关于反倾销的论文(英文版)
倾销与反倾销英文版
So there is no dumping it? dumping;
• Zhongxin silk, a car mat material, which belongs to the wire ring pad upgrade products, the technology from Zhongxin brand
Classification of dumping
According to different standards can be divided into different types of dumping, but the most common is based on the duration of the dumping and damage to the extent of the division. Generally divided into the following categories:
product's raw material suppliers. Zhongxin silk is used in hot melt chemical technology, mat material in the European market is generally the first mandatory requirements for environmental protection, low temperature hot melt technology can ensure the environmental performance, but on the other hand, due to long-term underfoot, so it must ensure that the pressure is not the low temperature hot melt adhesion; and to ensure its pressure. At present, only a well-known Chinese chemical enterprises in the world have the chemical technology to solve these two problems at the same time. It can be said that the success of the new wire, first of
反倾销毕业论文范文
反倾销（Anti-Dumping）是国际贸易争端解决中的一个重要工具。
针对国际贸易中的倾销行为，许多国家和地区都采用了不同的反倾销措施。
反倾销制度可以有效地防止不公平竞争，保护本国产业和市场，促进公平贸易。
本文将从反倾销的定义、原理、国际反倾销现状、反倾销对产业的影响、反倾销对中国的影响等方面，对反倾销问题进行探讨。
一、反倾销的定义和原理反倾销是指一国政府采用的，以惩罚倾销行为为目的的措施，主要包括反倾销税、反倾销限制措施和反倾销调查等。
倾销是指某些企业以低于生产成本或低于出口国市场价格的价格向其他国家出口货物。
倾销行为扰乱了国际市场的正常秩序，对其他国家和地区的产业和市场造成了不公平竞争，严重影响了市场经济的发展。
因此，引入反倾销制度可以保护公平竞争，促进市场稳定。
二、国际反倾销现状目前，世界范围内的反倾销制度主要由世界贸易组织（WTO）和各国自身反倾销法律构成。
根据WTO的规定，成员国只有在符合反倾销协议规则的情况下才能采取反倾销行为。
目前，超过100个国家和地区采取了反倾销制度，其中包括美国、欧盟、印度、中国等国家和地区。
根据WTO统计，全球反倾销调查的数量已经从1980年代的数百起，增长到了2019年的超过2500起，其中大部分是由欧盟和美国发起的。
三、反倾销对产业的影响反倾销可以有效防止倾销行为，保护本国产业和市场，促进公平经济贸易的发展。
而对于被反倾销制度影响到的企业，则需要承担一定的经济压力。
反倾销税的加征将使被征税产品的价格上涨，进口商需要支付额外的税费。
这可能增加了进口商的成本，也让本国消费者面临更高的价格。
此外，反倾销调查所涉及的律师费、调查费用等也可能对企业造成财务压力。
四、反倾销对中国的影响自加入WTO以来，中国成为了全球贸易的重要节点，也面临着来自其他站在全球贸易顶端的国家和地区的竞争和压力。
中国在国际贸易领域一度处于弱势地位，曾经遭到过许多国家的反倾销行为。
中国采取反制措施，加强国内产业改革，提高质量效率水平，逐渐走向了自主创新和产业升级的道路。
欧盟反倾销总结英文(热门3篇)
欧盟反倾销总结英文第1篇中国作为“世界工厂”的崛起，对其它国家地区，尤其是发到国家的就业、工资和企业产生了显著的负面影响。
近年来，中国受到反倾销（anti-dumping，AD）和反补贴（anti-subsidy，AS）反制次数上升，1995年至2008年，中国占全球AD和AS反制的25%，但到了2008年至2014年，这一比例上升至40%，大部分来自美国和欧盟。
虽然国际贸易政策旨在保护国内产业，但同时也造成了损失，例如消费者面临的商品价格提高，进口企业的中间投入品成本上升。
本文使用PSM-DID方法，研究了1999年至2007年，欧盟对中国AD政策，对欧盟企业的影响（这里选择了法国作为欧盟代表国家）。
在欧盟的政治语境下，好企业是那些在确定的AD政策的4位代码行业内受保护的法国企业，坏企业是于确定的AD政策的4位代码行业上出口的中国企业，丑陋企业是于确定的AD政策的4位代码行业上进口中国产品的法国企业。
研究结果表明，一方面，AD政策使得好企业的生产率和就业上升，但这只局限于那些生产率水平较低的企业；另一方面，AD政策对丑陋企业的生产率和就业产生了负面影响，那些高生产率水平企业尤为突出，且不局限于进口中国产品的企业。
AD政策虽然迫使一部分坏企业，即中国出口商退出市场，但存活的坏企业似乎通过增加R&D，提高生产率水平，经营表现变得更好了。
本文认为，AD政策作为一种贸易政策是无效率的，短期内虽然可以保护好企业，但长期反而使得存活的坏企业的竞争力更强了。
此外，应当警惕保护主义，发达国家政府需谨慎使用AD政策，因为丑陋企业通过进口“物有所值”的中间品，提高附加值和本地就业。
欧盟反倾销总结英文第2篇AD政策数据，来自世界银行的Global Anti-dumpingDatabase（GAD），该数据库提供了全球自1980年以来详细的AD措施数据，例如HS8位信息。
双边贸易流量数据来自法国海关，企业数据来自Annual French Business Survey（ABS）数据库。
反倾销、反补贴、保障和特殊情况处理等(中英文对照)
反倾销、反补贴、保障和特殊情况处理等（中英文对照）发布时间：2011-10-24 11:30:54 翻译：李莉校对：廖纷，陈茜茜复审：薛婷婷Anti-dumping, Subsidies, Safeguards,Contingencies, etc反倾销、反补贴、保障和特殊情况处理等英文来源：/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/tif_e/agrm8_e.htmBinding tariffs, and applying them equally to all trading partners (most-favoured-nation treatment, or MFN) are key to the smooth flow of trade in goods.约束关税及将其在全体贸易成员国之间平等地适用（即最惠国待遇，简称MFN）是保证商品交易过程畅通的关键。
The WTO agreementsuphold the principles, but they also allow exceptions — in some circumstances. Three of these issues are:世贸协议秉持着这些原则，但有时也有例外。
例如以下三种情况：actions taken against dumping (selling at an unfairly low price)1.反倾销（以不公平的低价出售商品的行为）措施；subsidies and special “countervailing” duties to offset the subsidies1.贸易补贴以及为抵消贸易补贴而征收的“反补贴”关税；emergency measures to limit imports temporarily, designed to “safeguard”domestic industries.1.为暂时限制进口以“保护”国内产业而采取的紧急应对措施。
中国应对国外反倾销问题探析外文翻译
一、英文原文原文：Determination of Dumping1. For the purpose of this Agreement, a product is to be considered as being dumped, i.e. introduced into the commerce of another country at less than its normal value, if the export price of the product exported from one country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country.2. When there are no sales of the like product in the ordinary course of trade in the domestic market of the exporting country or when, because of the particular market situation or the low volume of the sales in the domestic market of the exporting country(2), such sales do not permit a proper comparison, the margin of dumping shall be determined by comparison with a comparable price of the like product when exported to an appropriate third country, provided that this price is representative, or with the cost of production in the country of origin plus a reasonable amount for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits.