[Skunk]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: I assume you're talking about selling items far below market value?

To be precise, 'dumping' is where a company exports a product at a price that is lower than the price it normally charges on its own home market.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Dumping is morally deplorable and any fair trading regime should have rules to prevent it. You do realize what "dumping" is, don't you, Dreamer?

There ARE rules within the WTO which allow for anti-dumping duties to be instigated by member states. Under WTO rules, the US would be allowed to add duties up to the value of the normal market price of the goods in the originating domestic market.

The crux of the issue is that US anti-dumping measures are too severe and actually end up providing US companies with an undue competitive advantage. Not only that, but they do not allow states and companies the right to challenge the measures within the WTO:

In September 2000, the WTO found the US Anti-Dumping of 1916 incompatible with the WTO agreement on anti-dumping.

This Act provides remedies to dumping in the form of fines, imprisonment and damages equivalent to threefold the damages sustained, none of which is permitted under WTO rules. As a result of this condemnation, the US had to repeal the Act, but on the third anniversary of this condemnation, the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act is still in force.

In those three years, the EU has shown its readiness to respond to the US difficulty in complying with the WTO decision.

The EU accepted the extension of the period of time within which the US was to repeal the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act (from July 2001 to December 2001). The EU requested the authorisation to apply retaliatory measures in January 2002. However, it accepted a suspension of the arbitration in February 2002, on the express understanding that a bill that had finally been introduced on 20 December 2001 to repeal the 1916 Anti-Dumping Act would terminate the on-going cases before US courts.

This bill was not even discussed in Congress, nor were two other bills introduced later and the three became void in November 2002, when the then current Congress adjourned as the result of the mid-term elections. The whole process had to restart again in the new Congress that met in January 2003. While three repealing bills are now pending, Congress has so far failed to give any signs that implementation was this time on the right tracks. Again, to date, none of the bills have been even discussed and two would not terminate the pending court cases, which is not acceptable.

Confronted with non-implementation, the WTO Member that prevailed in the dispute may seek the authorisation to suspend tariff concessions or other obligations. The EU has always considered this option as a last resort and favoured all solutions that could bring compliance. But, the persisting inaction of the US leaves the EU no other option than to exercise this right under the WTO.
EU seeks retaliatory and protective measures in US 1916 Anti-Dumping Act dispute