Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Low Environmental Standards and the ADA Rules

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Greening Trade Remedies

Part of the book series: European Yearbook of International Economic Law ((EYIELMONO,volume 31))

  • 46 Accesses

Abstract

Differences in level of environmental protection between trade partners has led to charges of ‘eco-dumping’. The ADA rules, however, are not intended to provide a remedy against environmental dumping practices. This chapter analyses whether environmental standards—and resulting costs of production—may be considered in the calculation of the dumping margin and particularly focusses on environmental costs in the normal value calculation and environmentally motivated adjustments to the dumping margin. This discussion is closely related to the treatment of government-distorted costs and prices in anti-dumping investigations. This chapter concludes that there are significant jurisprudential hurdles, some of which can be overcome by means of legislative amendments or innovative treaty-drafting.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Sands and Peel (2018), p. 899. See also Charnovitz (1993), pp. 31–32; Esty (1994), p. 163, fn. 13; Rauscher (1994), pp. 823–825; Lothe (2001); Pauwelyn (2013), pp. 465 ff.

  2. 2.

    See Sect. 3.2.2.1 above.

  3. 3.

    Rauscher (1994), pp. 823–825.

  4. 4.

    See Chap. 5 above.

  5. 5.

    Art. VI:1 GATT and Art. 2.1 ADA.

  6. 6.

    Choi and Lee (2017).

  7. 7.

    Patterson (1992), p. 104.

  8. 8.

    Shadikhodjaev (2019), pp. 104–106.

  9. 9.

    Stewart and Mueller (2008), Art. 2 ADA, para. 43.

  10. 10.

    Pauwelyn (2013), pp. 466 ff.

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    Art. 2.1 ADA (emphasis added).

  13. 13.

    De Baere et al. (2021), para. 135.

  14. 14.

    Ibid.

  15. 15.

    Art. 2.2 ADA (footnote omitted, emphasis added).

  16. 16.

    Stewart and Mueller (2008), Art. 2 ADA, para. 53. See, more recently, Panel report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Oil Country Tubular Goods from Korea, WT/DS488/R, adopted 12 January 2018, para. 7.18.

  17. 17.

    Vermulst (2005), p. 33. The EU, for instance, has not relied on export prices to a third country in the last 20 years to determine the normal value with reference to the fact that these prices might also be made at dumping prices. See Van Bael & Bellis (2019), pp. 88–89. The US, on the other hand, has used export prices to other countries on a regular basis.

  18. 18.

    In relation to the CNV method, see explicitly, Panel report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/R, adopted 5 April 2001, para. 7.127.

  19. 19.

    Pauwelyn (2013), p. 467.

  20. 20.

    Art. 2.2 ADA, second ground.

  21. 21.

    De Baere et al. (2021), para. 143.

  22. 22.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.27.

  23. 23.

    Lesmana and Koesnaidi (2019), pp. 415–416.

  24. 24.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act of 2000, WT/DS217/AB/R, adopted 27 January 2003, para. 262.

  25. 25.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.50.

  26. 26.

    See GATT Panel report, European Economic Community – Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duties on Imports of Cotton Yarn from Brazil, BISD 42S/17, adopted 30 October 1995.

  27. 27.

    Yun (2017), p. 238.

  28. 28.

    Kim and Bohanes (2020), p. 481; De Baere et al. (2021), para. 145–148.

  29. 29.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.21.

  30. 30.

    Ibid, para. 7.37.

  31. 31.

    Panel report, European Union – Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia – (Second complaint), WT/DS494/R, circulated 24 July 2020, para. 7.186.

  32. 32.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.28–7.29.

  33. 33.

    See Sect. 5.3.1 above.

  34. 34.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.21.

  35. 35.

    Ibid, para. 7.22.

  36. 36.

    Ibid.

  37. 37.

    Müller-Ibold (2020), p. 250.

  38. 38.

    This is a distinct legal obligation than the fair comparison requirement under Art. 2.4 ADA. See Sect. 6.4.2.1.2 below.

  39. 39.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.74.

  40. 40.

    Ibid, para. 7.75–7.76.

  41. 41.

    Zhou and Peng (2021), p. 99.

  42. 42.

    By contrast, the Panel noted earlier that a situation impacting domestic and export sales alike is not excluded from the scope of a particular market situation. See Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.37 and 7.39.

  43. 43.

    Zhou and Peng (2021), p. 99.

  44. 44.

    See Sect. 6.4 below.

  45. 45.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.80–7.81.

  46. 46.

    Zhou and Peng (2021), p. 99.

  47. 47.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.88.

