A Case Study Of EC-Fasteners(China) On The EU Anti-dumping System Of "Individual Treatment"

After 7 years,China won the case of China VS EU about the anti-dumping duties on steel fasteners.At the time when the expiration of the transitional term stipulated in the China's WTO Accession Protocol,the experts and scholars from China and abroad and Chinese exporters have already done a lot of works about whether the results of the case can promote the WTO Members to recognize China's Market-Economy Status or not.But the question of Non-Market Economy Status is only the breakthrough point of the case rather than the controversial point,which should be the Individual Treatment stipulated by the Article 9(5)of the EU Basic Anti-Dumping Rules.This article uses the case study method,bases on the Panel and the Appellate Body Reports and combines with hermeneutics and literature research methods to analyze the Individual Treatment.This article draws three conclusions by discussing the relationship between Market Economy Treatment test and Individual Treatment test,the relationship between dumping margins and anti-dumping duties and whether the Article 9(5)violates the Article 6.10 and Article 9.2 of the Anti-dumping Agreement.Firstly,the exception stipulated by the Article 15 of the Protocol only involves the determination of normal value during the Market Economy Treatment test but does not authorize the WTO Members to require the Chinese exporters to must accept the Individual Treatment test.Secondly,determining an individual margin of dumping for each known exporter or producer concerned of the product under investigation stipulated by the Article 6.10 is the obligation rather than the preference of the authorities and using the samples is not the only exception but other exceptions must be specified by WTO Covered Agreements.Levying the One Country One Duty because the exporters are from the Non-Market Economy is not allowed according to Article 9.2.The Article 9(5)not only is about the anti-dumping duties but also concerns the dumping margins.And calculating a single dumping margin for all the exporters because the supply country is regarded as an "exporter" violates the operation rule of the Article 9(5).So levying the One Country One Duty on the exporters or producers because they cannot meet the criteria listed in the Article 9(5)and cannot be proved that they are independent from the supply country violates the Article 6.10 and Article 9.2.Thirdly,the existing Article 9(5),which was revised after the case,is only another expression and does not change the nature of the Individual Treatment.So the Chinese exporters can still use the successful experiences of the case when dealing with such lawsuits.