{"id":1646,"date":"2020-02-20T09:29:44","date_gmt":"2020-02-20T09:29:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/?p=1646"},"modified":"2020-02-20T09:29:47","modified_gmt":"2020-02-20T09:29:47","slug":"using-as-the-starting-point-the-article-wto-rules-against-eu-anti-dumping-duties-on-indonesian-biofuel-by-natasha-burton-in-new-economy-on-26-january-2018-discuss","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/using-as-the-starting-point-the-article-wto-rules-against-eu-anti-dumping-duties-on-indonesian-biofuel-by-natasha-burton-in-new-economy-on-26-january-2018-discuss\/","title":{"rendered":"Using as the Starting Point the Article \u2018WTO Rules against EU \u201cAnti-Dumping\u201d Duties on Indonesian Biofuel\u2019 by Natasha Burton in New Economy on 26 January 2018, Discuss the Use of Anti-dumping Measures by the EU on Biofuels"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Written by Chloe Barratt<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This post (edited for publication)\nis published on our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for\nassessment within the module \u2018Public International Law\u2019. Following the blogging\nsuccess over the last couple of years, we decided to publish our students\u2019\nexcellent work in this area again in this way. The module is an option in the\nsecond year of Bristol Law School\u2019s LLB programme. It continues to be led\nby Associate Professor Dr <\/em>No\u00eblle\nQu\u00e9nivet<\/a>. Using innovative learning and teaching methods, No\u00eblle developed\nthis module to include the use of online portfolios within a partly student led\ncurriculum. The posts in this series show the outstanding research and\nanalytical abilities of students on our programmes. Views expressed in\nthis blog post are those of the author only who consents to the publication.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Anti-dumping duties\nare additional charges imposed by a state in response to the dumping of\nproducts into the \u2018commerce of another country at less than\nthe normal value of the products\u2019 (Article VI GATT).<\/a> They\nare a means of neutralising unfair trade practice<\/a>, allowing\nstates to protect their domestic industry if the dumping is having a negative effect\non their economy. This blog will discuss how the European Union (EU)\nimposes anti-dumping measures on biofuels, a\nrenewable source of energy that until recently was seen as an attractive\nalternative to fossil fuels<\/a>. I will discuss how the issue that lies at the\nheart of the dispute with anti-dumping measures is, as Burton\u2019s\narticle<\/a> highlights, how the extent of dumping is calculated. After examining\nthe implications of anti-dumping measures, I will conclude that they are\nnecessarily used to neutralise unfair trade practice and maintain economic and social\nstability within the EU.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Process of Bringing\nan Anti-dumping Measure<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To ensure\nanti-dumping duties are imposed to counteract unfair trade practice, the\nprocess of imposing duties is heavily regulated. Accordingly, Article 1 of\nthe  Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of\nthe General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (ADA)<\/a> requires\nall investigations to be initiated and conducted in accordance with the\nprovisions of the ADA. Whilst the World Trade Organisation (WTO) does not\nregulate the initial act of dumping, it is responsible for regulating\nthe process<\/a> a state must\nfollow when initiating an anti-dumping measure. If, for example, the\nEU believes products are being dumped into its market it must first be\nable to show that the dumping is taking place. In doing so it must be able\nto calculate how much lower the export price is in comparison to the home\nmarket price and show that it is causing injury or threatening to do so.\nThe high threshold for establishing the injurious effect of the dumping\naccompanied by an investigation (see Article 5 ADA)<\/a> seeks\nto ensure that anti-dumping duties are used productively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Calculations of\nAnti-dumping Measures Have Proven Problematic<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Whilst the process\nof imposing an anti-dumping measure is well regulated, the element of\ncalculating the extent of dumping was highlighted as problematic in Burton\u2019s article<\/a>. As the EU\nexplains in the Commission Implementing Regulation 2018\/1570, following\nthe rulings in Indonesia and Argentina (see para 8)<\/a>, the\nmethod of calculation has now been clarified in light of the ADA (for the\noriginal reports of the dispute settlement body, see Indonesia (DS480<\/a>) and\nArgentina (DS473<\/a>)). <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dispute between\nthe EU on the one hand and Argentina and Indonesia on the other (see history\nhere<\/a>) follows a\nnumber of WTO challenges to anti-dumping measures (see discussion in\nCrowley and Hillman, \u2018Slamming the Door on Trade Policy Discretion? The WTO\nAppellate Body\u2019s Ruling on Market Distortions and Production Costs in EU-Biodiesel (Argentina) <\/em>(2018) 17 World\nTrade Review 195-213) where the underlying issue was how authorities adjusted\nthe prices of exporting producers. For example, when constructing a home market\nprice for Argentine biodiesel, that is the price of which biodiesel was sold in\nArgentina, the European Commission chose to alter the price of soybeans to\ncompensate for the distortion in soybean prices, caused by an export tax imposed\nby the Argentine government (see Crowley and Hillman, at 2).  