A Reflection on Shortcomings of Iranian Provisions in Regard to Determination of Dumping in Comparison with WTO Anti-dumping Agreement

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Assistant Professor of Law/Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

2 M.A. Student of Intellectual Property Law/ Shahid Beheshti University

3 M.A. Student of Private Law/ Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Abstract

Marketing techniques and methods of eliminating commercial competitors have attracted considerable attention. One of these techniques is using predatory pricing by which the predator undertakings gain control over a great portion of the market and strike a probably heavy blow to the rivals abroad through supplying products with a lower price than home. In a broad classification, predatory pricing may occur domestically or internationally. The latter is known as dumping. The most important legal document in this regard in Iran is the “Regulation of Predicting Protective, Compensatory and Anti-Dumping Expedients and Measures for Protection of Domestic Producers” 1386 [2007].Since the mentioned Iranian provisions have not been analyzed by Iranian lawyers yet, the purpose of this study is the comparative review of this Regulation and the Anti-Dumping Agreement in order to discern the deficiencies of the Iranian Regulation in regard to determination of dumping. Therefore, the main and specific question of this paper is that what are the exact deficiencies of the aforementioned Regulation, as the most important legal document of Iran, in regard to determination of dumping and what is the solution? Thus, firstly, we will review the main elements of determination of dumping and after introduction of the key issues, the important deficiencies of the Iranian provision such as determination of the ordinary course of trade, concealment or untrustworthiness of the export price, comparison with regard to the price in the country of origin, simultaneous evaluation of the effects of importation from different countries, the prerequisites of investigation in regard to the quantity of the applicants and the price comparison criterion with respect to quantity of sales, will be illustrated and consequently, this paper shows that the current provisions of Iran concerning the determination of dumping face serious deficiencies, the elimination of which requires amending the aforementioned Regulation.

