Row 580

Row ID: 580 | Dataset Entry | Axioma AXP Content Repository

Content Data

This page contains data entry 580 from the Axioma AXP content repository. The structured data below represents the complete record for this entry.

Anti-dumping duties are unsurprisingly being abused by WTO members to justify blatant tariffs against their trading partners. The most recent and public use of anti-dumping duties is the current China-Australia dispute, in which total (AD + countervailing) duties of up to 200% were imposed on red wine exports from Australia.

The controversy stems from the ambiguity of WTO anti-dumping laws. For those loosely familiar with WTO trade law, the contentious points are the terms "particular market situation" and "normally" as they appear in Article 2 of the anti-dumping agreement. The absurd breadth and *potential for further widening* of these terms have been recently reaffirmed in the WTO DSU during the *Australia - A4 Paper* case. In that case, the effect of Indonesian subsidies was indirectly used to value the dumping margin for the purposes of calculating AD duties.

The main problem is that it allows a WTO member to countervail the effects of a *subsidy* from within *an anti-dumping duty.* By also imposing a countervailing duty, they are allowed to effectively double count the effects of that subsidy and impose the same duty *twice* (de facto, not de jure). The second problem is that these terms give members too much space to determine: (1) if an AD duty may be imposed, and (2) the value of such duty. In effect, the ambiguities in AD duties allow members to effectively impose tariffs against each other (like the good old \[*pre-GATT*\] days).

Does this even matter though? In my opinion, the legitimisation of old-school tariffs in the *worlds largest and most comprehensive free-trade system* is pretty bad. However, my understanding of international trade is still rooted in textbooks. So, to any economists, trade professionals, other others who have any opinion on the matter whatsoever: are there any practical economic/political factors that render the issues around AD duties irrelevant or am I right to be concerned about the prevalence of AD duties.

FieldValue
text Anti-dumping duties are unsurprisingly being abused by WTO members to justify blatant tariffs against their trading partners. The most recent and public use of anti-dumping duties is the current China-Australia dispute, in which total (AD + countervailing) duties of up to 200% were imposed on red wine exports from Australia. The controversy stems from the ambiguity of WTO anti-dumping laws. For those loosely familiar with WTO trade law, the contentious points are the terms "particular market si…
label r/internationaltrade
dataType post
communityName r/Internationaltrade
datetime 2021-04-05
username_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lakx6NDVBZi1TdkQ3SzNrdkZwYVRrOGpvTWQyOVhseWRiaVo3VXhpU3YwMDlTSTl2aTU5TV9WcU9PUWo4Y0RrZ0JTYl9JbDBNdlJzLWJ6QUFqWnp2czdjeWc9PQ==
url_encoded Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9EOHVCWkNkVTRGQm4ySmttb21CQll0dHpabWJsaXc1UFViN2xDMmNYNW9COGN0ZzhKQzJMblZwX2cydi10NFkyelZONnA3ZkY3NnZMU2JWckdIejJ2c0p6WG1SdW5rdmtWQk5hMktvVEtIcERkYThHOHE3WHhWM2xucjAtUWtqVjlXV2J3ZWd2aUxFWVVRVmtQdlpERHBZX09YS3o4N0kzT3VBRG1HTlZtT3ZieEVQMzhIWlNzMFBVX0o0MlNQRVNlMDJBdnJNcDI3akc4T2VtWEh2dVZEUT09

Raw Record

{
  "text": "Anti-dumping duties are unsurprisingly being abused by WTO members to justify blatant tariffs against their trading partners. The most recent and public use of anti-dumping duties is the current China-Australia dispute, in which total (AD + countervailing) duties of up to 200% were imposed on red wine exports from Australia.\n\nThe controversy stems from the ambiguity of WTO anti-dumping laws. For those loosely familiar with WTO trade law, the contentious points are the terms \"particular market situation\" and \"normally\" as they appear in Article 2 of the anti-dumping agreement. The absurd breadth and *potential for further widening* of these terms have been recently reaffirmed in the WTO DSU during the *Australia - A4 Paper* case. In that case, the effect of Indonesian subsidies was indirectly used to value the dumping margin for the purposes of calculating AD duties.\n\nThe main problem is that it allows a WTO member to countervail the effects of a *subsidy* from within *an anti-dumping duty.* By also imposing a countervailing duty, they are allowed to effectively double count the effects of that subsidy and impose the same duty *twice* (de facto, not de jure). The second problem is that these terms give members too much space to determine: (1) if an AD duty may be imposed, and (2) the value of such duty. In effect, the ambiguities in AD duties allow members to effectively impose tariffs against each other (like the good old \\[*pre-GATT*\\] days).\n\nDoes this even matter though? In my opinion, the legitimisation of old-school tariffs in the *worlds largest and most comprehensive free-trade system* is pretty bad. However, my understanding of international trade is still rooted in textbooks. So, to any economists, trade professionals, other others who have any opinion on the matter whatsoever: are there any practical economic/political factors that render the issues around AD duties irrelevant or am I right to be concerned about the prevalence of AD duties.",
  "label": "r/internationaltrade",
  "dataType": "post",
  "communityName": "r/Internationaltrade",
  "datetime": "2021-04-05",
  "username_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lakx6NDVBZi1TdkQ3SzNrdkZwYVRrOGpvTWQyOVhseWRiaVo3VXhpU3YwMDlTSTl2aTU5TV9WcU9PUWo4Y0RrZ0JTYl9JbDBNdlJzLWJ6QUFqWnp2czdjeWc9PQ==",
  "url_encoded": "Z0FBQUFBQm5Lak9EOHVCWkNkVTRGQm4ySmttb21CQll0dHpabWJsaXc1UFViN2xDMmNYNW9COGN0ZzhKQzJMblZwX2cydi10NFkyelZONnA3ZkY3NnZMU2JWckdIejJ2c0p6WG1SdW5rdmtWQk5hMktvVEtIcERkYThHOHE3WHhWM2xucjAtUWtqVjlXV2J3ZWd2aUxFWVVRVmtQdlpERHBZX09YS3o4N0kzT3VBRG1HTlZtT3ZieEVQMzhIWlNzMFBVX0o0MlNQRVNlMDJBdnJNcDI3akc4T2VtWEh2dVZEUT09"
}
Explore Dataset Explore Row

Entry Information