The price\nwas adjusted based on the fact that soybeans, the primary input of biodiesel,\nwere considerably below the international price and the Commission reasoned the\nadjustment was what \u2018would have\nbeen the price paid\u2026 in the absence of the export tax system\u2019.<\/a> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The dispute with Indonesia <\/a>was similar in the\nsense that it also involved a problem with \ncalculations: the EU had replaced the actual price of crude palm\noil that was within the producers\u2019 records with an international reference\nprice. The price of the palm oil was lower than international prices,\nwhich meant the EU imposed higher duties on Indonesia in response to what\nthey calculated the extent of dumping to be. When deciding on the trade\ndisputes in the cases of Indonesia<\/a> and Argentina<\/a>, the\nDispute Settlement Body for the WTO found the EU had indeed acted\ninconsistently with both GATT 1994 and ADA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Therefore, whilst\nthere has been a period of uncertainty in calculating the extent of\ndumping, this imperfection has now been clarified by the WTO. The clear\nguidance now states that countries are not legally permitted to\ntake government manipulated price control into account. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social and Economic\nStability <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since the WTO cannot\nregulate the act of dumping, the ability for a state to impose \u2018remedial and not punitive<\/a>\u2019 measures\nin response to dumping are essential to nullify unfair trade\npractice. The measures imposed by the EU on biofuels have\nbeen used to counteract the great harm that dumping poses to the economic\nand social stability of the EU. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Biofuels being\ndumped into the commerce of the EU not only disrupts the trading of the\nfuels but also distorts the standard value<\/a> of\nthe commodity. EU producers are faced with unfair competition and in considering\nthe vast difference in Indonesia\u2019s access to the raw materials used for\nbiofuels<\/a> (i.e. palm oil) in comparison to the EU\u2019s access,  the\nEU could not physically be expected to meet the competitors\u2019 low price without\na substantial economic loss. The subsequent effect on the domestic economy\ncould see a closure in business and vast unemployment<\/a>, which the\nEU is able to avoid with anti-dumping measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In\nsummary, anti-dumping measures by the EU have been imposed to minimise\nthe economic disruption caused by the dumping of biofuels. Whilst the EU was\nfound to have miscalculated the extent of dumping, this was\nrecognised and rectified by the WTO dispute settlement mechanism which in turn\nacknowledged the lawfulness of anti-dumping measures as such. Overall,\nthese measures have been used productively to counteract\nunfair competition. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Written by Chloe Barratt This post (edited for publication) is published on our blog as part of a series of work produced by students for assessment within the module \u2018Public International Law\u2019. Following the blogging success over the last couple of years, we decided to publish our students\u2019 excellent work in this area again in … Continue reading “Using as the Starting Point the Article \u2018WTO Rules against EU \u201cAnti-Dumping\u201d Duties on Indonesian Biofuel\u2019 by Natasha Burton in New Economy on 26 January 2018, Discuss the Use of Anti-dumping Measures by the EU on Biofuels”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":1647,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"wds_primary_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2,347,238,353],"tags":[369,109,180],"class_list":["post-1646","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-bristol-law-school","category-faculty-of-business-and-law","category-students","category-uwe-bristol","tag-essay","tag-law","tag-student-blog"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1646","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1646"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1646\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1648,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1646\/revisions\/1648"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1647"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1646"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1646"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.uwe.ac.uk\/bristol-law-school\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1646"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}