1 / 13

US v China Shrimp and Saw blades

David Blau, Erika Camarena, Brittnie Chidsey. US v China Shrimp and Saw blades. History. Business interests US Domestic Industry Supplied 20% of market in 2001 By 2004, only 12.4% Chinese Import Industry 20% of US market and growing Domestic Industry pushing for action. Parties involved.

tyrone
Download Presentation

US v China Shrimp and Saw blades

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. David Blau, Erika Camarena, Brittnie Chidsey US v ChinaShrimp and Saw blades

  2. History • Business interests • US Domestic Industry • Supplied 20% of market in 2001 • By 2004, only 12.4% • Chinese Import Industry • 20% of US market and growing • Domestic Industry pushing for action

  3. Parties involved • USDOC • Chinese Shrimp Industry • Chinese Saw blade Industry • Third party countries • EU • Japan • Thailand

  4. Facts of the Case Shrimp • Initiated by USDOC Jan 27, 2004 • Determined that US had calculated dumping margins for shrimp producers claiming that China was “dumping” shrimp on the US market Saw blades • Initiated by the USDOC June 21, 2005 • US again claims China is “dumping” on the US market and sets “anti- dumping duties”

  5. Continued Shrimp • “PRC Wide rate” • 112.81% • Independent firms • Allied 84.93% • Yelin 82.27% • Red Garden 27.89% • Zhanjiang Goulian .07% Saw blades • “PRC Wide rate” • 164.09% • Industry firms • AT&M 2.82% • Bosun 35.51% • Hebi Jikai 48.5%

  6. At Issue • China claims that the USDOC misused zeroing with respect to the Shrimp and Saw blades • As China is the complaining party, the burden of proof is on them as they make the prima facie

  7. WTO Principals and Articles • Article 2.4.2 of the Anti-dumping agreement • Requires a “weighted average” to be used in calculating anti-dumping duties • Mathematical definition • Article 3.8 of the DSU • Prima facie • Article 19.1 of the DSU • Compliance

  8. Prior Findings • China uses example of • US—Softwood Lumber V • US Shrimp v Ecuador …to show consistency of WTO findings against zeroing practice

  9. What is “Zeroing”

  10. Zeroing in Practice

  11. Decision • US was not compliant with 2.4.2 of Anti-dumping agreement • Practice of zeroing inconsistent with WTO principals • US did not contest China’s claims

  12. Going Forward • Agree to comply with WTO • Reasonable period of time ends March 23, 2013 • US has not contested findings, but does not agree to solutions… • …Forces other nations to bring cases to WTO • Increases legitimacy of WTO process • Allows US to save face with domestic industry

  13. Questions? • Sources • “US—anti-dumping measures on certain shrimp and diamond saw blades from China: Report of the Panel,” WTO • “China’s shrimp industry hurt by anti-dumping case,” The Fish Site • “Court of international trade remands USDOC refusal to consider evidence…,” Southern Shrimp Alliance • Elliot, Ian. “US loses China shrimp case at WTO,” Feedstuffs.com

More Related