Research On The Path To React To NME Methodology In US Antidumping Practice Against China

Since China’s accession to the World Trade Organization(WTO), especially after the economic crisis in 2008, it has been more and more obvious that the trade protectionism is embodied in the U.S. antidumping practice against China using what is called nonmarket economy(NME) methodology. According to the present situation, the U.S. authorities continue to treat China as an NME country, being absent on the transition of Chinese market economy system and regardless of relevant rules of the WTO on purpose. Under the NME rules, China runs into enormous difficulties and obstacles when reacting to the U.S. antidumping investigation. The author conducts the research on the background stated as above and aims to solve the vitally important questions as follows: whether China can count on the efforts that the Chinese export industries make to get rid of all the discriminated treatments in U.S. antidumping; whether there are proper actions that Chinese government shall make to help reversing the fact that the U.S. authorities’ illegal discrimination against Chinese imports in antidumping proceedings; and whether the expiration of China’s NME exception in 2016 has the potential to solve all inflame tensions today if all the WTO members including the United States choose to respond with a more reasonable policy.Specifically, starting with the analysis based on the development history of U.S. antidumping law and NME rules, this research unfolds the analysis of these questions in the perspectives of Chinese export industries and the Chinese government. Combined with the empirical study of a typical antidumping case brought up by U.S. towards China, along with the references from both domestic and overseas scholars’ opinions, the author assumes that the genuine and complete U.S. compliance with WTO antidumping rules is unlikely. On that basis, the author puts forward some suggestions for dealing with the existing NME methodology and further thinking on the expiration of China’s NME exception.The first chapter starts with the analysis of the legitimacy of U.S. NME rules against China. From the introduction of the development of the U.S. antidumping rules, the discriminated treatments of the U.S. authorities towards China will be emphasized to underline the fact that although the U.S. antidumping rules have achieved to the consistence with the antidumping rules of WTO in form, NME rules run counter to the international antidumping rules in essence, which is rooted in the U.S. trade protectionism. The reasonable suspicious of the expiration of China’s NME exception in 2016 is arisen from this background.The second chapter analyzes the obstacles existing under the current NME rules and the difficulties China may meet in the future. The first part of this chapter unfolds with a typical antidumping case brought up by the U.S. Department of Commerce. With the empirical analysis of this case, China’s treatment in practice shows that there are unconquerable obstacles for Chinese exporters to fight for a fair antidumping investigation under the NME rules. To reverse this situation, the fundamental problem—China’s NME status must be solved once for all. The second part focuses on the current path that Chinese government is seeking from WTO, and analyzes the achievements China acquires to face up to the limitations on this path.The third chapter puts forward some suggestions for dealing with the existing NME methodology and further thinking on the expiration of China’s NME exception. It divides into two parts. First, under the existing NME rules, the most effective way for China is turning to U.S. domestic judicial remedy for help after an antidumping investigation. Second, in order to obtain the expiration of China’s NME exception in U.S., Chinese government should explore different ways in the perspective of the international law, which includes overcoming the limitations on the path that Chinese government is seeking from WTO; filling the loopholes of the NME issue in the WTO multilateral system to reduce the discriminatory factors; and fighting back in the antidumping practice against U.S initiatively to prepare for U.S. new rules of the “game”.