The imposition of the anti-dumping duty has advantages and disadvantages. While the move was welcomed by Essar Steel India`s commercial director, H Shivram Krishnan, importers expressed concern about safeguard measures such as the minimum import price and anti-dumping duties, especially when domestic tightening occurs and imports decline. [14] The Committee, which meets at least twice a year, provides WTO Members with an opportunity to discuss all matters relating to the Anti-Dumping Agreement (Article 16). The Committee reviewed the national legislation notified to the WTO. This is an opportunity to raise questions about the application of domestic anti-dumping laws and regulations, as well as the compatibility of domestic practice with the Anti-Dumping Agreement. The Committee also reviews notifications of anti-dumping measures by Members and provides an opportunity to consider issues raised in specific cases. The Committee has established its own body, the Special Implementation Group, which is open to all WTO Members and should focus on technical implementation issues, i.e. issues that often arise in the management of anti-dumping laws. Companies enforce anti-dumping laws and tariffs to protect local markets/companies and stop the unethical practice of foreign companies flooding markets with their cheap products. The number of anti-dumping proceedings initiated by US companies has increased significantly. The bureaucratic body responsible for advising Member States on anti-dumping measures is the Directorate-General for Trade (DG Trade) in Brussels. The Community industry may request the initiation of an anti-dumping investigation. DG Trade first examines the complainants` position.

If it is found that they represent at least 25 % of the Community industry, the investigation is likely to begin. The process is guided by very specific guidelines in the regulations. DG Trade will make a recommendation to a committee called the Anti-Dumping Advisory Committee, in which each Member State has one vote. Member States that abstain will be treated as if they had voted in favour of health and safety at work, a voting system that has been the subject of much criticism. [9] The Agreement establishes the general principle that provisional and definitive anti-dumping duties may be applied only from the date on which dumping, injury and causation were established. However, since the injury may have occurred during the investigation period or since exporters may have taken measures to avoid the imposition of an anti-dumping duty, Article 10 lays down rules for the retroactive imposition of dumping duties in certain circumstances. Where the imposition of anti-dumping duties is based on a finding of material injury and not on the risk of material injury or material retardation in the establishment of a domestic industry, anti-dumping duties may be imposed from the date of imposition of provisional measures. Where provisional duties have been collected in excess of the definitive duty or where the imposition of duties is based on the finding of a risk of material injury or retardation, repayment of the provisional duty shall be required. Article 10(6) provides for the retroactive application of definitive duties until a date not exceeding 90 days before the application of provisional measures, in certain exceptional circumstances concerning past dumping, massive dumped imports and the possible weakening of the remedial effects of the definitive duty.

Anti-dumping measures are unilateral remedies and include measures such as the imposition of anti-dumping duties on the dumped product(s). The Government of the United States (or the government of an importing country) may apply the anti-dumping measure after an in-depth investigation has established beyond any doubt that the product is actually being dumped in that country. This measure is also important because sales of the dumped product result in losses to the domestic or local industry producing a like product. What is the name of this agreement? Agreement on Implementation of Article VI [i.e. 6] of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 As tariffs have been reduced over time under the original GATT Agreement, anti-dumping duties have been increasingly imposed and the inadequacy of Article VI to regulate their introduction has become increasingly evident. For example, Article VI requires a determination of material injury, but does not provide guidance on the criteria for determining whether such injury exists and deals with the method of determining dumping only in the most general way. As a result, the GATT PARTIES have negotiated more detailed anti-dumping codes. The first of these codes, the Convention on Anti-Dumping Practices, entered into force in 1967 following the Kennedy Round. However, the United States never signed the Kennedy Round Code and, as a result, the code had little practical significance. The Tokyo Round Code, which came into effect in 1980, represented a leap forward. In terms of content, it contained much more evidence for the determination of dumping and injury than Article VI. Equally important, it essentially sets out certain procedural and procedural requirements that must be met when conducting investigations.

Nevertheless, the Code represented nothing more than a general framework that countries had to follow when conducting investigations and imposing tariffs. It was also characterized by ambiguities on many contentious issues and was limited by the fact that only the 27 Contracting Parties to the Code were bound by its requirements. Disputes in the area of anti-dumping measures are subject to binding dispute settlement before the WTO Dispute Settlement Body in accordance with the provisions of the Dispute Settlement Agreement (DSU) (Article 17). Members may challenge the imposition of anti-dumping measures, in some cases challenge the imposition of provisional anti-dumping measures, and raise all issues of compliance with the requirements of the Agreement before a panel established under the DSU. In disputes under the Anti-Dumping Agreement, a specific review standard applies to a panel review of the decision of the national authorities imposing the measure. The standard provides for a certain degree of consideration for national authorities in establishing facts and interpreting the law and aims to prevent dispute settlement bodies from taking decisions based solely on their own opinions. .