The Double Relief Of Anti - Dumping And Countervailing In The Framework Of WTO

As remedies of international trade, anti-dumping investigation andcountervailing investigation both are difficult legal issues which havebeen disturbing Chinese exporters for many years. In2007, the UnitedStates imposed definitive anti-dumping duties and countervailing dutieson each of four products from China. Therefore, China filed a lawsuit toDSB Panel (WT/DS379). Although the Panel rejected China’s allegations,China won the lawsuit in the last proceedings of Appellate Body. As aresult, The case have provided precious experience for Chinese companiesto face more anti-dumping investigations and countervailing investi-gations from other countries. This paper reviews details of the case,focuses on issues generated by the remedies, and does deep research onSurrogate Country criterion which is the root of double remedies.Furthermore, the paper comes up with some advices to deal with such issuesin the future. The paper is divided into five chapters:The first chapter sketches the details of the DS379case, gets clearof the legal issue from the case, and comes up with the topic of thepaper—double remedies.The second chapter mainly elaborates the theory of anti-dumpinginvestigation and countervailing investigation, and analyzed the notionof double remedies.The third chapter is the main-point of this article. This chapterfocuses on legal issues of double remedies, deeply analyzes sourceproblem----the Surrogate Country criterion. Then demonstrates the defectof the proceeding in anti-dumping investigation and countervailinginvestigation, pointing out that the government should assume the burdensof proof in the proceeding.The forth chapter elaborates the experiences of WT/DS379case forChinese exporters. Then this article analyzed the influence of Accessionof the People’s Republic of China, and made some recommendations to copewith similar cases which we will encounter in the future.Due to tight schedule, the literature of this thesis collected byauthor is not adequate. Some arguments in the article need to do deeperresearch.