(a) Sales of the like product in the domestic market of the exporting country or sales to a third country at prices below per unit (fixed and variable) costs of production plus administrative, selling and general costs may be treated as not being in the ordinary course of trade by reason of price and may be disregarded in determining normal value only if the authorities(3) determine that such sales are made within an extended period of time(4) in substantial quantities(5) and are at prices which do not provide for the recovery of all costs within a reasonable period of time. If prices which are below per unit costs at the time of sale are above weighted average per unit costs for the period of investigation, such prices shall be considered to provide for recovery of costs withina reasonable period of time.(b) For the purpose of paragraph 2, costs shall normally be calculated on the basis of records kept by the exporter or producer under investigation, provided that such records are in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles of the exporting country and reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product under consideration. Authorities shall consider all available evidence on the proper allocation of costs, including that which is made available by the exporter or producer in the course of the investigation provided that such allocations have been historically utilized by the exporter or producer, in particular in relation to establishing appropriate amortization and depreciation periods and allowances for capital expenditures and other development costs. Unless already reflected in the cost allocations under this sub-paragraph, costsshall be adjusted appropriately for those non-recurring items of cost which benefit future and/or current production, or for circumstances in which costs during the period of investigation are affected by start-up operations.(6)(c) For the purpose of paragraph 2, the amounts for administrative, selling and general costs and for profits shall be based on actual data pertaining to production and sales in the ordinary course of trade of the like product by the exporter or producer under investigation. When such amounts cannot be determined on this basis, the amounts may be determined on the basis of:(i) the actual amounts incurred and realized by the exporter or producer in question in respect of production and sales in the domestic market of the country of origin of the same general category of products; (ii) the weighted average of the actual amounts incurred and realized by other exporters or producers subject to investigation in respect of production and sales of the like product in the domestic market of the country of origin;(iii) any other reasonable method, provided that the amount for profit so established shall not exceed the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.3. In cases where there is no export price or where it appears to the authorities concerned that the export price is unreliable because of association or a compensatory arrangement between the exporter and the importer or a third party, the export price may be constructed on the basis of the price at which the imported products are first resold to an independent buyer, or if the products are not resold to an independent buyer, or not resold in the condition as imported, on such reasonable basis as the authorities may determine.4. A fair comparison shall be made between the export price and the normal value. This comparison shall be made at the same level of trade, normally at the ex-factory level, and in respect of sales made at as nearly as possible the same time. Due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which 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.(7) In the cases referred to in paragraph 3, allowances for costs, including duties and taxes, incurred between importation and resale, and for profits accruing, should also be made. If in these cases price comparability has been affected, the authorities shall establish the normal value at a level of trade equivalent to the level of trade of the constructed export price, or shall make due allowance as warranted under this paragraph. The authorities shall indicate to the parties in question what information is necessaryto ensure a fair comparison and shall not impose an unreasonable burden of proof on those parties.