A guest blog from Lan Yuo:
On 3 July, the Council issued the finalised text of a Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on potassium chloride from Belarus and Russia. (http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/06/st10/st10609.en06.pdf)
Generally speaking, it is not a high profile (i.e. economically or politically important) AD case which may draw attention of most academics and practitioners. The “novel” format of the AD measures, however, has raised some eyebrows.
In this case, the Commission took a “relatively new approach” called Delayed Duty System (DDS). It basically takes the form of allowing imports up to a quantitative ceiling to enter the EU duty-free with the price above a Minimum Import Price (MIP). After the quantitative ceiling is reached, additional imports are subject to a “normal” AD duty at the dumping level established in the investigation.
According to it, Belarusian producers can export 700,000 tonnes per year of goods into the EU duty-free, provided that MIP is respected. Beyond that, exports are subject to a duty of 27.5%. (Paragraph 167-173 of the Regulation)
The Commission has also indicated the DDS (or revised version of DDS) may be applied to Chinese and Vietnamese exporters in the Footwear case.
The legal questions raise as: first, whether the ADA permits one AD investigation generating two different measures against the same kind of dumped exports (or “like produce”?); second, whether the first form of measure falls into the “specific action against dumping” prohibited under Art 18.1 of the ADA.
On its face, this “novel” AD measure looks more similar with safeguard measure, i.e. with an intention to stop the surge of imports, rather than addressing to the dumping price problems. But is it WTO-consistent?
Any comments?