Keywords

References

آیین‌نامه اجرایی قانون امور گمرکی، مصوب 6/12/1391.
احمدی، عبدا.. (1387)؛ حقوق گمرکی، تهران، نشرمیزان.
تصویب‌نامه درمورد پیش‌بینی تدابیر و اقدام‌های حفاظتی، جبرانی و ضددامپینگ برای حمایت از تولیدکنندگان داخلی، مصوب 16/5/1386.
دژم خوی، غزاله و فرزاد مرادپور (1383)؛ «الزامات ضد قیمت‌شکنی‌(ضد دامپینگ) در سازمان تجارت جهانی و ضرورت تدوین مقررات داخلی مرتبط»، مجموعه مقالات همایش راهبرد توسعه اقتصادی، موسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های بازرگانی، صص 660-621.
شهیکی‌تاش، محمدنبی و مهیم شهیکی‌تاش (1390)؛« ارزیابی احتمال وقوع قیمت‌شکنی در منتخبی از صنایع ایران»، بررسی‌های بازرگانی، ش. 46، صص 17-2.
شیروی، عبدالحسین و  مهشید جعفری هرندی (1389)؛ «تجارت غیرمنصفانه از طریق دامپینگ و شیوه مقابله با آن در سازمان تجارت جهانی»، حقوق خصوصی، ش. 17، صص 57-29.
شیروی، عبدالحسین (1389)؛ حقوق تجارت بین‌الملل، تهران، انتشارات سمت.
صادقی، محسن (1384)؛ روش‌های حقوقی مقابله با دامپینگ، تهران، مؤسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های بازرگانی. 
عاقلی کهنه شهری، لطفعلی، حسینی، میرعبدا...، دژم‌خوی، غزاله و سارا امامقلی‌پور (1386)؛ «بررسی وجود قیمت‌شکنی (دامپینگ) در کالاهای عمده وارداتی ایران از مبدأ چین»، فصلنامه پژوهشنامه بازرگانی، ش. 44، صص 22-1.
قانون اجرای سیاست‌های کلی اصل چهل و چهارم (44) قانون اساسی مصوب 25/3/1387 و اصلاحی 11/4/1393.
قانون امور گمرکی، مصوب 22/8/1390.
Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994.
Barral, Welber (2003); “Antidumping Measures: Prospects for Developing Countries”, IRI/UFSC Working Paper, no. 01/03, pp. 1-24.
14. Chang, Winston W. (2008); “Antidumping, Countervailing and Safeguard Measures”, GITAM Review of International Business, vol. 1, issue 1, pp.1-34.
15. Finger, J.Michael (1992); “Dumping and Antidumping: The Rhetoric and Reality of Protection in Industrial Countries”, The World Bank Research Observer, vol.7, no.2, pp. 121-143.
Finger, J.Michael and Fung, Kwok-Chiu (1994); “Will GATT Enforcement Control Antidumping?”, Journal of Economic Integration, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 198-213.
Gupta, Poonam and Panagariya, Arvind (2006); “Injury Investigations in Antidumping and the Super-Additivity Effect: A Theoretical Explanation”, Review of World Economics, vol. 142, no. 1, pp. 151-164.
Hartigan, James C. and Vandenbussche, Hylk (2013); “Disfavored Nations: Anti-Dumping at the WTO”, Review of Development Economics, vol. 17, Issue 1, pp. 105–116.
Kohler, Philippe and Michael O. Moore (1998); “Design of Antidumping Rule with Incomplete Information about Material Injury”, Journal of Economic Integration, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 62-88.
Krishna, Raj (1998); “Antidumping in Law and Practice”, World Bank Policy Research Working Paper, no. 1823, pp. 1-35.
Lee, Pierce (2014); “Rethinking the Rhetoric of Antidumping: A Response to Mark Wu’s Reform Proposal”, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, vol.42, pp. 457-489.
Lloyd, Peter J. (2009); “How the WTO Could Be Improved”, International Economic Studies, vol.34, no.1, pp. 1-6.
McDaniel, Christopher Blake (2010); “Sailing the Seas of Protectionism: The Simultaneous Application of Antidumping and Countervailing Duties to Nonmarket Economies-An Affront to Domestic and International Laws”, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, vol.38, pp. 741-767.
Moore, Michael O. and Maurizio Zanardi (2009); “Does Antidumping Use Contribute to Trade Liberalization in Developing Countries?”, The Canadian Journal of Economies, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 469-495.
Moore, Michael O.and Alan K. Fox (2010); “Why Don’t Foreign Firms Cooperate in US Antidumping Investigations? An Empirical Analysis”, Review of World Economics, vol. 145, no. 4, pp. 597-613.
Olsson, Henrik (1999); Circumvention of EC Anti-Dumping Measures, Lund University, Faculty of Law, Master Thesis.
Raju, K.D. (2004); “The WTO Appellate Body Jurisprudence on Antidumping: A Critical Review”, Indian Journal of International Law, vol. 44, pp. 260-291.
Reitzes, James D. (1993); “Antidumping Policy”, International Economic Review, vol.34, no.4, pp. 745-763.
Roitinger, Alexander (2002); “Antidumping Reform, Trade Policy Flexibility and Compensation”, University of St. Gallen, Department of Economics Working paper, no. 2002-18, pp. 1-30.
Satapathy C. (2006); “Review of WTO Rules on Antidumping and Countervailing Measures”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.41, no.3, pp. 263-269.
Sykes, Alan O. and Richard N. Cooper (1998); “Antidumping and Antitrust: What Problems Does Each Address? [With Comments and Discussion]”, Brookings Institution Press, pp. 1-53.
Vandenbussche, Hylke and Maurizio Zanardi (2008); “What Explains the Proliferation of Antidumping Laws? [With Discussion]”, Economic Policy, vol. 23, no. 53, pp. 93-138.
Vermulst, Edwin (2005); The WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, New York, Oxford University Press.
Willing, Robert D. (1998); “Economic Effects of Antidumping Policy”, Brookings Institution Press, pp. 57-79.
World Trade Organization (2015A); Directly Competitive or Substitutable Products, Retrieved from: https://www.wto.org/english/Tratop_e/dispu_e/repertory_e/d1_e.htm 
World Trade Organization (2015B); WTO Analytical Index: Antidumping Agreement. Available at: http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/analytic_index_e/anti_dumping_01_e.ht

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 05 December 2015
  • Accept Date: 09 May 2017

Share

How to cite

Statistics