  48. 48.

    Stewart and Mueller (2008), Art. 2 ADA, para. 47.

  49. 49.

    Art. 2.2.1 ADA.

  50. 50.

    The extended period of time should normally be one year but shall in no case be less than six months. See Art. 2.2.1 ADA, fn. 4.

  51. 51.

    Sales below per unit costs are made in substantial quantities when the authorities establish that the weighted average selling price of the transactions under consideration for the determination of the normal value is below the weighted average per unit costs, or that the volume of sales below per unit costs represents not less than 20 per cent of the volume sold in transactions under consideration for the determination of the normal value. See Art. 2.2.1 ADA, fn. 5.

  52. 52.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001, para. 147.

  53. 53.

    Zhou (2018), p. 628.

  54. 54.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001, para. 140.

  55. 55.

    Ibid, para. 141–143.

  56. 56.

    Zhou (2018), p. 628. See also Noël and Zhou (2016), pp. 563–565; Noël (2016), pp. 302–304.

  57. 57.

    Ibid.

  58. 58.

    See, for instance, Vermulst (2005), pp. 20 ff; Pogoretskyy (2011), p. 218 and fn. 158.

  59. 59.

    See also Sect. 6.5.2 below.

  60. 60.

    Art. 2.2.1.1, first sentence, ADA (emphasis added).

  61. 61.

    See, for instance, Pauwelyn (2013), p. 468.

  62. 62.

    See, for instance, Choi and Lee (2017), p. 48.

  63. 63.

    Panel report, Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey, WT/DS211/R, adopted 1 October 2002, para. 7.39. See also Panel report, European Communities – Anti-Dumping Measure on Farmed Salmon from Norway, WT/DS337/R, adopted 15 January 2008, para. 7.483; Panel report, China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States, WT/DS427/R, adopted 25 September 2013, para. 7.133.

  64. 64.

    Panel report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/R, adopted 26 October 2016, para. 7.242; see also Appellate Body report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/AB/R, adopted 26 October 2016, para. 6.56.

  65. 65.

    Appellate Body report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/AB/R, adopted 26 October 2016, para. 6.26.

  66. 66.

    Crowley and Hillman (2018), pp. 206–208. See also Zhou (2018), pp. 627–628.

  67. 67.

    Appellate Body report, Ukraine – Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate, WT/DS493/AB/R, adopted 30 September 2019, para. 6.88.

  68. 68.

    Ibid, para. 6.97.

  69. 69.

    De Baere et al. (2021), para. 200–206.

  70. 70.

    Panel report, China – Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duty Measures on Broiler Products from the United States – Recourse Under Article 21.5 of the DSU by the United States, WT/DS427/RW, adopted 28 February 2018, para. 7.29.

  71. 71.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 27 January 2020, para. 7.110 ff.

  72. 72.

    Ibid, para. 7.102.

  73. 73.

    Ibid, para. 7.102.

  74. 74.

    Ibid, para. 7.103–7.107.

  75. 75.

    See Eliason and Fiorini (2020).

  76. 76.

    Ibid, p. 5.

  77. 77.

    Appellate Body report, Ukraine – Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate, WT/DS493/AB/R, adopted 30 September 2019, para. 6.87.

  78. 78.

    Ibid, para. 6.104–6.105.

  79. 79.

    Ibid, para. 6.122.

  80. 80.

    Panel report, European Union – Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia — (Second complaint), WT/DS494/R, circulated 24 July 2020.

  81. 81.

    Ibid, para. 7.102.

  82. 82.

    Ibid, para. 7.105–7.106.

  83. 83.

    See Sect. 6.5.2 below.

  84. 84.

    See, for instance, Panel report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS264/R, adopted 31 August 2004, para. 7.311.

  85. 85.

    The Panel and Appellate Body, in Ukraine – Ammonium Nitrate, held that costs used in the OCT test under Art. 2.2.1 ADA must be considered consistent with Art. 2.2.1.1 ADA, since Art. 2.2.1 is covered by the reference to paragraph 2 in Art. 2.2.1.1 ADA. See Appellate Body report, Ukraine – Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate, WT/DS493/AB/R, adopted 30 September 2019, para. 7.116.

  86. 86.

    Appellate Body report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/AB/R, adopted 26 October 2016, para. 6.69.

  87. 87.

    Ibid, para. 6.70–6.71; Panel Report, Ukraine – Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate, WT/DS493/AB/R, adopted 30 September 2019, para. 7.99. See also Furculiță (2017), p. 364.

  88. 88.

    See Sect. 6.3.1 above.

