Did Anti-dumping Duties Really Restrict Import?: Empirical Evidence from the US, the EU, China, and India

최낙균 대외경제정책연구원 2017 East Asian Economic Review Vol.21 No.1

This paper studied the effects of anti-dumping measures on the imports to investigate whether the trade restriction effect of an anti-dumping duty is dominant. Our results indicate that a 1% increase in the anti-dumping duties decreases the import of the targeted product by about 0.43~0.51%. The actual statistics, however, show that the total import of the targeted products increased by about 30 percent while an anti-dumping duty was in force. That indicates that an anti-dumping duty is just a temporary import relief. This paper also investigated whether an anti-dumping duty is terminated in the case that the injury would not be likely to continue or recur if the duty were removed. The hazards model estimates show that increase in market share, MFN tariff rate, and dumping margin decrease the hazard of termination of an anti-dumping duty, but the increase in value added increases the hazard of termination. Generally speaking, this result indicates that the WTO member countries have regulated the overuse of an anti-dumping measure. The findings of this paper show that there is a country- and industry-wise heterogeneous characteristic in the effect as well as termination of an anti-dumping duty.

The Chilling Trade Effects of Provisional Anti-dumping Duties: The Case of Korea

Joo Yeon Sun 한국무역학회 2020 Journal of Korea trade Vol.24 No.3

Purpose - This study empirically analyzes the effects of provisional anti-dumping duties levied on imports by Korea following anti-dumping investigations. An anti-dumping duty is a legal tool that countries use to impose duties on imports to offset injurious dumping. This study verifies how effective the imposition of a provisional anti-dumping duty is and whether such duties have trade chilling effects on aggregate imports. Specifically, this study examines import trade diversion from named to unnamed countries caused by the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties. Design/methodology - This empirical analysis employs an econometric model of provisional antidumping measures for cases in which Korea imposed final affirmative anti-dumping measures. We construct a monthly panel dataset for each stage of anti-dumping investigation undertaken by Korea for all manufacturing industries during 1995-2013. We illustrate a stage-by-stage analysis of antidumping investigations from initiation, preliminary decision, imposition of provisional duty, final affirmative decision, and imposition of final affirmative duty on a monthly basis at the six-digit harmonized system code-level. Findings - For cases in which provisional duties are imposed, the reduction in imports from named countries outweighs the increase in imports from unnamed countries. The substantial reduction in imports from named countries is large enough to offset the import diversion to unnamed countries, suggesting that import diversion in investigations is limited during the investigation period. Therefore, the use of provisional anti-dumping duties in Korea is effective, providing evidence of a chilling effect on aggregate imports. Originality/value - Few studies examine the size of the effects on import trade diversion of the imposition of provisional anti-dumping duties. We contribute to the literature by disentangling separate trade effects for each phase of the anti-dumping investigation process and imposition of provisional duty.