(a) When the comparison under paragraph 4 requires a conversion of currencies, such conversion should be made using the rate of exchange on the date of sale(8), provided that when a sale of foreign currency on forward markets is directly linked to the export sale involved, the rate of exchange in the forward sale shall be used. Fluctuations in exchange rates shall be ignored and in an investigation the authorities shall allow exporters at least 60 days to have adjusted their export prices to reflect sustained movements in exchange rates during the period of investigation.(b) Subject to the provisions governing fair comparison in paragraph 4, the existence of margins of dumping during the investigation phase shall normally be established on the basis of a comparison of a weighted average normal value with a weighted average of prices of all comparable export transactions or by a comparison of normal value and export prices on a transaction-to-transaction basis. A normal value established on a weighted average basis may be compared to prices of individual export transactions if the authorities find a pattern of export prices which differ significantly among different purchasers, regions or time periods, and if an explanation is provided as to why such differences cannot be taken into account appropriately by the use of a weightedaverage-to-weighted average or transaction-to-transaction comparison.5. In the case where products are not imported directly from the country of origin but are exported to the importing Member from an intermediate country, the price at which the products are sold from the country of export to the importing Member shall normally be compared with the comparable price in the country of export. However, comparison may be made with the price in the country of origin, if, for example, the products are merely transshipped through the country of export, or such products are not produced in the country of export, or there is no comparable price for them in the country of export.6. Throughout this Agreement the term “like product” (“produits imilaire”) shall be interpreted to mean a product which is identical, i.e. alike in all respects to the product under consideration, or in the absence of such a product, another product which, although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely resembling those of the product under consideration.7. This Article is without prejudice to the second Supplementary Provision to paragraph 1 of Article VI in Annex I to GATT 1994.二、翻译文章译文：倾销的确定1.本协议之目的，如果一项产品从一国出口到另一国，该产品的出口价格在正常的贸易过程中，低于出口国旨在用于本国消费的同类产品的可比价格，也即以低于其正常价值进入另一国的商业，则该产品即被认为是倾销。
最新试论反倾销的合理性1论文
试论反倾销的合理性(1)论文论文摘要：在提倡贸易自由化的今天，按照WTO的规定，各国不断地降低关税、取消非关税壁垒。
反倾销作为WTO协议下少数几个合法手段之一，成为最重要的一种贸易限制措施，被各国频频使用以保护本国工业。
那么，反倾销究竟是否合理呢?文章对这一问题进行分析。
论文关键词：倾销;反倾销;自由贸易;贸易保护自由贸易是WTO的宗旨，各成员国平等的限制和运用关税是自由贸易的关键。
WTO协议都是依据这一宗旨制定出来的，但有三种例外情况：一为反倾销;二为反补贴;三为安全保障措施。
按照WTO协议，各成员国不断降低关税、取消非关税壁垒，以上三种例外措施成为WTO协议下各国保护本国工业、避免外来激烈竞争的唯一合法手段，而反倾销是当前WTO成员国最常使用的方法。
WTO的反倾销协议并没有分析反倾销是否合理，它只是对各国的反倾销行为进行了规范。
那么，反倾销究竟是否合理呢? 要分析反倾销，我们首先要明白什么是倾销。
在不完全竞争的市场，有时同一家公司的同一件商品在国内和国际市场的售价却不一样，这种在不同的市场上以不同的价格销售同一种商品的行为称为价格歧视，而倾销是国际贸易中最普遍的一种价格歧视，如果一家公司某种商品在国外的售价低于其国内的售价，这家公司就是在进行倾销，这是在经济学中对倾销的定义，而在WTO反倾销协议中，对倾销的定义则为在国外市场上低于正常价值销售商品，正常价值通常为该生产商在其母国售价或在第三国售价，当以上两种价格都无法获得时则为生产成本。
一般而言，倾销有五种形式：临时性倾销、国营贸易倾销、市场扩张性倾销、侵略性倾销和持续性倾销。
当某一生产商由于季节，或是错误的生产计划，或是不可预测的国内市场的需求变化等原因而产生大量库存，为了清理库存而降价在国外市场上出售产品，这样的倾销称为临时性倾销。
国营贸易倾销是指一些发展中国家或不发达国家以极低的价格出口产品以获得硬通货。
市场扩张性倾销是指为获得国外市场份额而以低价出口产品。
东亚的反倾销问题外文翻译-精品
2126单词中文3573字外文翻译East Asia’s Anti-dumping ProblemMaterial Source: Wiley Online Library Author:Thomas J.Prusa 1. INTRODUCTIONThe more things change, the more they stay the same. In the 1970s anti-dumping (AD) was the most common type of trade dispute, and East Asian countries were the leading targets of these investigations. The same was true in the 1980s. The same was also true in the 1990s. The same is still true today.For all the hue and cry about safeguards, Super 301, government-subsidized exports, etc., AD was, is, and for the indefinite future will continue to be, the undisputed king of protection. Several authors have documented the world’s growing AD problem (Miranda et al., 1998; Prusa, 2001; and Zanardi, 2004). Each study provides evidence of the growing use and proliferation of AD protection. Prusa (2005) perhaps offers the best evidence, pointing out that in terms of the quantity of trade litigation, AD has lapped the field – several times over. Between 1995 and 2000, WTO members reported 61 safeguard investigations, 115 countervailing duty investigations, and 1,441 AD investigations! Said somewhat differently, over the past 25 years there have been more disputes under the