  89. 89.

    Panel report, Ukraine – Anti-Dumping Measures on Ammonium Nitrate, WT/DS493/R, adopted 30 September 2019, para. 7.92, 7.99 and 7.103.

  90. 90.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 27 January 2020, para. 7.132.

  91. 91.

    Panel report, European Union – Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia – (Second complaint), WT/DS494/R, circulated 24 July 2020, para. 7.122–7.123.

  92. 92.

    Ibid, para. 7.124 ff.

  93. 93.

    Tietje et al. (2011), p. 1089.

  94. 94.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.162.

  95. 95.

    Ibid, para. 7.164.

  96. 96.

    Zhou and Peng (2021), p. 100.

  97. 97.

    Appellate Body report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/AB/R, adopted 26 October 2016, para. 6.81.

  98. 98.

    Crowley and Hillman (2018), pp. 207–208.

  99. 99.

    Zhou and Peng (2021), p. 99.

  100. 100.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.110–7.115.

  101. 101.

    Ibid.

  102. 102.

    Horlick (2013), p. 69.

  103. 103.

    Stewart and Mueller (2008), Art. 2 ADA, para. 49.

  104. 104.

    Art. 2.2.1.1 ADA, fn. 6.

  105. 105.

    See 19 USC Section [f][1][iii].

  106. 106.

    Van Bael & Bellis (2019), p. 73.

  107. 107.

    Commission Decision No 1357/2001/ECSC of 4 July 2001 amending Decision No 283/2000/ECSC imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain flat-rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, not clad, plated or coated, in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, originating, inter alia, in India, OJ 2001 L 182/27, rec. 21; Commission Decision No 841/2002/ECSC of 21 May 2002 amending Decision No 283/2000/ECSC imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel, of a width of 600 mm or more, not clad, plated or coated, in coils, not further worked than hot-rolled, originating, inter alia, in India and accepting an undertaking, OJ 2002 L 134/11, rec. 21.

  108. 108.

    Kampel (2017), pp. 27 and 36.

  109. 109.

    Art. 6.2 Aircraft Agreement (emphasis added).

  110. 110.

    Choi and Lee (2017), p. 43.

  111. 111.

    Panel report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada, WT/DS264/R, adopted 31 August 2004, para. 7.263.

  112. 112.

    See ECJ, Nakajima All Precision Co Ltd v Council, case C-69/89, judgment of 7 May 1991, ECLI:EU:C:1991:186, para. 64.

  113. 113.

    Tietje et al. (2011), p. 1093.

  114. 114.

    Zhou (2018), p. 629.

  115. 115.

    Panel report, Thailand – Anti-Dumping Duties on Angles, Shapes and Sections of Iron or Non-Alloy Steel and H Beams from Poland, WT/DS122/R, adopted 5 April 2001, para. 7.122–7.128. See also De Baere et al. (2021), para. 260.

  116. 116.

    Appellate Body report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/AB/R, adopted 6 October 201, para. 6.39 and fn. 172.

  117. 117.

    Zhou (2018), p. 629.

  118. 118.

    Art. 2.2 ADA, second alternative.

  119. 119.

    Pogoretskyy (2011), pp. 218–219.

  120. 120.

    Vermulst (2005), pp. 44–45.

  121. 121.

    Stewart and Mueller (2008), Art. 2 ADA, para. 123.

  122. 122.

    Ibid, para. 58.

  123. 123.

    Panel report, European Union — Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia — (Second complaint), WT/DS494/R, circulated 24 July 2020, para. 7.188.

  124. 124.

    Pauwelyn (2013), p. 469.

  125. 125.

    Selivanova (2008), p. 30.

  126. 126.

    Polouektov (2002).

  127. 127.

    Palmeter (1998), p. 117; Stewart and Mueller (2008), Art. 2 ADA, para. 125.

  128. 128.

    See Sect. 6.3.3.3 below.

  129. 129.

    Pogoretskyy (2011), p. 220.

  130. 130.

    Ibid.

  131. 131.

    Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Viet Nam, WT/ACC/VNM/48, 27 October 2006, para. 255; Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Tajikistan, WT/ACC/TJK/30, 6 November 2012, para. 164.

  132. 132.

    See Sect. 3.2.4 above.

  133. 133.

    See Yamaoka (2013), pp. 123–125.

  134. 134.

    Sect. 15(a)(ii) CAP (emphasis added).

  135. 135.

    Appellate Body report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/AB/R, adopted 28 July 2011, para. 287. See also Zhang (2011), pp. 876 ff.

  136. 136.