우리 법원에서의 덤핑방지관세 부과조치에 관한 연구 - WTO 반덤핑협정 제13조와의 관계를 중심으로 -

정세정 (사)한국국제경제법학회 2023 국제경제법연구 Vol.21 No.3

우리 법원은 2005년 인도네시아·중국산 백상지 판결에서 덤핑방지관세부과규칙의 처분성을 최초로 인정한 이래 2009년 중국산 도자기질 판결에서도 처분성을 인정하는 태도를 견지해왔다. 그러나 2022년 일본산 공기압밸브 판결은 덤핑방지관세부과규칙의 처분성에 관해 부정설의 입장을 분명히 하였다. 따라서 수입자는 덤핑방지관세부과규칙이 시행되면 세관장의 집행행위를 처분으로 다투어야 하는데, 이러한 법리가 행정법 일반 법리에 해당하는 이상, 가까운 시일 내 덤핑방지관세부과규칙의 처분성이 인정되는 것으로 판례가 변경될 가능성은 낮아 보인다. 대법원은 공기압밸브 판결에서 덤핑방지관세부과규칙의 처분성을 부정하는 것으로 간략하게 판단했지만, 반덤핑협정 제13조와의 관계를 고려한 수출자의 권리보호 측면에서는 고민이 없었던 것으로 보인다. WTO 반덤핑협정 제13조는 덤핑방지관세조치에 대한 사법심사를 규정하고 있다. 대법원 판결에 따르면 수입자는 덤핑방지관세부과규칙 시행 이후 세관장의 집행행위를 다툴 수 있으나, 수출자에 대해서는 사법심사에 공백이 발생한다. 수출자는 덤핑방지관세부과규칙에 따라 경제적 불이익을 입을 것이 예상됨에도 불구하고, 덤핑방지관세부과규칙이나 세관장의 집행행위에 대한 원고적격을 인정받지 못하게 되었다. 본 연구는 반덤핑협정 제13조에서 수출자가 제외되어야 할 특별한 이유가 없는바, 무역위원회의 최종판정의 처분성을 인정하는 해석이 반덤핑협정 제13조에 부합한다고 분석하였다. 따라서 무역위원회의 최종판정이 있으면 수출자는 최종판정을 대상으로 항고소송이 가능하고, 수입자는 최종판정을 항고소송의 대상으로 하든지, 덤핑방지관세부과규칙의 시행 이후 세관장의 구체적인 집행행위를 대상으로 항고소송으로 진행하는 방식으로 사법심사가 가능하다. In 2005, the Seoul Administrative Court first ruled that anti-dumping duty imposition regulations have the nature of agency dispositions and are therefore eligible for judicial review. The court maintained this position in 2009, when it ruled on anti-dumping duty imposition regulations for ceramic tiles from China. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court clarified its position on the agency disposition nature of anti-dumping duty imposition regulations in the Japanese Pneumatic Valves case. The Supreme Court briefly held that the regulation is not subject to judicial review because it lacks the nature of an administrative disposition. However, the court did not seem to be concerned with protecting the rights of exporters in light of the relationship with Article 13 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. According to Article 13 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, anti-dumping measures must be subject to judicial review for the purpose of promptly reviewing administrative actions related to final determinations. This review can be conducted by independent tribunals or procedures of the authorities responsible for the determination in question. The Supreme Court’s ruling states that importers can challenge customs officers’ enforcement actions after anti-dumping duties have been imposed. Although exporters are expected to suffer economic disadvantages under the imposition regulation, they cannot challenge the imposition regulation nor the enforcement actions. This article argues that there is no particular reason why exporters should be excluded from Article 13 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. It also argues that an interpretation that recognizes the dispositive nature of the final determination of the Korea Trade Commission is consistent with Article 13 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Therefore, once there is a final determination of the Korea Trade Commission, exporters can appeal the final determination. Importers can also seek judicial review, either by appealing the final determination or by appealing the specific enforcement actions of the Commissioner of Customs after the implementation of the imposition regulation.

