A Study Of China’s Non-Market Economy In Antidumping Area

2016 is the fifteenth year since China’s accession to the WTO and the "non-market economy status" clause shall terminate as scheduled. The United States and European Union have always been excising anti-dumping measures against China in accordance with the "non-market economy status" clause. While determining the normal value of products, the US and EU have been using a comparable price of the like product in a market economy country instead of China’s cost and price, regarding China as non-market economy country, which does harm to China’s industry. As expiration of the transition period, whether China shall be treated as market economy, how to determine the normal value of products from china in anti-dumping investigations and whether comparable price of the like product in a market economy country or in a third country shall be used against China, and ways of remedies, will be discussed in this article.There are some studies in this area, however few focus on the studies after China acquires market economy status. Market economy of China is not equal to the abandon of anti-dumping investigation and no more application of comparable price of a third market economy country while determining normal value.First, we discussed the constitutive requirements of China’s market economy status and the relation between surrogate price in the anti-dumping practice of EU and the US and comparable price of a third country. The acquisition of market economy status doesn’t mean the no more allocation of comparable price of a third market economy country while determining normal value.Second, Relating WTO rules of the English version (effective version) are analyzed and combined with the analysis of DSB for relating NME clauses. The analysis of articles of China’s accession protocol in DS397 and the explanation of "particular market situation" "ordinary course of trade" in DS337 and DS184 of DSB are also analyzed. From my point of view, the special non-market economy clause shall be terminated as expected, but the price of a third country can also be used in accordance with article 2.2 of Anti-dumping agreement. The "particular market situation" can also be an excuse of the application of price of a third country.At last, based on the forgoing analysis, I suggest China should apply for article explanations of the authority by and ask for limitation of "particular market situation". Furthermore, China should cause the engagement of bilateral trade agreement, and exclude the application of the price of a third country. However, if the US and EU still excise the price of a third country against China by any reason, China should ask DSB for settlement more actively, and push them modify their laws or adjust their anti-dumping measures...