AD agreement than under all the other GATT/WTO trade statutes put together.While there is considerable disagreement whether AD levels or tilts the playing field, there can be little doubt that East Asian countries have been, and will likely continue to be, the leading targets of AD actions. Simply put, AD is a serious problem for East Asia; by almost any measure East Asian countries are subject to a disproportionate share of AD actions. The extent of the disparity has not been recognized in any previous studies. The goal of this paper is to eliminate this gap in the literature.For this paper, I review AD disputes over the past 25 years and find that East Asian economies – Japan, Indonesia, South Korea, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, China-Taiwan and China-PRC – are not only subject to an extraordinarilylarge number of AD actions but also account for most of the worldwide growth in AD actions. I will show that the growth of AD has largely come at the expense of East Asian countries.Another detail that this paper uncovers is that East Asian countries have largely shunned the use of AD. This is also depicted in Figure 1 where I calculate the fraction of AD cases filed by East Asian countries. As seen, East Asian countries generally account for less than five per cent of AD filings worldwide. As I will discuss, such restraint is highly unusual. It appears that East Asian countries are outliers on both perspectives – they are subject to a remarkably large number of AD actions but file remarkably few AD actions.My hope is that this paper will give readers a better understanding of the patterns of AD by and against East Asian countries over the past 25 years. Whether measured by number of cases or by cases per dollar of trade, East Asian countries look significantly different from other large economies. To a large extent, the trends and patterns are so sharp that simple tables do a good job delivering the message. But, to confirm that other factors are not behind the patterns I also use more formal statistical methods to confirm the findings. For instance, after controlling for factors that might influence filings such as the exchange rate and trade volume, I find that East Asian countries are subject to about twice as many cases as either North American or Western European countries. Moreover, I find the trend in filings against East Asian countries is increasing, by which I mean that in recent years the propensity for countries to direct their AD filings against East Asian countries is growing. One concern is that the growing intensity of AD use against East Asia is driven by China-PRC. Importantly, I find a rising propensity even if I exclude China-PRC. Looking from the other side of the dispute, I also find that North American countries file more than six times as many cases as do East Asian countries, holding other factors constant. On either side of the AD process, East Asian countries are outliers.2. A LOOK AT THE DATAa. BackgroundIn order to get a handle on the worldwide use of AD, I reviewed reports submitted to the WTO by member countries. By agreement, since 1980 all WTO members have been required to make semi-annual reports on their use of trade remedies, including AD activity. Using these reports a database of all AD actions filed by WTO members between 1980 and June 2002 was compiled; overall about4,600 AD actions have been reported to the WTO. AD actions initiated by non-WTO members are not in my database.1 The WTO reports include only basic case information, such as the filing (reporting) country, the affected country, the name of the product being investigated and the date the case was filed. For some cases I also know whether a duty was imposed, but the size of duty is almost never reported. Also, one cannot use the WTO AD reports to track the trade impact because product (tariff) codes are not reported.Before looking at the patterns in AD use, a couple of comments on the database are in order. To begin with, the country- and product-specificity of AD investigations affects the accounting. AD cases are reported by product against a particular named country. For instance, occasionally an investigation involving a single product will be broken into multiple products and consequently reported as multiple cases. More common, an investigation will name multiple foreign countries, and hence be recorded as multiple cases. Both characteristics increase the number of AD filings as domestic industries seek to widen the scope of protection.More complicated accounting issues involve EU countries and former USSR