    Appellate Body report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/AB/R, adopted 28 July 2011, para. 268.

  137. 137.

    See Sect. 6.3.2.2.1 above.

  138. 138.

    Zhou and Percival (2016), p. 877.

  139. 139.

    Vietnam and Tajikistan accepted the same commitments as embodied in Sect. 15(a) and (d) of China’s Accession Protocol upon accession to the WTO. See Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Viet Nam, 27 October 2006, WT/ACC/VNM/48, para. 255; Report of the Working Party on the Accession of Tajikistan, 6 November 2012, WT/ACC/TJK/30, para. 164.

  140. 140.

    See new Art. 2(6a) BADR.

  141. 141.

    See Nicely and Gatta (2016).

  142. 142.

    Zhou and Percival (2016), pp. 887 ff.

  143. 143.

    Tereposky & Derose (2019).

  144. 144.

    See Sect. 3.3.2 above.

  145. 145.

    See Reinhold and Van Vaerenbergh (2021).

  146. 146.

    See, for instance, Hoffmeister (2021), pp. 338 ff.; De Baere (2021), pp. 356 ff.; Van Bael & Bellis (2019), p. 27; Noël and Zhou (2016), pp. 418 ff.; Müller (2018), pp. 57 ff.; Vermulst and Sud (2018), pp. 63 ff.; Tietje and Sacher (2018), pp. 91 ff.; Ruessmann and Beck (2014); Geraets (2018), p. 492; Antonini (2018), pp. 89 ff.

  147. 147.

    Regulation (EU) 2017/2321, Recital 4.

  148. 148.

    In detail, see Reinhold and Van Vaerenbergh (2021).

  149. 149.

    Trapp (2021), pp. 198–199.

  150. 150.

    European Commission, Commission Working Staff Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the People’s Republic of China for the Purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, SWD(2017) 483 final/2, 20 December 2017.

  151. 151.

    European Commission, Commission Working Staff Document on Significant Distortions in the Economy of the Russian Federation for the Purposes of Trade Defence Investigations, SWD(2020) 242 final, 20 October 2020.

  152. 152.

    Natens (2020), p. 110.

  153. 153.

    See Sect. 3.3.2 above.

  154. 154.

    See Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198, para. 145.

  155. 155.

    Vermulst and Sud (2018), pp. 63–87.

  156. 156.

    General Court, Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co Ltd v European Commission, case C-436/18 P, judgment of 29 July 2019, ECLI:EU:C:2019:643, para. 61.

  157. 157.

    Annex Ia to Regulation (EU) 2018/825.

  158. 158.

    Recital 6 to Regulation 2017/2321.

  159. 159.

    See Reinhold and Van Vaerenbergh (2021), p. 198.

  160. 160.

    See Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/687 of 2 May 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2019 L 116/5, rec. 110–112.

  161. 161.

    OECD, Environmental Compliance and Enforcement in China, An Assessment of Current Practices and Ways Forward, OECD Study 2006.

  162. 162.

    Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/687 of 2 May 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2019 L 116/5, rec. 52.

  163. 163.

    Ibid.

  164. 164.

    Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/915 of 4 June 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium foil in rolls originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review under Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2019 L 146/63, rec. 123; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 of 12 July 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036, OJ 2019 L 189/8, rec. 153; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/687 of 2 May 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain organic coated steel products originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2019 L 116/5, rec. 113; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1259 of 24 July 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron and spheroidal graphite cast iron, originating in the People’s Republic of China and Thailand, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council, OJ 2019 L 197/2, rec. 121; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1267 of 26 July 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of tungsten electrodes originating in the People’s Republic of China following an expiry review under Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, OJ 2019 L 200/4, rec. 108; Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1379 of 28 August 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of bicycles originating in the People’s Republic of China as extended to imports of bicycles consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines, whether declared as originating in these countries or not, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) No 2016/1036, OJ 2019 L 225/1, rec. 146.

  165. 165.

    Gustafsson and Crochet (2020), pp. 187–206.

  166. 166.

    Lester (2017).

  167. 167.

    Request for the Establishment of a Panel by China, European Union – Measures Related to Price Comparison Methodologies, WT/DS516/9, 7 March 2017.

  168. 168.

    Sect. 773(c) Tariff Act of 1930, 19 USC §1677b(c) and US Department of Commerce Anti-Dumping Regulations, 19 C.F.R. §351.408 (2005).

  169. 169.

    Sect. 773(c)(2) Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1677b(c)(2).

  170. 170.

    Vermulst and Meng (2017), p. 337.

  171. 171.

