Monitoring Update to the Global Antidumping Database:

Protectionism Is on the Rise as Antidumping Import Restriction Use up 31% in 2008

 

Chad P. Bown[1]

Brandeis University &

The Brookings Institution

5 March 2009

 

In many WTO member countries that have undertaken commitments to bind their import tariffs, policymakers funnel industry demands for new trade restrictions into alternative trade policy instruments such as antidumping, countervailing measures (anti-subsidy policies), and safeguards.

 

Newly available data tracking the first of these trade policies - the initiation of new antidumping investigations and new antidumping measures imposed - show a marked increase in 2008 corresponding with the timing of the spread of the global economic crisis. Overall, the number of initiations of new antidumping investigations in 2008 increased by 31 per cent compared to 2007. The number of new antidumping measures applied in 2008 increased by 19 per cent compared to 2007. Developing countries dominated use of antidumping (73% of all new investigations) in 2008, and developing country exporters were the most frequent target (78% of all new investigations).

 

These new figures continue a worrisome trend beginning in the second half of 2007.[2] In particular, the surge in antidumping use in the last six months of 2008 topped the totals of both the previous six months as well as the period covered by July - December 2007.

Sixteen WTO Members initiated a total of 188 new antidumping investigations in 2008, compared with 143 initiations by the same Members in 2007.[3] These Members applied 120 new final antidumping measures in 2008, a 20 percent increase over the 100 new measures that these Members applied in 2007.

 

In the historical data on antidumping, the vast majority of new investigations result in the imposition of new antidumping import restrictions. One implication of the 2008 surge in new investigations is the high likelihood that they will result in a 2009 surge in newly imposed import restricting measures.

 

Developed countries initiated 50 (27%) of the 188 new investigations and imposed 54 (45%) of the 120 new final measures in 2008.[4] This compares with 58 (41%) new investigations opened and 23 (23%) new measures that developed countries applied in 2007.

 

Developing countries initiated 138 (73%) of the 188 new investigations and imposed 66 (55%) of the 120 new final measures in 2008. This compares with 85 (59%) new investigations and 77 (77%) new measures that developed countries applied in 2007.

 

India initiated the most antidumping investigations in 2008, with 54 new initiations.[5] It was followed by Turkey and Brazil (23 each), Argentina (19), the United States and the European Union (18 each), China (7), Colombia and Australia (6 each), South Korea (5), and Canada, Pakistan, and South Africa (3 each). These numbers represented increases for Canada, the European Union, India, Pakistan, Turkey, China, Colombia, Australia, Brazil, and Argentina, and declines for the United States, South Africa, and South Korea, compared with the figures in 2007. Egypt and New Zealand, which had initiated new investigations in 2007, did not initiate any new investigations in 2008.

 

Exporters in developing countries were the subject of 147 antidumping investigations in 2008 - forty-five per cent more than the 101 investigations directed at developing country exporters in 2007. In addition, 92 of the 120 new measures in 2008 were applied to developing countries′ exported products, compared with 78 of 100 new measures in 2007. China was the most frequent subject of antidumping investigations in 2008, as thirty-five per cent (66 initiations) of all the new initiations in 2008 were directed at its exports. This represented a 27 per cent increase over the 52 new investigations that targeted China′s exports in 2007. The European Union, Thailand, and Indonesia each had 11 investigations directed at their exports, followed by Malaysia (10), Taiwan (9), South Korea (8), India (7), the United States (6), Brazil, Japan, and Saudi Arabia (4 each), Iran, South Africa, Turkey, Vietnam (3 each), Belarus, Canada, Hong Kong, Peru, Russia, and Ukraine (2 each). Thirteen other countries were the subject of one new antidumping investigation each in 2008.

 

The most frequently investigated products in 2008 were in the iron and steel sector (48 initiations), followed by the chemical sector and the textile/apparel sectors (35 initiations each). Concerning the investigations that targeted the iron and steel sector, India initiated one half of them, while the European Union initiated 11.

 

Regarding the application of new final antidumping measures, India applied 26 new measures in 2008 - two measures less than the 28 new measures it applied in 2007. The United States applied 23 new measures in 2008, followed by the European Union and Brazil (15 each), Turkey (11), South Korea (8), Argentina and China (4 each), Canada, Egypt, South Africa, Australia (3 each), and New Zealand (2). This represented increases for the United States, the European Union, Egypt, Turkey, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, and Korea, and declines for India, China, and Argentina, compared with the figures in 2007. In addition, Pakistan, Taiwan, and Colombia, which had applied new measures in 2007, did not apply new measures in 2008.

 

China′s products were the most frequent subject to new antidumping measures in 2008, comprising 41 per cent (49 new measures) of the 120 new measures applied during this period. These forty-nine measures applied on Chinese exports represent an increase of five new measures from the forty-four new measures applied on Chinese exports in 2007. Exports from the European Union were next, with nine new measures applied, followed by Taiwan (8), South Korea (7), the United States (6), India and Indonesia (4 each), Brazil, Russia, Singapore, and South Africa (3 each), Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, and Vietnam (2 each). Exports from eleven other countries were subject to one new antidumping measure each in 2008.

 

The chemical sector was the industry most frequently affected by the new measures applied in 2008 - accounting for forty-seven of the 120 new measures applied. The iron and steel sector was subject to 18 new measures, and the plastics and rubber sector was subject to 14 new measures in 2008. Concerning the new measures that were imposed on products in the chemical sector, nearly one half (23) of the 47 new measures were applied by India.

 

Sources:

 

The data in excel spreadsheets is available here.

 

With only two exceptions, the data provided above are collected from the each countries′ national government publications and made publically available on their websites, as detailed in the appendix. Thus the statistics are reliable to the extent that these countries publish their new antidumping initiations and applied measures on their websites. Korea′s data for 2008 was collected via a trade news website, antidumpingpublishing.com, and its data for 2007 was collected via its semi-annual reports to the WTO. Argentina′s data for November and December 2008 was not available from its government website and thus was based on reports made on antidumpingpublishing.com.

 

The Global Antidumping Database can be found at http://www.brandeis.edu/~cbown/global_ad/ and http://econ.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/EXTDEC/EXTRESEARCH/0,,contentMDK:20741720~pagePK:64214825~piPK:64214943~theSitePK:469382,00.html. The complete and detailed data on antidumping investigations will be made available in early summer 2009 as version 5.0 of the Global Antidumping Database.

 

 

 

Notes on discrepancies between this data (based on national government publications) and data reported by the WTO for January-June 2008:

 

In comparing our findings from the Members′ government publications with the WTO′s reported statistics for the January - June 2008 period (WTO, 2008),[6] we discovered a number of discrepancies regarding the number of new antidumping initiations and measures applied. In the case of the discrepancy, we typically used the information provided by the national government as opposed to that reported by the WTO based on member notifications. Our motivation is both for consistency and out of recognition that most discrepancies are likely the result of either late and/or incomplete submission of semi-annual reports by some countries (e.g., India, Colombia). We identify and attempt to explain discrepancies for each country in detail below.

 

The United States′ semi-annual report to the WTO shows 13 new antidumping initiations for January-June 2008, yet the WTO reports 12 notifications of new antidumping initiations for the United States during this period. Data from government publications shows 15 new antidumping initiations by the United States. The difference is two initiations made on 1/8/2008 regarding imports of Aminotrimethylenephosphonic Acid and 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid from China and India. The petitioners withdrew their petition before a preliminary investigation was completed by the relevant government agency.

 

Canada′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows two new antidumping initiations for January-June 2008, yet the WTO reports Canada notifying one new antidumping initiation. Data from government publications shows two new antidumping initiations by Canada.

 

The European Union′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows 10 new antidumping initiations for January-June 2008, and the WTO reports 10 new antidumping initiations for the European Union. However, the European Union′s government publications show that the investigation initiated regarding exports of salmon against Norway is not a new initiation. Thus, there are 9 new antidumping investigations initiated by the European Union during this period. The European Union′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows 9 new final antidumping measures applied during January-June 2008, yet the WTO reports the EU notified 8 new final measures for this period.

 

India′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows 12 new antidumping initiations for January-June 2008, yet the WTO reports that India notified 11 new antidumping initiations. Data from government publications shows 12 new antidumping initiations by India. India′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows 18 new measures applied in January-June 2008, yet the WTO reports being notified of 16. India′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows that antidumping investigations regarding Poly Vinyl Chloride (PVC) - Suspension Grade were completed in January 2008, whereas India′s government publications show that they were completed in December 2007. Also, India′s report for January-June 2008 does not include an investigation which was completed (with affirmative decision) in May 2008, namely imports of Diclofenac Sodium from China. Thus, India applied 11 new final measures during this period.

 

New Zealand′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows two new antidumping measures applied during January-June 2008, yet the WTO reports that New Zealand notified none.

 

China′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows three new antidumping initiations for January-June 2008, yet the WTO reports that China notified two.

 

Colombia′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows four new anti-dumping initiations for January-June 2008, and the WTO reports that Colombia notified four. However, government publications show that the investigation regarding Screws and Nuts is a single investigation rather than two separate investigations (as seen from Colombia′s semi-annual report).

 

Argentina′s semi-annual report to the WTO is not clear as to whether an investigation is a new initiation or a review of an existing case. The WTO reports being notified of 10 initiations and Argentina′s government publications show 11 initiations for January-June 2008.

 

South Korea′s semi-annual report to the WTO shows three new antidumping measures applied for January-June 2008, yet the WTO reports two. Data obtained from antidumpingpublishing.com indicates that Korea imposed six new antidumping measures during January-June 2008. The discrepancy stems from the investigation regarding imports of Vinyl Acetate originating in China, Singapore, and Japan that was completed (with affirmative decision) in June 2008.

 

 


Appendix:

Sources of Data: User Countries′ Government Agencies or Publications that provided the data and their Websites

 

Country

Government Agency or Publications that provided the data

Website

Argentina

La Comision Nacional de Comercio Exterior (CNCE)

http://www.cnce.gov.ar/Investigaciones/pw_investigacionesprincipal.php

Australia

Australian Customs and Border Protection Service

http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=4221

Brazil

Ministerio do Desenvolvimento, Industria e Comercio Exterior

http://www.desenvolvimento.gov.br/sitio/interna/interna.php?area=5&menu=233

Canada

Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)

http://cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/menu-eng.html

China

Bureau of Fair Trade for Imports and Exports (MOFCOM)

http://gpj.mofcom.gov.cn/

Colombia

Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo:Direccion de Comercio Exterior

http://www.mincomercio.gov.co/eContent/newsdetail.asp?id=2688&idcompany=10

Egypt

Ministry of Trade & Industry: Trade Agreements Sector

http://www.tas.gov.eg/English/Trade%20Remedies/Dumping/

European Union

Official Journal of the European Communities

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm

India

Government of India: Department of Commerce

http://commerce.nic.in/traderemedies/ad_casesinindia.asp?id=2

New Zealand

Ministry of Economic Development

http://www.med.govt.nz/templates/StandardSummary____28.aspx

Pakistan

National Tariff Commission

http://www.ntc.gov.pk/currint.asp

South Africa

International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa

http://www.itac.org.za/news_archive.asp?pageNo=1&art_date=

South Korea

Antidumpingpublishing.com

http://www.antidumpingpublishing.com/

Taiwan

International Trade Commission: Ministry of Economic Affairs

http://www.moeaitc.gov.tw/itcweb/webform/wfrmSite.aspx?pagestyle=2&programid=274

Turkey

Undersecretariat of the Prime Ministry for Foreign Trade

http://www.dtm.gov.tr/dtmweb/index.cfm?action=detay&yayinID=581&icerikID=684&dil=TR

United States

International Trade Administration (ITA)

http://trade.gov/index.asp

 


 


Endnotes



[1] Chad P. Bown is an Associate Professor in the Department of Economics and International Business School at Brandeis University and a Nonresident Fellow in the Global Economy and Development Program at the Brookings Institution. He prepared this report as part of the World Bank′s trade policy transparency initiative to expand and update data made freely and publicly available via the Global Antidumping Database. Aksel Erbahar provided outstanding research assistance.

 

Correspondence: Chad P. Bown, Department of Economics and International Business School, Brandeis University, Mailstop 021, 415 South Street, Waltham, MA 02454-9110 USA, tel: +1.781.736.4823,fax: +1.781.736.2269, email: cbown@brandeis.edu , web: http://www.brandeis.edu/~cbown/.

 

[2] See "WTO Secretariat reports surge in new antidumping investigations" WTO Press/542, 20 October 2008, available at http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres08_e/pr542_e.htm .

 

[3] These 16 Members are: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Egypt, European Union, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey, and the United States. Due to data availability and transparency issues, statistics for known users such as Malaysia, Mexico, and Peru are not included in this update. According to data from the WTO, these 16 Members initiated 85% (84%) of all antidumping investigations (new measures imposed) by the WTO membership during 1995-2006. Thus this serve as a relatively comprehensive sample likely to reflect general trends in the WTO membership.

 

[4] Antidumping using countries as well as the exporters that are considered "developed" here are based on World Bank per capita income classification and include Australia, Canada, European Union, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Kuwait, New Zealand, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Switzerland, United Arab Emirates, and United States.

 

[5] Twenty-three of these 54 initiations consisted of two cases - namely imports of Cold-Rolled Flat Products of Stainless Steel (initiations against 8 different exporting countries) and Hot Rolled Steel Products (initiations against 15 different exporting countries).

 

[6] See "WTO Secretariat reports surge in new anti-dumping investigations" http://www.wto.org/english/news_e/pres08_e/pr542_e.htm as well as the data reported in excel spreadsheets for January - June 2008 "Statistics on Antidumping, " found at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_e.htm , last accessed on 4 February 2009.