republics. First, under EU rules AD cases are not filed by individual countries but on behalf of the entire EU. By contrast, AD cases filed against EU countries name individual countries.3 For instance, a US AD action against steel beams from France and Germany would be reported as two separate cases. In order to keep the accounting consistent, I have ‘merged’ cases involving the same product filed at the same time against individual EU countries into a single EU case and have classified the affected country as the ‘EU’. This adjustment results in about 300 fewer cases. As a result, the numbers I report in this paper will differ from statistics reported elsewhere (Miranda et al., 1998; Prusa, 2001; and Zanardi, 2004). Nevertheless, I feel that combining cases against EU countries allows one a more consistent ‘balance sheet’ of worldwide AD activity.b. AD – Filing PatternsIn Table 1, I report the number of AD cases filed since 1980, including subtotals for five-year intervals. As mentioned above, I aggregate the individualSince 1980, North American countries have filed more AD cases than any other region. About 85 per cent of North American cases have been filed by the United States and Canada. Pacific/Oceania is the second heaviest AD-using region. This is almost entirely due to Australia. Western Europe’s total of 789 cases (which are primarily EU filings) makes it the third heaviest AD user. In other words, over the long run AD use has been dominated by the four traditional AD users: United States, Canada, Australia and the EU.When one looks at the filings for the individual sub-periods, however, an important dynamic pattern emerges. In particular, looking across the columns one can see the adoption of AD protection by more and more countries around the world. Early on (1980–84) all AD filing activity was confined to three regions, North America, Pacific/Oceania and Western Europe. Furthermore, the four traditional users account for 99 per cent of these filings. As pointed out by Finger (1993) for all intents and purposes, until the mid-1980s AD was an active policy instrument for only four users.Since that time AD use has progressively spread throughout the world. During the second half of the 1980s, for instance, South American and East Asian countriesbegan to use AD. By the second half of the 1990s, AD was used by nearly all parts of the world. Today, only the poorest countries in Africa and Central Asia are not active AD users. What is more, the new users have not just dabbled with AD. As discussed in Prusa (2001 and 2005) when countries begin to use AD, they typically do so in a big way. Today, many of the most aggressive AD users are new users. As a result, for the last decade the traditional users have accounted for less than 40 per cent of all AD actions (Prusa, 2005).The emergence of China-PRC is a major reason for the rising trend of AD use against East Asia. Since the 1980s AD actions against China-PRC have increased five-fold. If we exclude China-PRC from the East Asian totals, we find that between 1985 and 2002 AD actions against East Asian countries grew by 75 per cent. It appears that China-PRC is part of the explanation for the increase but not the whole story. The message is clear: East Asian countries have not only borne the brunt of AD protectionism but also the burden is increasing over time.3. MODEL AND RESULTSSpecification H, which measures the potential industry effect, clarifies this unexpected result. In this specification I allow the industry effect to vary by region. Thus, I measure a steel/industry effect for South America, an effect for South Asia, etc. Interestingly, I find that none of the industry dummies are statistically significant. This suggests that the propensity of East Asian countries to be named in AD cases is not driven by industry. If anything, the results indicate that once we control for bilateral trade there is a small propensity for steel and chemical industries to be named slightly less often than others.4. CONCLUDING COMMENTSIn this paper I have presented compelling evidence that East Asian countries are subject to far more AD investigations than any other region in the world. Whether I simply looked at the number of filings or controlled for exports, East Asia stands head and shoulders above all others. When I used statistical techniques to control for macroeconomic factors that might influence filing patterns, I found that East Asia was the only region to have a statistically significant affected intensity greater than North America. In addition, I found that unlike all other