By Daniel Pruzin
GENEVA--The chairman of the World Trade Organization's General Council said there is widespread support among the WTO membership for bringing negotiations on antidumping rules onto the agenda of a new trade round, which would likely focus on clarifying existing rules under the WTO's Antidumping Agreement rather than reopening the accord. Trade officials attending a July 14 informal meeting organized by General Council chairman Stuart Harbinson of Hong Kong on the antidumping issue said Harbinson cautioned that not all members agree that antidumping rules should be part of the new round.
The United States and Australia were the WTO members most ambivalent at the meeting about opening talks on antidumping rules, officials said, with both countries suggesting that it would be better if the issue were addressed as part of the continuing work being carried out through the WTO's ad-hoc working group on antidumping.
Harbinson delivered his opinion at end of the July 14 meeting, which saw more than 30 countries voice their support for WTO negotiations on antidumping as part of a new round which members hope to launch at the organization's fourth ministerial meeting in Doha, Qatar, in November.
Officials said Harbinson, whose position as General Council chair gives him a key role in the preparations for the ministerial, is likely to include his opinion in a "reality check" statement which he will deliver to WTO members at the end of July on the state of play of the Doha preparations.
The United States has so far resisted calls to include antidumping on the agenda of a future trade round because of fierce resistance from within the U.S. Congress as well as from labor unions and the steel industry. A group of 61 U.S. Senators forwarded a letter to President Bush May 7 warning they would oppose any international trade agreement that would weaken any U.S. domestic law aimed at protecting the U.S. market against unfair imports or unexpected import surges.
'Strengthening' of Existing Rules Urged
Those keen on discussing antidumping in the round have insisted that the talks will focus on clarifying and strengthening WTO rules governing the application of antidumping measures within the existing framework of the Antidumping Agreement. Among the general goals put out by the so-called "friends of antidumping" led by Japan and Chile are ensuring that antidumping measures are applied to remedy the injurious effects of antidumping, making sure that the application of antidumping rules are not overly burdensome, ensuring transparency and procedural fairness in antidumping proceedings, and clarifying ambiguities in existing rules arising from rulings issued by WTO panels and the Appellate Body in antidumping cases.
The advocates also want to ensure that special and differential treatment provisions set out under Article 15 of the Antidumping Agreement are taken into adequate account. In a recent ruling involving a dispute between India and the European Union over EU dumping duties imposed on Indian bed linen imports, a WTO panel faulted Brussels for failing to explore "constructive remedies" with New Delhi for resolving the dispute as required by Article 15 before imposing its antidumping duties.
Low Key U.S. Resistance
Trade officials said the United States did not reject the idea of initiating WTO talks on antidumping at the July 14 meeting but said that good work on clarifying WTO antidumping provisions was already taking place in the ad-hoc committee and that this work should continue. In April the committee approved a series of non-binding recommendations designed to help companies seeking additional time to comply with requests for information in antidumping investigations.
The recommendations set out criteria that investigating authorities should consider in deciding whether or not to accept an application for additional time to provide requested information. Investigating authorities were also urged to issue prompt decisions on deadline extension requests and, when a request is denied, to explain the reasons behind its decision.
Copyright c 2001 by The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington D.C.:
