Search

Based on outcomes derived from a mesoeconomic model, this study examines the impact of European Union (EU) anti-dumping (AD) measures on listed Chinese exporters using the Propensity Score Matching with Difference-in-Differences (PSM-DID) method. Using yearly transaction data covering all Chinese listed exporters over 2000–2015, our findings indicate that EU AD measures result in a reduction in export volume and an increase in export prices for Chinese listed exporters at the product level. This trade-dampening effect is attributed to a significant decrease in export volume per exporter rather than the exit of listed exporters from the EU market. Additionally, we find that the effects of AD measures on the export volume and price of Chinese-listed exporters do not persist beyond the first year of the imposition of AD duties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Jurídica (0103-3506) is the property of Revista Juridica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article considers the measures of customs regulation of foreign trade activities used in the world practice. Due to the liberalization of world trade, most countries reduce the use of customs tariff regulation measures, compensating them with the introduction of special duties on imported goods. The purpose of the study is to analyze the international practice of applying those special duties. Analysis of the application of special duties to and against the EAEU countries was carried out, and the implementation of the fiscal function of special duties was examined in particular. The hypothesis of the study is the assumption that special duties play an insignificant fiscal role in the state budget revenues. Analysis of the practice of applying special duties was conducted on the basis of data from the World Trade Organization and the Treasury bodies of the Russian Federation. In the course of the study, the economic and logical methods of comparison, detailing, as well as the balance method were actively used. It was found that anti-dumping duties, which account for 2/3 of all special duties, are most often used to regulate the import of foreign goods. Russia applies 25 protective measures to goods imported from other countries, and 93 protective measures are applied to Russian goods. Special duties are currently insignificant in revenues of the federal budget of Russia; in 2021 their ratio with the receipt of import customs duties amounted to 1.5%. At the same time, there is a steady growth in the receipt of special duties: over the past 10 years, it has increased 13-fold. To increase the fiscal role of special duties, it is advisable to change the order of their distribution among the EAEU countries, so that the entire amount of special duties on imported goods is credited to the budget of the country that initiated their introduction.

The article examines the current trends and features of US and EU protectionism towards Russia, its possible consequences and ways of response. Protectionism has been increasing since 2020, which is manifested in the intensification of the use of existing instruments and the development of the new ones.The article analyzes possible consequences of the spike in countervailing investigations by the US against Russia. The author highlights possible application of similar restrictive measures by other partners as an additional risk. An unprecedented event is the US Department of Commerce review of Russia’s status as a market economy country for purposes of antidumping duty investigations. Non-market economy status expands the capabilities of the US to “overcount” dumping and impose duties, thus impeding the activity of Russian companies on foreign markets. The US acknowledged for now that there does not exist a sufficient degree of evidence to justify a change in Russia’s market economy designation, nevertheless, one cannot rule out such attempts in the future.In the EU context, the practice of energy adjustments, which results in overstated production costs, normal value and anti-dumping duties for Russian goods, is continued. A new protectionist step is the publication of the report “On significant distortions in the economy of the Russian Federation for the purposes of trade defence investigations”, which lays an additional basis for the continuation and strengthening of restrictive measures. The article analyzes a new instrument of environmental protectionism, the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, a levy on imported products based on the embedded CO2 emissions. The measure will affect important positions of the Russian exports – cement, electricity, fertilizers, iron & steel and aluminum. The mechanism can be considered an attempt to make up for the EU’s lack of natural competitive advantages in mineral raw materials and to impose its vision of economic policy goals on the rest of the world.In conclusion, the author highlights features of American and European protectionism towards Russia – active employment of the role of the state in the economy factor as well as environmental factor as pretexts for introducing or tightening restrictive measures.The main ways of Russia’s response to new challenges can be the use of the WTO platform in cooperation with other countries, the search for new economic levers in relations with the partners (including application of trade defence measures), the detection of possible market distortions in the EU and the US for possible use in EAEU investigations.

This paper empirically examines what factors affected the termination of anti-dumping measures in Korea during the 2006-2019 period. Employing a meticulous literature review, the paper investigates the WTO’s and Korea’s rules on the termination of anti-dumping measures and sets up the related variables in the Cox proportional hazards model. The empirical results show that the GDP growth rate, employment, and trade competitiveness in domestic industries had positive effects on the hazard of the termination of AD measures, while free trade agreements had negative effects. By industry, the hazard of the termination of AD measures was less prominent in the steel industry, while it was more prominent in the machinery industry. These results imply that AD measures in Korea had the properties of a proper trade remedy policy and, at the same time, a protectionism tool to sustain its domestic industries, depending on industrial characteristics and other trade policies.

Dünya ülkeleri arasında yapılmakta olan uluslararası ticaret işlemlerinin İkinci Dünya Savaşı sonrasında hız kazanmasıyla birlikte ülkeler çeşitli düzenleme ve kurallara ihtiyaç duymaya başlamışlardır. Bu nedenle 1948 yılında Gümrük Tarifeleri ve Ticaret Genel Anlaşması (GATT), 1995 yılında ise Dünya Ticaret Örgütü (DTÖ) çatısı altında ülkeler dünya ticaretini belirli kurallara bağlamışlardır. Dünya ticaretinin gelişmesi amacıyla ülkelerin birbirlerinin ürünlerine karşı uyguladıkları tarife ve tarife dışı önlemlerin kademeli olarak azaltılması yönünde alınan kararlar başarılı olmuştur. 1964 yılında GATT’ın altıncı görüşmesi olan Kennedy Turu’nda gündeme alınan Anti-damping Kodu ile birlikte, haksız rekabete neden olduğu öne sürülen damping uygulamalarına karşı önlem alınması gerektiği konusunda uluslararası düzeyde bir görüş birliği sağlanmıştır. Anti-damping önlemleri olarak adlandırılan bu yaptırımlar geçici önlemler, fiyat taahhütleri ve nihai anti-damping vergileri olarak uygulanmaktadır. 2010 yılından itibaren dünyada sayıları artan anti-damping önlemlerine en sık başvuran ülke Amerika Birleşik Devletleri (ABD) olarak karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Türkiye ise üçüncü sırada yer alarak yerli endüstrisini haksız rekabete karşı en çok korumaya çalışan ülkeler arasında sayılmaktadır. Bu çalışmada Türkiye’nin uluslararası ticarette karşılaştığı ve uyguladığı anti-damping vergileri incelenmektedir.

In the article some international organizations theories predictions are examined on the results of Russia’s accession to the WTO. Import indicators have improved after accession: import diversification has grown and import concentration has reduced. There was no influence on export as the first ten export positions of the Russian Federation are raw materials. The payment matrix of a game with nonzero sum has been applied to the analysis of anti-dumping measures in bilateral trade with China, Ukraine and the EU. The strategy «to join the WTO» was shown to be optimal for Russia. The strategy «to admit Russia to the WTO» was optimal for the EU and Ukraine, but not for the China. We don’t confirm the argument that the trade agreement is directed to protectionism restriction as the number of anti-dumping measures in mutual trade of the Russian Federation has grownafter the WTOaccession. The advanced countries, as it was shown, keep a high difference in access of certain goods to the markets. It has a sense to estimate extent of liberalization according to an indicator of import concentration. From this point of view, market access provided by Russia was higher than in the advanced economies since 2005. Countries do can carry out liberalization unilaterally. E.D. Mansfield and E.E. Reinhardt have shown that the country as a member of the regional trade agreement improves its bargaining power. This conclusion in our work has been extended to a case of the country participation in the WTO. It was shown that the trade regime of the Russian Federation hasn’t suffered after 2014. At the same time taking into account the effect of «improvement of a bargaining power», which was revealed in literature for the stage of the regional trade agreement, the EEU is offered to include in its agenda territorial development and transport tariffs matters.

Copyright of Revista Română de Drept al Afacerilor is the property of Wolters Kluwer Romania and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Public Law / Zeitschrift für Öffentliches Recht is the property of Verlag Oesterreich GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The creation of the EurAsEC Customs Union and Russia's ascension into the WTO has led to a radical change in Russia's anti-dumping legislation. Antidumping regulation ceased to be a national jurisdiction and was transferred to the Eurasian Economic Commission, a supranational regulator. The new anti-dumping legislation of the EurAsEC Customs Union, antidumping procedures; their principles, participants, and main stages, are analysed in this article; also, the legal treatment of information used in the anti-dumping regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present paper, anti-dumping (AD) duties levied by the European Commission against products from ASEAN countries in the period 1991–2001 have been considered. The ASEAN countries were among the countries most targeted by AD measures imposed by the EU in the 1990s. A panel regression has been applied to estimate the impact of AD duties on trade in some 12 products that have been subject to AD duties targeting ASEAN countries in the period considered. A significant negative impact of AD duties is found, on both the value and the quantity of imports from ASEAN countries. Our estimation provides some (although not overwhelming) indications of trade diversion in favor of EU countries, but no evidence of trade diversion in favor of non-targeted non-EU countries. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]