What Is anti Dumping Law in the Philippines

What Is anti Dumping Law in the Philippines

Many U.S. companies are increasingly concerned about the enforcement of international anti-dumping laws. The United States makes extensive use of dumping laws to prevent foreign imports, and other countries have begun to learn that it is a means of imposing protectionist measures without violating GATT rules. U.S. laws have become the model for dumping legislation. More and more countries have increased dumping duties against U.S. companies. Between 1980 and 1988, Canada opened 55 investigations against U.S. companies, Australia 52 cases, the European Community 23 cases, Mexico fourteen and Argentina six, most in recent years. (“Some Big U.S. Companies Favor Loosening Anti-Dumping Laws,” The Wall Street Journal, August 31, 1990, p. A2.) Significantly, several countries apply U.S.-style anti-dumping laws against U.S.

products. South Korea, for example, discovered in 1990 that the American DuPont Chemical Company was throwing away plastic resin at prices 30 to 90 percent higher than its domestic prices. A tariff of 40 to 50 per cent was recommended. (“A Korean Firm`s Dumping Charge Takes DuPont, Two Others, By Surprise,” The Wall Street Journal, November 8, 1990, p. A20.) The survey focused on two basic types of displays: electroluminescence FPDs and active matrix DPFs. Light emitting screens are usually monochrome with a lower resolution. Active matrix displays are usually colored with higher resolutions. The United States has a large electroluminescent display industry and Japan`s share of the US market was only 5% and was declining at the time of the survey in 1990. During the IP, the small share of the US electroluminescence market in Japan remained relatively stable.

However, it was clear that Japan`s share of the U.S. market for electroluminescent displays did not pose a threat to the U.S. domestic industry. Nevertheless, the Ministry of Commerce found a dumping problem and charged a dumping margin of 7%. Like the European Community, the United States has been excessively persistent in negotiating certain reforms in the current GATT Uruguay Round. One of these reforms is to reduce the excessive enforcement of anti-dumping and countervailing duty legislation. The United States is the biggest violator of these laws. There is an international consensus to limit such laws, but U.S.

trade negotiators refuse to consider reform. The Bush administration, through the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, should work hard to amend or dismantle potentially dangerous laws while seeking agreements to end government subsidies to exporters. In the United States, the International Trade Commission (ITC) – an independent government agency – is responsible for imposing anti-dumping duties. Their actions are based on recommendations received from the U.S. Department of Commerce and investigations conducted by ITC and/or the Department of Commerce. The U.S. government is raising costs for U.S. consumers and, in some cases, undermining U.S. competitiveness, all in the name of fair trade. Proponents of U.S. anti-dumping laws say such laws are necessary to prevent foreigners from destroying American jobs and industries.

But in practice, in many cases, the application of these laws causes more harm and creates more problems than it solves. Thanks to tariffs imposed due to anti-dumping laws, U.S. manufacturers of products such as computers, medical devices and machine tools pay higher prices for the components they import to make their products, which increases production costs and makes their exports less competitive in global markets. In some cases, such as computer components, U.S. companies have been denied the supplies they need. And many American jobs will be lost if domestic manufacturers are forced to move overseas to avoid high tariffs on their imported components. 2) Third country price (19 u.S.A. Section 1677b(1)(B).) If there are no domestic sales of the product or if sales are so low that it is impossible to determine a market price, the price at which the product is sold in a third country may be used.

If this price is higher than in the United States, Commerce would normally find dumping. As a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a signatory to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade between the Agreement and the Uruguay Round (GATT-UR), the Philippines has become a member of the international trade regime. The economic regime promotes the free movement of goods and obliges the country to open its economy to foreign products. This scenario poses a risk to local industry, as foreign competitors may pour in their quest to enter and conquer markets. In order to mitigate the risk associated with the situation, the GATT-WTO regime has encouraged countries to adopt anti-dumping legislation. The justification for the law is to create a system of international trade in which the conditions of competition are equal or equal for all actors. Anti-dumping law gives a country the right to respond appropriately to protect itself against unfair trade practices from other countries. This paper discusses developments in anti-dumping legislation in the Philippines, in particular the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) 7843 and the transition to Republic Act No. 8752. He concludes with the following comment on political experience: first, the decree shows the satisfactory character and propensity of legislators to protect; secondly, the decree shows the growing influence and relevance of international organizations and regimes in domestic politics; Finally, policy-making illustrates the dynamics of competition between authorities in the face of policy changes. 1) A U.S. company files a petition with the Department of Commerce`s International Trade Administration alleging that a foreign company is dumping its product into the United States.

`The Minister shall inform the Customs Board (hereinafter referred to as `the Board`) when there is a suspicion of dumping established and shall direct the Commissioner of Customs to release the goods or goods in question. unless the objection/importer has provided a cash security at least equal to the estimated provisional anti-dumping duty plus the normal duty applicable on the basis of the supporting documentation provided with the dumping protest, to be liable for the payment of such duties, fees and charges if dumping is found. If the objection is rejected, the cash deposit will be refunded to the importer within ten (10) days of the end of the order. 3) Proposed transitional legislation incorporating the original intent of the Anti-Dumping Act of 1916 Over the past decade, many U.S. politicians have replaced calls for more free trade with demands for “fair trade.” The U.S., they say, should keep its markets open to imports, but it must also act aggressively against “unfair” trade practices by foreign companies and governments. One of the pillars of this “fair trade” approach is a series of so-called anti-dumping and countervailing laws. (Unless otherwise specified, anti-dumping and countervailing duties are hereinafter referred to simply as anti-dumping laws.) Anti-dumping laws are designed to prevent foreign-made products from being sold by foreign companies in the United States at less than fair value. Countervailing duties are intended to offset subsidies that foreign governments provide to certain exporting companies by imposing tariffs on goods that these companies export to the United States.

The problem is that the methods used by the Ministry of Commerce are complex, obscure and plagued by conceptual and technical problems. And since many aspects of estimating fair market value are subjective, it is easy for Commerce to “prove” dumping, when in fact there has been no dumping.