인도 반덤핑제도와 운영상의 특징 분석

이장완;안민호 법무부 2012 통상법률 Vol.- No.103

인도정부는 국내산업을 보호하고 무역수지 적자를 개선하기 위하여 WTO 체제 하에서 허용되는 무역구제조치를 가장 적극적으로 활용하고 있다. 특히 반덤핑 조치와 관련, 인도는 조사개시 및 조치부과 건수에서 세계 1위를 차지하고 있다. 반면 우리나라는 반덤핑 피제소를 많이 당하는 국가 중의 하나로 중국에 이어 세계에서 두 번째이다. 인도 입장에서도 우리나라는 중국에 이어 두 번째로 많은 제소 대상국이 되고있다. 우리나라에 대해서 가장 많은 반덤핑 조치를 취하여 온 국가는 인도이다. 이와 같이 인도로부터 반덤핑 제소를 많이 당하고 있음에도 불구하고 우리나라에서 인도 반덤핑제도에 대한 본격적인 연구가 아직까지 충분하게 이루어지지 않았다고 할 수 있다. 따라서 본고는 인도를 이해하려는 시도의 일환으로 인도 반덤핑제도와 운영상의 특징을 검토한 바, 이를 세 가지 측면에서 총 16개의 항목으로 구분하여 분석하였다. 첫째, 인도 반덤핑제도의 절차와 운영사례를 통해서 다섯 가지 특징을 선별하였다. 세계에서 가장 많은 반덤핑제도의 이용과 반덤핑제도를 이용하는 인도 국내산업, 즉 제소자의 특징, 피제소자, 특히 수출자의 특징, 최소부과원칙의 적용과 비차별원칙의 적용단계가 그것이다. 둘째, 인도정부가 수출자에게 제시하는 표준질문서를 통해 파악되는 여섯 가지 특징을 도출하였다. 즉, 비관계무역상의 답변의무, prima facie 문제, 자가생산 원료, 보조금에 대한 질문, 판매환경의 차이 적용, FOB단계에서의 덤핑마진계산 등으로 덤핑마진 계산의 깊이 있는 부분까지 다루었다. 셋째, 실제 판정사례를 통한 다섯 가지 특징을 다루는데 산업피해지표, 생산되지 않는 모델, 이용가능한 최선의 정보 적용, 고율의 반덤핑관세, 생산자와 무역상 조합의 반덤핑관세 부과, 종량제방식, 가격약속으로 나누어 논하였다. 향후 지속적으로 증가할 것으로 예상되는 인도의 반덤핑 제소에 대하여 우리나라 기업들도 그 동안의 소극적인 대응 자세에서 벗어나 보다 적극적으로 대응할 필요가 있다. 본고는 이러한 취지에서 인도의 반덤핑제도와 운영상의 특징을 검토 및 분석하고자 하였으며, 이를 통하여 우리나라와 인도 사이에 발생할 수 있는 반덤핑 분쟁에 보다 효율적으로 대응하는데 미약하나마 보탬이 되었으면 한다. The government of India has actively used trade remedies that are allowed under the WTO system in order to protect domestic industry and improve trade deficit. In particular, with regard to the anti-dumping measure, India has led the number of initiation of the anti-dumping investigation and imposition of definitive anti-dumping measures in the world. Korea, on the other hand, has been the second largest defendant of anti-dumping investigations in the world, next to China. For India, Korea has been also the second largest defendant and India has been the largest petitioner for Korea. Although Korea has been petitioned many anti-dumping investigations from India, research on India’s anti-dumping mechanism has not been carried out enough. This article, therefore, tried to analyze the anti-dumping system of India. This article was not focused on general aspects of India’s mechanism, but on unique features of it. Major features of India’s anti-dumping mechanism were categorized by sixteen items from three points of view. The first point was derived from the India’s procedural and operating practices of anti-dumping investigation, the second from the India’s Exporters Questionnaire, and the last from the actual determinations of India. As the increasing trend of the India’s anti-dumping investigations is likely to continue, Korean exporters should respond more positively, contrary to the former negative action. The purpose of this article, consequently, was to help understand features of India’s regulation and practice, and respond more effectively to the increasing anti-dumping disputes between Korea and India.

무역구제제도의 활성화와 우회덤핑 및 최소부과원칙(lesser-duty rule)의 재검토

유세열,표인수 한국국제통상학회 2018 국제통상연구 Vol.23 No.4

Circumvention activities can be done by means of a simple change of production, packing or shipping etc. of the subject merchandise, and they can result in nullifying anti-dumping duties. Therefore, circumvention activities can be regarded as not only a kind of an evasion of anti-dumping duties whose objective is to correct anti-competitive behaviors by imposing anti-dumping duties, but also as a serious illegal activity to impair the framework of fair trade itself. While global corporations are seeking the most suitable structure in terms of production and sales channel on a worldwide basis, the debate of anti-circumvention including its definition and scope, etc. would continue and currently, in any event, 33 countries including the U.S. and EU, are utilizing anti-circumvention measures. Although there have been many discussions with respect to the adoption of anti-circumvention measures in the international context, they have never been successful. Relevant studies on WTO dispute cases show that if a member country has its own rules and regulations regarding anti-circumvention measures, then there seems to be a certain discretion based on GATT XX (d). Korea has been hesitant in preparing anti-circumvention rules in the international negotiations. However, new trade environment originated by the U.S. would inevitably bring new challenges to member countries. Now, it is time for Korea to seriously consider adoption of anti-circumvention measures to respond to the new trend. On the other hand, the Lesser-duty Rule was introduced to consider the public interest in the anti-dumping duties. Recently, in the EU and Australia which traditionally support the Lesser-duty Rule, relevant laws have been amended to allow exemptions to the application of the Lesser-duty Rule. In Korea, though there have been discussions on revision of the Lesser-duty Rule, but they were not reflected sufficiently in practices and also there was no amendment of the relevant laws. Therefore, a review for the improvement of Lesser-duty rule adopted by Korea should be made urgently. 반덤핑관세의 회피를 목적으로 하는 우회 덤핑은 반덤핑관세를 통해 불공정무역을 시정하고자 하는 본래의 취지를 몰각할 뿐만 아니라 공정무역의 기본 틀을 훼손하는 중요한 위법행위이다. 우회덤핑 방지를 위한 국제 규범은 마련되어 있지 않으나 미국, EU를 비롯한 33개국은 자국법에 근거하여 관련제도를 시행하고 있으며, WTO에서는 이를 인정하고 있는 것으로 판단된다. 그 동안 한국은 우회덤핑에 대해 부정적인 입장이었으나, 최근 미국의 일방적 조치 증가 및 EU, 중국 등의 유사 조치 사용 가능성 증대에 따라 한국도 우회덤핑 방지제도 도입을 본격적으로 검토할 필요가 있다고 본다. 미국이 촉발한 신 통상질서 하에서 국내 시장에서의 경쟁을 촉진하고 불공정한 무역을 시정하는 우회덤핑 방지 조치는, 무역구제 활성화를 위해서도 시급히 검토되어야 할 것이다. 한편, 최소부과원칙은 반덤핑관세 부과 시 공익을 고려하기 위한 제도로, 최근 EU와 호주에서 최소부과원칙 적용에 예외를 인정하는 법률 개정이 이루어졌다. 한국에서도 관련 규정 개정의 필요성에 대한 문제제기가 이루어졌으나 실제 법률 개정으로 이어지지 않은 바, 무역구제제도 활성화의 걸림돌로 인식되는 한국의 최소부과원칙을 개선하기 위하여, 지금까지 제기된 개정 방안과 최근 외국의 개정 사례에 대한 면밀한 검토가 조속히 이루어져야 할 것이다.

중국의 불공정무역 조사제도 현황과 운용에 관한 연구

라공우(Kong-Woo La) 한국관세학회 2010 관세학회지 Vol.11 No.1

China has relied upon Anti-dumping system to protect China's major industries by preventing trading companies in other countries from exporting to China. China's Anti-Dumping Measures has been taken against Korea's trading companies. China has been revising its domestic laws, regulations and rules that are in conflict with WTO agreements and stipulations. That is, China incorporated WTO provisions on dumping into its own Foreign Trade Law and associated regulations such as Anti-Dumping Regulations to support retaliation against other economies in response to Anti-Dumping actions. The close intersection between government and business in China's foreign trade sector heightens the potential for politicized interpretations of GATT regulations on the permitted range of anti-dumping measure available to China's trading partners by way of the incorrect contents of Anti-Dumping Regulations. This study find out possibility the anti-dumping investigation of oneself China could be misappropriated. I Analyzed the Effect where the anti-dumping management of China is many in domestic industry and Anti-dumping disciplinary action condition about Korea.

중국의 반덤핑관세부과 사례 연구

이가환{Ki-Hwan Lee),김희길(Hee-Kil Kim) 한국국제상학회 2010 國際商學 Vol.25 No.2

This article has not stuctied for Korean dumping investigation against Chlinese products, but for the actual case of Chinese anti-dumping investigation and anti-dumping duty against Korean exported products. It has focused on the procedure of re-investigation on the fust case of Chinese anti-dumping investigation against Korean advanced optical fiber products. Firstly, it has overviewed on dumping related regulations, procedures, general review on judgments and tlle details of Chinese anti-dwnping cases against Korean products. Secondly, it has swnmarized on the case of Chinese anti-dwnping investigation, Korean company's appeal on the decision and reducing the anti-dwnping duty on the Korean company (OPTOMAGlq of optical fiber products. Finally, it has tried to incticate what kind of impact would occur to tlle Korean industry and companies because of Chinese anti-dwnping investigation. In conclusion, it is required for well-prepared docurnentations and prompt responses to comply Chinese regulations and standards in case of an anti-dumping investigation and appeal. It is also required that Korean govemment should keep a good relationship and communication channels witll the Chinese Commerce Department in terms of anti-dumping issues. Those efforts should resolve on anti-dumping duty and other trade issues with China which are becoming much more frequent ones recently.

한국산 세탁기 수출에 대한 미국 상무부의 반덤핑 판정에 대한 고찰

김상만(kim sang man) 법무부 국제법무정책과 2015 통상법률 Vol.- No.124

Whirlpool Corporation filed a petition of anti-dumping and countervailing measures on large residential washers from Korea on 30 December 2011. The U.S. Department of Commerce (USDOC) made a preliminary determination and a final determination imposing anti-dumping duty on 27 July 2012 and on 19 December 2012 respectively. On 29 August 2013, Korea requested consultations with the United States concerning anti-dumping measures relating large residential washers claiming that the measures in the instant case are inconsistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The WTO DSB established a panel on 22 January 2014, and composed the panel on 20 June 2014. The USDOC used targeted dumping and zeroing methodology in calculating dumping margins. The USDOC continued the practice of zeroing negative dumping margins in calculating overall dumping margins. WTO made a series of decisions against the zeroing practice. As the USDOC mixed targeted dumping and zeroing methodology in the instant case, the decision is not predictable. However, as WTO DSB has made a series of determinations that zeroing methodology is inconsistent with the Anti-dumping Agreement, zeroing methodology carries some problems.

WTO 반덤핑마진 산정시 ‘zeroing'관행의 검토

성재호,이길원 한국국제경제법학회 2006 국제경제법연구 Vol.4 No.-

Dumping is a type of price discrimination. Dumping as described in the WTO Agreement is often expressed as the sale of products for export at a price less than "normal value," where normal value means roughly the price for which those same products are sold on the home or exporting market. Although such dumping is widely regarded as legitimate business strategy to maximize profits, international trade law provides importing countries with remedies to countervail this allegedly unfair practice when such dumping materially injures domestic industries. In the WTO, anti-dumping duties are imposed by an importing country when dumping has occurred. To impose anti-dumping duties, the first step is to determine the margin of dumping. The margin of dumping is the difference between the home-market sales price and the export sales price. The calculation of dumping margins is set out in Article 2.4.2 of the WTO Anti-dumping Agreement. However, there are certain countries that calculate dumping margins inconsistently with the Agreement. The 'zeroing' practice is the most commonly used type of exceeding the amount of dumping margins. The US Department of Commerce (USDOC) determines a general dumping margin over a particular product in Question by summing up each individual dumping margin (normal value minus export price) computed in a group (an "averaging group") of identical products. In doing so, the USDOC disregards any "negative" dumping margin (any excess of export price over normal value) in the group by simply zeroing it. Thus, a general margin tends to be inflated because such practice precludes any offsetting effect of negative margins. However, the WTO has held that the 'zeroing' practice is inconsistent with the Anti -dumping Agreement by stating that a comparison of "all" transactions to ensure a "fair comparison" does not permit negating the benefits to exporters of any non-dumped transactions. Recently, the Doha Development Agenda has been established to prevent unfair trade practice. Moreover, there is a strong opinion to prohibit the use of the 'zeroing' practice by clarifying in the WTO Agreement. Thus, it is necessary, at this current stage, to find out the legitimacy of such practice in order to prevent the reoccurrence and, ultimately, to secure the fair trade order.