    Stewart and Mueller (2008), Art. 2 ADA, para. 124.

  172. 172.

    Sect. 773(c)(2) Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C §1677b(c)(2).

  173. 173.

    Watson (2014), pp. 11–13.

  174. 174.

    Nicely and Gatta (2016), p. 239.

  175. 175.

    Sands and Peel (2018), p. 899.

  176. 176.

    Patterson (1992), p. 104.

  177. 177.

    Decision of the Trade Measures Review Officer, Hollow Structural Sections, Review of Decisions to Publish A Dumping Duty Notice and A Countervailing Notice, 14 December 2012. This decision was not followed by the Anti-Dumping Review Panel (ADRP). See for instance, Decision of the Anti-Dumping Review Panel, Review of Decisions Regarding Dumping Duties and Countervailing Duties for Zinc Coated (Galvanized) Steel and Aluminium Zinc Coated Steel Exported from the People’s Republic of China, 15 November 2013, para 56. See Zhou and Percival (2016), p. 881.

  178. 178.

    Ibid.

  179. 179.

    Art. VI:1 GATT.

  180. 180.

    See also the second Ad Note to Art. VI:1 GATT, noting that difficulties with price comparability may arise in deals situations of trade between associated houses and products from countries with a government monopoly.

  181. 181.

    Report of group of experts on anti-dumping and countervailing duties, 1961. See GATT Analytical index (pre-WTO), p. 230.

  182. 182.

    The provision illustrates aspects that may affect price comparability “including differences in conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences which are also demonstrated to affect price comparability.” See Art. 2.4, third sentence ADA. The footnote to the provision explains that “[i]t is understood that some of the above factors may overlap, and authorities shall ensure that they do not duplicate adjustments that have been already made under this provision.”

  183. 183.

    Panel report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Carton-Board Imports from Germany and Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Ceramic Tiles from Italy, WT/DS189/R, adopted 5 November 2001, para. 6.113.

  184. 184.

    Stewart and Mueller (2008), Art. 2 ADA, para. 89.

  185. 185.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001, para. 177–180.

  186. 186.

    Ibid.

  187. 187.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Hot-Rolled Steel Products from Japan, WT/DS184/AB/R, adopted 23 August 2001, para. 177.

  188. 188.

    Appellate Body report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing), WT/DS294/AB/R, adopted 9 May 2006, para. 156.

  189. 189.

    Panel report, United States – Final Dumping Determination on Softwood Lumber from Canada – Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by Canada, WT/DS264/RW, adopted 1 September 2006, para. 7.357.

  190. 190.

    See Stewart and Mueller (2008), Art. 2 ADA, para. 95.

  191. 191.

    General Court, Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council of the European Union, case T-2335/08, judgment of 26 September 2013, ECLI:EU:C:2013:65, para. 19.

  192. 192.

    Panel report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China, WT/DS397/R, adopted 28 July 2011, para. 7.297.

  193. 193.

    See Panel report, Egypt – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Steel Rebar from Turkey, WT/DS211/R, adopted 1 October 2001, para. 7.333–7.335; Panel report, Argentina – Definitive Anti-Dumping Duties on Poultry from Brazil, WT/DS241/R, adopted 19 May 2003, para. 7.265; Panel report, United States – Laws, Regulations and Methodology for Calculating Dumping Margins (Zeroing), WT/DS294/R, adopted 6 May 2006, para. 7.252–7.275. See, generally, De Baere et al. (2021), para. 314.

  194. 194.

    See Sect. 6.3.2.2.1.2 above.

  195. 195.

    Appellate Body report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/AB/R, adopted 26 October 2016, para. 6.87.

  196. 196.

    Ibid.

  197. 197.

    Ibid. See in detail Sect. 6.3.2.2 above.

  198. 198.

    Shadikhodjaev (2019), p. 98.

  199. 199.

    Zhou and Percival (2016), pp. 883–885.

  200. 200.

    Zhou (2018), p. 632.

  201. 201.

    See Sect. 6.3.2.2.1 above.

  202. 202.

    Panel report, Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R, adopted 4 December 2019, para. 7.76 and 7.80.

  203. 203.

    Ibid.

  204. 204.

    Zhou and Peng (2021), p. 99.

  205. 205.

    Lesmana and Koesnaidi (2019), p. 418.

  206. 206.

    See Sect. 6.4.2.1 above.

  207. 207.

    Appellate Body Report, European Communities – Definitive Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Iron or Steel Fasteners from China (Recourse to Article 21.5 of the DSU by China), WT/DS397/AB/RW, adopted 12 February 2016, para. 5.207 and 5.231.

