Article 2.2 of the WTO’s Anti-dumping Agreement allows an investigating authority to reject the domestic selling prices for calculating the normal value in cases where, because of a ‘Particular Market Situation’ (‘PMS’), such domestic sales do not permit a proper comparison with the export price.

The article in this issue of International Trade Amicus discusses a recent decision of the Anti-dumping Bench of the CESTAT which examined the issue as to what is the standard of evidence that is required to be considered by an investigating authority in a sunset review.

The article in this issue of International Trade Amicus examines the recent Final Findings issued by the DGTR in the Mid-Term Review of countervailing duty on imports of Welded Stainless-Steel Pipes and Tubes (‘product under consideration’, ‘PUC’) from China PR and Vietnam.

The article in this issue of International Trade Amicus examines the recent Final Findings issued by the DGTR in the Mid-Term Review of countervailing duty on imports of Welded Stainless-Steel Pipes and Tubes (‘product under consideration’, ‘PUC’) from China PR and Vietnam.

The article analyses the recent decision of the CESTAT which has allowed an appeal against the Finance Ministry’s decision rejecting the Designated Authority’s recommendation to impose anti-dumping duty.

The article in this issue of International Trade Amicus elaborately analyses the recently introduced anti-absorption provisions under the anti-dumping and countervailing duty laws. Stating when an anti-dumping duty or countervailing duty could be considered to have been absorbed, ...

One of the foremost requirements in anti-dumping or countervailing duty investigation is to identify the scope of the ‘domestic industry’. Examining the definition of domestic industry, the article elaborates on why it is important to determine its scope. It also gives various recent examples of the varied practice of the DGTR while excluding or including the domestic producer in the scope of domestic industry.

The article in this issue of International Trade Amicus analyses a recent decision of the DGTR recommending extension of anti-dumping duty being imposed on ceramic tableware and kitchenware, excluding knives and toilet items from China to import of such goods from Malaysia. The DGTR had in the anti-circumvention investigation noted that there was a clear and distinct change in the pattern of trade of import of the subject goods into India from China and Malaysia.

The defining feature and the heart of any trade remedial investigation is the product under consideration (‘PUC’). Discussing various aspects of the practice of investigating authorities in defining the scope of the PUC and identifying the product exclusions, the article also probes the necessity for the interested parties to assist the investigating authority in clarifying the scope of the PUC.

June 2021 marks a significant milestone for International Trade Amicus, as we celebrate our 10th Anniversary issue.