Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

  • Home
  • People
  • Practice Areas
    • International Trade
    • International Investment and Project Development
    • International Disputes/Rights & Obligations of Sovereign States & Autonomous Regions
    • U.S. & International Regulation and Legislation
    • Board Advisory Work
  • Global Experience
  • News/Blog
  • Contact Us

November 1, 2013 by PKR

China Challenges EU Compliance With WTO Fasteners Ruling

The People’s Republic of China this week requested consultations with the European Union to resolve a longstanding trade dispute over the assessment of antidumping duties on Chinese iron and steel fasteners.  According to China, the EU has not complied with the July 2011 WTO Appellate Body (AB) ruling that found the EU to have violated its international trade obligations.  If China and the EU do not resolve this concern by November 14, China may request a WTO panel to evaluate EU compliance and potentially authorize offsetting trade retaliation.

The EU last year claimed compliance by reducing and eliminating the antidumping duties assigned to certain Chinese shippers of fasteners.  Yet China contends that the EU improperly maintained a 74.1% rate for Chinese companies that have not established independence from state control.  Addressing this nonmarket economy issue, the AB  rejected the EU approach, announcing that “placing the burden on NME exporters to rebut a presumption that they are related to the State and demonstrate that they are entitled to individual treatment runs counter to” the WTO Agreement.  Although the AB conclusion was limited to the process and evidentiary basis through which the EU assessed whether Chinese companies were part of the NME-wide entity, one might expect efforts to expand the rationale of the AB decision to antidumping duties applied to NMEs by other countries, including the United States.

In fact, the United States is currently defending its compliance with a similarly adverse WTO ruling.  The Socialist Republic of Vietnam in 2010 challenged United States determinations on the antidumping duty order on shrimp including the assignment of NME-wide rates.  In July 2011, a WTO panel found that the United States did not act consistently with its international obligations.  Vietnam thereafter asserted that the United States failed to comply with

that panel report.  In its January 2013 request for another panel to resolve the outstanding compliance concern, Vietnam challenged the “calculation of a Vietnam-wide entity rate, which Viet Nam considers to be inconsistent, as such and as applied on a continued and ongoing basis, with the obligations of the United States under the Anti-Dumping Agreement.”

Briefing is now underway before a WTO panel that will decide whether the United States’ NME-wide duty assessments and cash deposit requirements on Vietnamese shrimp conform to international obligations.  The EU may well participate in a similar panel soon on Chinese fasteners.  As the United States and EU defend their NME-wide antidumping duty actions, it bears noting that both the EU and the United States employed a presumption of state control before entering into the WTO Agreements, and they have continued to do so because they do not understand themselves to have undertaken any different obligation in the WTO Agreements.

The WTO took a similar route with regard to the antidumping calculation methodology known as “zeroing” – likewise practiced by the EU, the United States, and other countries prior to the WTO Agreements and not directly prohibited in those agreements.  Nonetheless, the WTO AB first announced a prohibition on “zeroing” when applied by the EU, and then eventually to the United States.  The AB received a substantial amount of criticism for reading a prohibition of zeroing into the WTO Agreements, when the parties expressly chose not to include one.  One can only hope that the AB is more restrained if and when these new disputes come before it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Filed Under: International Trade Tagged With: antidumping, China, EU, International Trade, nails trade, nonmarket economy, seafood trade, Vietnam, WTO, zeroing

Contact

Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP
1750 K Street NW, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: +1 202 331 4040
Fax: +1 202 331 4011
info@pkrllp.com

Recent Posts

  • After an Historic Year at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the Court’s Work Has Just Begun
  • Zachary J. Walker and Sophia Lin Named Counsel

Sitemap

PKR LLP Sitemap

© Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP

The materials available at this web site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. If you have a particular problem or issue for which you require legal advice, you should consult an attorney. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Picard Kentz & Rowe LLP and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.