  208. 208.

    Ibid, para. 5.125.

  209. 209.

    Zhou and Percival (2016), p. 884.

  210. 210.

    Espa and Levy (2018), pp. 321–322.

  211. 211.

    Ibid, p. 318.

  212. 212.

    Panel report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/R, adopted 26 October 2016, para. 7.304.

  213. 213.

    Appellate Body report, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Argentina, WT/DS473/AB/R, adopted 26 October 2016, para. 5.205.

  214. 214.

    Espa and Levy (2018), p. 323.

  215. 215.

    Meléndez-Ortiz (2016), p. 11.

  216. 216.

    Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices and Ad-Hoc Group on the Implementation of the Anti-Dumping Code, Draft Recommendation Concerning the Treatment of the Practice Known as Input Dumping, ADP/W/83/Rev.2, 19 December 1984.

  217. 217.

    Ibid, para. 2.

  218. 218.

    Ibid, para. 6.

  219. 219.

    Ibid, para. 6.

  220. 220.

    Shadikhodjaev (2019), p. 96.

  221. 221.

    Ibid, p. 103.

  222. 222.

    Ibid, pp. 102–103.

  223. 223.

    Ibid, p. 104.

  224. 224.

    Ibid, pp. 104–106.

  225. 225.

    Patterson (1992), p. 104.

  226. 226.

    Pogoretskyy (2011), pp. 221–222.

  227. 227.

    Report of the Working Party on the Accession of the Russian Federation to the World Trade Organization, WT/ACC/RUS/70, 17 November 2011, para. 90 and 120.

  228. 228.

    Notification of an Appeal by the European Union Under Article 16.4 and Article 17.1 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (DSU), and Under Rule 20(1) of the Working Procedures for Appellate Review, European Union – Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia – (Second Complaint), WT/DS497/7, 1 September 2020. The Russian Federation also appealed, see WT/DS497/8.

  229. 229.

    Constitution of the Panel Established at the Request of the Russian Federation, European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Cold-Rolled Flat Steel Products from Russia, WT/DS521, 17 March 2020.

  230. 230.

    See United States Trade Representative Ambassador Robert E. Lightizer, Report on the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization, February 2020, pp. 95 ff.

  231. 231.

    See Sect. 2.2.2 above.

  232. 232.

    See Appellate Body report, Canada – Certain Measures Affecting the Renewable Energy Generation Sector, WT/DS412/AB/R, adopted 24 May 2013; Appellate Body report, Canada – Measures Relating to Feed-In Tariff Program, WT/DS426/AB/R, adopted 24 May 2013.

  233. 233.

    Howse (2013), p. 51.

  234. 234.

    Van Damme (2010), p. 612.

  235. 235.

    Art. X WTO Agreement; Art. XI:3 and 4 WTO Agreement.

  236. 236.

    Matsushita et al. (2015), pp. 384–385.

References

  • Antonini R (2018) A ‘MES’ to be adjusted: past and future treatment of Chinese imports in EU anti-dumping investigations. Global Trade Cust J 13(3):79–94

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charnovitz S (1993) A taxonomy of environmental trade measures. Georgetown Int Environ Law Rev 6(1):1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Choi H, Lee SH (2017) Using modified anti-dumping mechanisms for sustainable development: the case of the Chinese Iron and Steel Industry. ASAN Report

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley MA, Hillman JA (2018) Slamming the door on trade policy discretion? The WTO Appellate Body’s ruling on market distortions and production costs in EU-Biodiesel (Argentina). World Trade Rev 17(2):195–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Baere P (2021) The EU’s amended basic anti-dumping regulation – a practitioner’s view. In: Hahn M, Van der Loo G (eds) Law and practice of the common commercial policy: the first 10 years after the Treaty of Lisbon. Brill/Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 356–379

    Google Scholar 

  • De Baere P, du Parc C, Van Damme I (2021) The WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. A detailed commentary. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eliason A, Fiorini M (2020) Australia – anti-dumping measures on A4 copy paper: opening a door to more anti-dumping investigations. EUI Working Paper RSCAS 2020/87

    Google Scholar 

  • Espa I, Levy PI (2018) The analogue method comes unfastened – the awkward space between market and non-market economies in EC–Fasteners (Article 21.5). World Trade Rev 17(2):313–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esty DC (1994) Greening the GATT. Trade, environment, and the future. Institute for International Economics, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • Furculiță C (2017) Cost of production calculation in EU anti-dumping law: WTO consistent ‘as such’ after EU – Biodiesel. Global Trade Cust J 12(9):360–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geraets D (2018) The continued quest for a single set of rules for two economic systems: addressing ‘significant distortions’ arising from state influence. Global Trade Cust J 13(11):491–495

