dumping. The Anti-Dumping Agreement clarifies and expands Article 6, 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 anti-dumping action means charging extra import duty on the particular 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.” – Excerp from WTO

WTL  has a deep knowledge and experience in anti-dumping investigations. By taking advantage of this valuable asset WTL achieves the best possible outcome for the exporters/producers in trade remedies.

Safeguard measures (i.e., restrict imports of a product temporarily) aim to protect a specific domestic industry from a surge in imports of any product which is causing, or which is threatening to cause, serious injury to the industry.

On one hand, Vietnam is one of the most avid users of safeguards which affect imports from all sources. On the other hand, Vietnam exporters/producers may also face safeguard investigations initiated by other countries.

We assists clients in responding to the questionnaires, preparation of the written briefs, post-hearing briefs, participation in the hearings and verification if needed.

In light of the jurisprudence in the WTO, we carefully analyze the case by using our deep economic and analytical expertise and submit legal, economic view to the government of the investigating country.

Safeguard measures differ other trade remedies because of its nature. Safeguard is a trade remedy against fair trade practices not like other unfair trade practices such as dumped or subsidized imports. It aims to receive partial tariff concessions back given in the Uruguay Round. Because of this difference in nature of investigations are proceedings in which the authorities seek to impose emergency measures to limit imports temporarily, designed to “safeguard” domestic industries. The administering authorities analyze two key factors in safeguard investigations. These factors are whether or not a domestic industry is injured or threatened with injury and whether this injury is caused by a surge in imports.

In most instances authorities request detail financial, sales and cost data going back several years in these investigations.WTL’s consultants assist the company staff gather this data in a reconciled manner and suggest alternative methodologies in absence of certain required data. A wholesome verifiable approach in putting together the information is crucial as the submitted information may be subject to verification by the administering authority. WTL’s consultants accompany the company personnel in such verification, if conducted.

Our consultants perform a detailed review of the injury allegations made by the complainants and cross check the accuracy of these claims. If applicable, we develop factual support for alternative causes of the alleged injury and provide our own analysis of whether a surge has happened and whether a surge caused the alleged injury. In this process, WTL also performs a critical evaluation of the authority’s findings to identify any errors including the allocation of quotas, where applicable.