ABSTRACT
Among the trilogy of trade remedy regimes-countervailing duty, safeguard and antidumping actions-antidumping actions are by far the remedy of choice. By 2002, 71 Members had notified the WTO Committee on Antidumping Practices that they had some type of domestic antidumping legislation, 31 had indicated having no such legislation and 25 had not provided notification.1 Under Article XVIII:5 of the GATT, a WTO Member must notify the Committee of ‘any changes in its laws and regulations relevant to this Agreement and in the administration of such laws and regulations’. Members and Observers must also notify the Committee of new or existing laws or regulations, or the lack thereof.2 Between 1995 and 2002, 2,160 antidumping initiations were reported to the Committee (see Figure 8.1). Over this period, the People’s Republic of China was by far the most frequent target, drawing 14% of antidumping initiations-more than twice as many as any other country. India, the United States and the European Community initiated the most antidumping cases, with 15%, 13% and 12% of initiations respectively. The fourth and fifth most frequent initiators were Argentina at 8% and South Africa at 7%.3 This differs considerably both in terms of percentage distribution and countries involved from the period July 1980 to June 1988, when the actions of the United States, Australia, Canada
and the European Union accounted for 97.5% of all actions. The more recent statistics suggest a trend towards greater initiation by developing countries of antidumping actions.4 From 2001 to 2003, the total number of antidumping investigations was consistently high, not just in the United States, which launched the highest number of investigations, but in China and India as well, respectively initiating the second and third highest number of investigations. Although in 2003 a reduced number of antidumping investigations was recorded, the general trend of the increased use of antidumping remedies is expected to continue.5