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gustafsson M, Crochet V (2020) At the crossroads of trade and environment. The growing influence of environmental policy on EU trade law. In: Orsini A, Kavvatha E (eds) EU environmental governance. Current and future challenges. Taylor & Francis, London, pp 187–206

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hoffmeister F (2021) The devil is in the detail – a first guide on the EU’s new trade defence rules. In: Hahn M, Van der Loo G (eds) Law and practice of the common commercial policy. The first 10 years after the Treaty of Lisbon. Brill/Nijhoff, Leiden/Boston, pp 335–354

    Google Scholar 

  • Horlick G (2013) Trade remedies and development of renewable energy. In: E15 Expert Group on Clean Energy Technologies and the Trade System (ed) Clean energy and the trade system: proposals and analysis. ICTSD/WEF, Geneva, pp 69–73

    Google Scholar 

  • Howse R (2013) Securing policy space for clean energy under the SCM Agreement: alternative approaches. In: E15 Expert Group on Clean Energy Technologies and the Trade System (ed) Clean energy and the trade system: proposals and analysis. ICTSD/WEF, Geneva, pp 47–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Kampel K (2017) Options for disciplining the use of trade remedies in clean energy technologies. ICTSD Issue Paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim SM, Bohanes J (2020) Case summary: Australia – anti-dumping measures on A4 Copy Paper, DS529. World Trade Rev 19(3):480–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lesmana YY, Koesnaidi JW (2019) Particular market situation: a newly arising problem or a new stage in the anti-dumping investigation? Asian J WTO Int Health Law Policy 14(2):405–422

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester S (2017) Social and environmental protection in EU anti-dumping calculations. IELP Blog. https://ielp.worldtradelaw.net/2017/11/social-and-environmental-protection-in-eu-anti-dumping-calculations.html. Accessed 23 June 2023

  • Lothe S (2001) Contradictions between WTO and sustainable development? The case of environmental dumping. Sustain Dev 9:197–203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Matsushita M, Schoenbaum T, Mavroidis P, Hahn M (2015) The World Trade Organization, law, practice, and policy, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Meléndez-Ortiz R (2016) Enabling the energy transition and scale-up of clean energy technologies: options for the global trade system. E15 Expert Group on Clean Energy Technologies and the Trade System, Policy Options Paper

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller S (2018) The use of alternative benchmarks in anti-subsidy law. A study on the WTO, the EU and China. Springer, Cham

    Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Ibold T (2020) Der Einfluss Chinas auf die Wirtschaft – Konsequenzen für die Europäische Wettbewerbs- und Außenhandelspolitik. Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 23(2):239–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Natens B (2020) Belangrijkste wijzigingen aan de Europese antidumpingregelgeving: Het pad naar (nog) meer onzekerheid. Tijdschrift voor Europees en economisch recht 20(3):106–115

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicely MR, Gatta B (2016) U.S. Trade Preferences Extension Act (TPEA) of 2015 could lead to increased use of “particular market situation” in calculating normal value in anti-dumping cases. Global Trade Cust J 11(5):238–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noël S (2016) Why the European Union must dump so-called “non-market economy” methodologies and adjustments in its anti-dumping investigations. Global Trade Cust J 11(7/8):296–305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Noël S, Zhou W (2016) Replacing the non-market economy methodology: is the European Union’s alternative approach justified under the World Trade Organization Anti-Dumping Agreement? Global Trade Cust J 11(11/12):559–567

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmeter D (1998) The WTO antidumping agreement and the economies in transition. In: Cottier T, Mavroidis P (eds) State trading in the twenty-first century: world trade forum, vol 1. University of Michigan Press, Michigan, pp 115–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Patterson E (1992) GATT and the environment. Rules challenges to minimize adverse trade and environmental effects. J World Trade 26(3):99–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pauwelyn J (2013) Carbon leakage measures and border tax adjustments under WTO law. In: Prévost D, Van Calster G (eds) Research handbook on environment, health and the WTO. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham/Northampton, pp 448–506

    Google Scholar 

  • Pogoretskyy V (2011) Energy dual pricing in international trade: subsidies and anti-dumping perspectives. In: Selivanova Y (ed) Regulation of energy in international trade law: WTO, NAFTA and Energy Charter. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn, pp 181–228