반덤핑관세 부과의 요건인 “피해의 판정”에 대한 연구(미국-중국간 철강분쟁사건에 대한 WTO 판정(DS414)을 중심으로)

김상만 서울시립대학교 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2013 조세와 법 Vol.6 No.1

A determination of injury for purposes of the Anti-Dumping Agreement shall be based on positive evidence and involve an objective examination of both (a) the volume of the dumped imports and the effect of the dumped imports on prices in the domestic market for like products , and (b) the consequent impact of these imports on domestic producers of such products. On 11 February 2011, the United States requested the establishment of a panel to settle the United States.-China trade dispute with respect to measures imposing countervailing duties and anti-dumping duties on grain oriented flat-rolled electrical steel (“GOES”) from the United States. The United States challenged China's finding that the dumped and subsidized imports had significant price effects, and contended that China's analysis of these price effects was conclusory, failed to reflect an objective examination of the evidence, and was not based on positive evidence. The WTO Panel upheld the United States' claims, finding that China had acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The United States claimed that China's causation analysis was inconsistent with Articles 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, on the basis that China erroneously concluded that the rapid increase in the capacity of the domestic GOES industry during the period of investigation could not have been a cause of injury to the domestic industry. The United States also claimed that China's analysis was inconsistent with Articles 3.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because it did not comply with the “objective examination” and “positive evidence” requirements embodied in those provisions. The Panel upheld the United States' claims. 무역은 생산증대, 가격인하 등의 혜택을 주지만, 각국은 수입으로 인한 국내산업의 피해를 줄이기 위해 수입을 제한하는 정책을 실시하고 있다. GATT 1947의 문제점을 보완하여 1995년 출범한 WTO에서는 무역자유화의 원칙하에 관세인하, 비관세장벽의 철폐, 무차별원칙 등을 천명하고, 보조금협정 및 반덤핑협정을 통해 상대국의 불공정무역에 대해 상계관세나 반덤핑관세를 부과할 수 있도록 규정하고 있다. 무분별한 반덤핑관세의 부과는 WTO의 자유무역주원칙을 훼손할 우려가 있기 때문에 반덤핑협정에서는 반덤핑관세의 부과요건을 엄격하게 규정하고 있다. 반덤핑협정에서는 수입국정부의 덤핑조치의 요건으로 ⅰ)덤핑행위가 있을 것 ⅱ)국내산업에 실질적인 피해가 있을 것 ⅲ)덤핑과 국내산업의 실질적 피해 간 인과관계가 있을 것을 요건하고 있고, 특히 반덤핑협정 제3조에서는 반덤핑관세의 부과요건으로 “피해의 판정(Determination of Injury)”을 규정하고 있다. 반덤핑관세 관련 최근의 WTO 판정인 미국-중국간 철강분쟁사건(DS414)에서는 반덤핑협정 제3조의 “피해의 판정”에 상세히 판정하고 있다. 피해의 판정을 위해서는 가격효과분석 및 인과관계분석이 요구되며, 가격효과에는 가격하락, 가격억제 및 가격인하가 있는데, 이에 대해서는 객관적이고 명확한 증거에 기초하여 판정해야 한다고 판단하였다. 그리고 덤핑수입과 국내산업의 피해간에는 인과관계가 요구되는데, 인과관계의 입증도 객관적이고 명확한 증거에 의해야 한다고 판단하였다. 이 사건에서는 반덤핑관세에 대한 WTO분쟁에서 유리한 판단을 얻기 위해서는 객관적이고 명확한 증거자료의 확보가 필요함을 시사하고 있는 바, 이에 대하여 당국 및 기업들의 이해가 필요하다.