regions that have a negative time trend, the time trend for East Asia is positive. This means that over time more and more cases are aimed at East Asia, yet all other regions seem to be experiencing fewer cases.What these findings mean, of course, is open to debate. In this paper I presentno evidence on the question whether the cases against East Asia are appropriate. AD proponents such as Prestowitz (1988) and Mastel (1998) would surely argue that such filing patterns simply indicate that East Asian countries have closed home markets. This is an attractive explanation as it explains both why East Asia is subject to so many AD actions and also why East Asia files so few actions: a closed home market makes it likely that firms will dump in their export markets (meaning the AD actions against East Asia are appropriate) and also make it impossible for foreign firms to compete in Asian home markets (which means that East Asian firms need not resort to AD).Yet, there is no evidence that the Prestowitz-Mastel view is valid. In fact, given the persuasive evidence presented by Lindsey (1999) and Lindsey and Ikenson (2002), it seems far more likely that closed home markets (if such an allegation were true) have absolutely nothing to do with the AD patterns documented. More plausibly, East Asia’s AD problem first and foremost has to do with how these countries have developed. East Asian countries export manufactured goods, and AD is primarily used against manufacturing.译文东亚的反倾销问题资料来源:威利网上图书馆作者：托马斯J·普鲁萨1．介绍事情变化的越多，越保持不变。
倾销与反倾销措施外文翻译(可编辑)
倾销与反倾销措施外文翻译（可编辑）倾销与反倾销措施外文翻译外文翻译原文Dumping and Anti-dumping MeasuresMaterial Source: international economics,July1984 Author: RichardSenti ZurichIn recent times, the number of dumping actions has shown a striking correlation with the respective level of economic activity, Thefollowing observations convey an overall picture of the dumping actions currently pending and the anti-dumping measures implemented, and lookinto the current problems faced by the international anti-dumping system.For years, dumping actions have been at the centre of discussions in the trade negotiations between the US, Canada, Japan and the member countries of the EC. At the end of 1977, there were twenty dumpingactions in progress in the USA. Tension eased in 1978 following the introduction of the trigger price system to regulate steel imports On confirmation of the modified cost criterion in the US Trade Act of 1979, the US steel firms once again took action against the EC steel producers. In 1980, the trigger price system briefly became temporarily inoperative but was applied again the same year with added force. Nevertheless, more dumpingactions followed,particularly in the years 1981 and 1982 At the beginning of 1983, the GATT Committee on Anti-Dumping Questions published a summary of theanti-dumping proceedings instituted during recent years in the USA, EC, Finland, Canada, Austria and Sweden,the provisional and definitive counter-measures and the price agreements reached cf. Table 1.The majority of actions are directed at the industrialised nations and only a few against the developing countries. Neither withdrawn actions nor those which resulted in a negative decision are included in these figures.Table 2 shows between which trade partners dumping negotiations took place during the years 1981/82, i.e. which countries instituted proceedings and which were sitting in the dock as far as was reported to GATT.US Anti-Dumping Legislation as a BasisIn 1945, immediately after the end of the war, the US State Department published the first proposals for a newworld trade order. According to these proposals, the members of an international trade organisation still to be created should, among other things,undertake "to 188 subscribe to a general definition of the circumstances under which anti-dumping and countervailing duties may properly be applied to products imported from other members".Only a year later, the Americans submitted the Charter for the Creation of an International Trade Organisation containing concretesuggestions on the anti-dumping settlement s which were later adopted by the Havana Charter s and GATT without undergoing significant alterations. Both the basic concept and many individual provisions are in line with the American antidumping legislation of that time.The first US anti-dumping provisions are to be found in the Revenue Act of 1916. 7 According to this law, the Americans imposed something akin to a fine 8 if 1 imports were offered in the USA at a lower price than in the country of origin and 2 as a result American industry was exposed to serious danger intent to destroy or injure. The two criteria "underpricing" and "infliction of damage" were later adopted by the actual anti-dumping laws of 1921 and 19309 and still apply todayfollowing the supplements and refinements made in 1974 and 1979.According to American Law of 1921 and 1930, dumping has occurred if the goods are offered more cheaply in the USA than on the home market price criterion. - Or, where there are no sales on the home market, if the goods are offered more cheaply in the USA than in a third country modified price criterion. - In case no sales are offered outside the country of destination, if the goods are exported below the costs of manufacture in the producing country cost criterion.The legal amendments of 1974 and 1979 brought with them an extension of the cost criterion to cover cases in which the domestic sales prices in the country of origin no longer cover the costs of productionOrigin of GATT Provisions and Anti-Dumping ConventionIn discussions surrounding the reshaping of the world trading system, 12 several delegates demanded going beyond the US regulation of price dumping of that time and incorporating service, exchange-rate and social dumping. Service dumping revolves around freight costs, i.e. the cheapening of exports by way of dumped transport services. Exchange-rate dumping is the cheapening of exports in the form of parity guaranteesand foreign exchange allowances. 13 Social dumping is constituted in cases where products from prison camps or prisons find their way ontothe world market at prices with which private entrepreneurs cannot compete. The negotiating delegations finally agreed on the price dumping in line with the US proposal.There were initial differences of opinion regarding the extent ofthe damage necessary for counter-measures to be taken. Must serious, material or indeterminate injury occur before counter-measures can be taken? Does the difference between domestic price and export price have to reach certain dimensions e.g. at least 5 % of the domestic price before counter-measures can be justified? Can serious injury caused be responded to with something like a punitive measure? Must the approvalof the ITO or of the contracting parties to GATT be obtained before counter-measuresare taken? The formulation finally agreed upon states thatcountermeasures may only be taken if the contracting partyestablishes "that the effect of the dumping.., is such as to cause orthreaten material injury to an established domestic industry, or is such as to retard materially the establishment of a domestic industry". TM In 1955, Article VI of GATT was supplemented the first and only amendment to the GATT wording on dumping to the effect that in cases where delay might cause "damage that would be difficult to repair", immediate measures are permitted without the need to seek the prior consent of the contracting parties to GATT. 15The dumping question experienced a revival during the Kennedy Round between 1964 and 1967. TheAmericans had tried to include also non-tariff barriers in the trade talks. Subsequently, they realised much to their annoyance that the negotiating parties werespotlighting the verybarriers to trade which applied in the USA, above all the US anti-dumping law. After brief hesitation, the Americans attempted to turn the antidumping controversy in their favour with the help of a detailed regulation. Thus emerged the Anti-Dumping Code of 1967 which, althoughit ties the Americans' hands in many a procedural question, otherwise hitsparticularly hard at Canada and Great Britain.Canada's anti-dumping legislation up to that time did not conform to GATT in that the taking of anti-dumping measures was not bound to the precondition of economic damage. Also in Great Britain - accordingto the American view- anti-dumping measures at that time were being misused for the protection of the domestic economy. From the US perspective, the advantages associated with the Anti-Dumping Codeoutweighed the resultant disadvantages which it was felt had to be accepted.The "Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Anti-Dumping Code" is dated 30th June, 1967.16 During the Tokyo Round, the 1967 Anti-Dumping Code underwent a two-fold amendment: firstly, there was the question of demarcation vis-a-vis the Code on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties which was in the process of formation; 17 secondly, changes were made to the existing agreement in terms of ascertainment of damage Art. 3: 1-4, theprivileged position of the developing countries Art. 13 and consultations, arbitration and settlement of disputes Art. 15. 18 The currently valid agreement on anti-dumping was reached on 12th April 1979 in Geneva. ~9 Wherever the antidumping agreement is mentioned in the following, reference is being made to the currently valid version of 1979.Definition of DumpingIn imitation of the American legal system of the 20s and 30s, GATT speaks of dumping when products of the same kind "of one country are introduced into the commerce of another country at less than the normal value of the products". Hence,dumping means that the "normal" domestic value of an article exceeds its export value. How does GATT define the "normal" domestic value? When is a product "of the same kind" when compared with another? How should we interpret export value?The "normal" value of an article is undercut according to Art. VI:Iof GATT "if the price of the product exported from one country toanother a is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in theexporting country, or b in the absence of such domestic price, is less than either i the highest comparable price for the like product forexport to any third country in the ordinary course of trade, or ii the cost of proddction of the product in the country of origin plus a reasonable addition for selling cost and profit".Differences in terms and conditions of sale, varying taxation andother differentials influencing the price are to be given "due" consideration. On the other hand, however, if export prices are lower because of the reimbursement of domestic duties and taxes e.g. by way of the reimbursement of VAT, this does not, according to GATT, constitute dumping which would justify counter-measures. The "normal" domesticvalue is taken to be exclusive of duties and taxes The GATT definitionof dumping applies to all countries which are signatories to GATT -apart from one important exception. The US anti-dumping law contains divergent and partly narrower provisions than GATT in two specific areas: Should the export product come to be sold in the country of origin, GATT says that dumping is to be determined according to the pricecriterion irrespective of the extent of the costs of manufacture. According to American law, however, the costs of manufacture can also be taken into consideration as well as the domestic price. The costcriterion shall apply in cases where there is good reason to supposethat the domestic price remains lower than the costs of manufacture for substantial quantities of merchandise over a relatively long period of time In this way, the Americans succeed in shielding the market from merchandise which has been falsely priced as a result of any production cost contributions, or in taxing them with anti-dumping duties. They refute the GATT contravention of which they are accused with the argument that GATT talks in terms of "normal" domestic prices. Normal prices, however, cannot be lower than costs of manufacture over longer periods. This is why, in the case of price undercutting over longer periods, the cost criterion should be applied In applying the cost criterion, the export prices are, according to GATT, to be compared with the cost of production "plus a reasonable addition for selling cost and profit". The addition for profit "shall not exceed the profit normally realised on sales of products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin". By way of contrast, the US anti-dumping law defines the costs taken as a basis for comparison as follows: 1 material andproduction costs, 2overheads of not less than 10 % of the material and production costs, 3 profit margin of not less than 8 % of the costs mentioned in points 1 and 2, and 4 packing and loading expenses as defined under the f.o.b, price.When are goods described as being of the same kind? The American proposal of 1 946 for the creation of a world trade organisation spokeof the "like" and "similar" products. 26 During the subsequent negotiations it was decided to limit the definition to "like" products, products which are identical, homogeneous In practice, however, this terminology proved to be impracticable. Slight divergences of quality or differing forms or colourings do not rule out competition nor hence the possibility of dumping. To make allowance for this fact, the Anti-dumping Code holds that such goods are also included which "although not alike in all respects, have characteristics closely resembling those of the product under consideration"译文倾销与反倾销措施资料来源: 国际经济学,1984年7月作者:Richard Senti Zurich在最近的时代,倾销行动的次数已经呈现出与各自的经济活动水平显着相关性,以下意见反映了目前未决诉讼和反倾销措施实施的总体情况,并查看到当前面临的国际反倾销制度问题。