    Google Scholar 

  • Polouektov A (2002) Non-market economy issues in the WTO anti-dumping law and accession negotiations. Revival of a two-tier membership? J World Trade 36(1):1–37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauscher M (1994) On ecological dumping. Oxf Econ Pap 46(Suppl 1):822–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reinhold P, Van Vaerenbergh P (2021) Significant distortions under Art. 2(6a) BADR: three years of commission practice. Global Trade Cust J 16(5):193–202

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruessmann L, Beck J (2014) 2016 and the application of an NME methodology to Chinese producers in anti-dumping investigations. Global Trade Cust J 9(10):457–463

    Google Scholar 

  • Sands P, Peel J (2018) Principles of international environmental law, 4th edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Selivanova Y (2008) Energy dual pricing in the WTO: analysis and prospects in the context of Russia’s Accession to the World Trade Organization. Cameron May, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Shadikhodjaev S (2019) Input cost adjustments and WTO anti-dumping law: a closer look at the EU practice. World Trade Rev 18(1):81–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stewart TP, Mueller DP (2008) Art. 2 ADA. In: Wolfrum R, Stoll PT, Koebele M (eds) Max Planck commentaries on trade law – trade remedies. Brill, Leiden

    Google Scholar 

  • Tereposky & Derose LLP (2019) Canada implements new anti-dumping rules targeting related-company input dumping and “particular market situation” input distortions. Trade & ISDS News. https://tradeisds.com/canada-implements-new-anti-dumpingrules-re-input-cost-distortions/. Accessed 23 June 2023

  • Tietje C, Sacher V (2018) The new anti-dumping methodology of the European Union: a breach of WTO law? In: Bungenberg M, Hahn M, Herrmann C, Müller-Ibold T (eds) The future of trade defence instruments. Global policy trends and legal challenges. Springer, Cham, pp 89–105

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tietje C, Kluttig B, Franke M (2011) Cost of production adjustments in anti-dumping proceedings: challenging raw material inputs dual pricing systems in EU anti-dumping law and practice. J World Trade 45(5):1071–1102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trapp P (2021) “Global Green Governance” oder “Veiled Protectionism”? Die Berücksichtigung sozial- und umweltpolitischer Belange in den reformierten Grundverordnungen der EU zur Verhängung von Anti-Dumping- und Ausgleichsmaßnahmen. Nachhaltigkeitsrecht 1(2):195–204

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Bael & Bellis (2019) EU anti-dumping and other trade defence instruments, 6th edn. Wolters Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Damme I (2010) Treaty interpretation by the WTO Appellate Body. Eur J Int Law 21(3):605–648

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vermulst E (2005) The WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Vermulst E, Meng M (2017) Dumping and subsidy issues in the renewable energy sector. In: Cottier T, Espa I (eds) International trade in sustainable electricity regulatory challenges in international economic law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 336–355

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vermulst E, Sud JD (2018) The new rules adopted by the European Union to address “significant distortions” in the anti-dumping context. In: Bungenberg M, Hahn M, Herrmann C, Müller-Ibold T (eds) The future of trade defence instruments. Global policy trends and legal challenges. Springer, Cham, pp 63–87

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Watson KW (2014) Will nonmarket economy methodology go quietly into the night? CATO Institute Policy Analysis No. 763

    Google Scholar 

  • Yamaoka T (2013) Analysis of China’s accession commitments in the WTO: new taxonomy of more and less stringent commitments, and the struggle for mitigation by China. J World Trade 47(1):105–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yun M (2017) The use of “Particular Market Situation” provision and its implications for regulation of antidumping. East Asian Econ Rev 21(3):231–257

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang MQ (2011) EC – Fasteners: opening the Pandora’s box of non-market economy treatment. J Int Econ Law 14(4):869–892

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou W (2018) Appellate Body Report on EU − Biodiesel: the future of China’s state capitalism under the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement. World Trade Rev 17(4):609–633

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou W, Peng D (2021) Australia – anti-dumping measures on A4 Copy Paper, WT/DS529/R. Am J Int Law 115(1):94–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhou W, Percival A (2016) Panel Report on EU – Biodiesel: a glass half full? – Implications for the rising issue of “particular market situation”. Chin J Global Gov 2(2):142–163

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Brussels, Belgium

    Pieter Van Vaerenbergh

Authors
  1. Pieter Van Vaerenbergh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Van Vaerenbergh, P. (2023). Low Environmental Standards and the ADA Rules. In: Greening Trade Remedies. European Yearbook of International Economic Law(), vol 31. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38172-0_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-38172-0_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-38171-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-38172-0

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation