지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Korea has been an active member state in WTO dispute settlements system. However, it was the first time for Korea's Anti-dumping measure to be reviewed by panel. Indonesia filed a complaint against Korea claiming that the Anti-dumping duties on imports of certain paper from Indonesia were inconsistent with the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 ("Anti-Dumping Agreement").
Panel reviewed Indonesia' s arguments and resulted in findings which were summarized to 11 main issues. Korea won most of the issues: (ⅰ) Korea Trade Commission (hereinafter 'KTC')' s decision to disregards domestic sale information and to calculate normal values on the basis of facts available, (ⅱ) KTC' s use of constructed value to determine normal values, (ⅲ) KTC' s alleged failure to make a fair comparison between normal valued and export price, (ⅳ) KTC' s treatment of 3 companies as a single exporter, (ⅴ) KTC' s treatment of "Plain Paper Copier" and "Uncoated Wood-free Printing Paper" as like products, (ⅵ) alleged failure to abide by the Disclosure obligations contained in Article 6 of the Antidumping agreement.
However, the panel upheld Indonesia's claim partially, ruling that KTC acted inconsistently with WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in determining margin of dumping for on Indonesian exporter, in failing to apply "special circumvention" in use of secondary source information instead of domestic sales data from two Indonesian companies, and in failing to disclose how it calculated the constructed normal value. The Panel also agreed with Indonesia that the ITC erred in its assessment of the impact of dumping Indonesian paper imports on competing Korean producers.
From a legal perspective, this case has a significant implication. The panel reversed its own interim finding that the KTC had not violated its obligation to apply special circumvention when relying on secondary sources of information for determining normal value. Along with Indonesia' s request for change, the Panel decided to review and finally reversed its finding. It was remarkable because it was the first reversal by a panel of a major substantive finding in Its interim report. As Brendan McGivern, a trade expert attorney said, there has been "a widely shared assumption that a panel' s ruling at the interim review stage on the WTO-consistency of a measure was definitive and would not be reversed in the final report." The panel's decision may encourage future dispute parties to prepare more sophisticated submission and future panels to be more attentive to requests during the interim review to revise substantive finding.
Another issue to be considered is the panel' s conclusion on how to treat related parties. The KTC treated 3 different companies as a single exporter based on a reevaluation of the relationship between them. Noting that the Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement did not provide specific guidance, the panel looked into the Article 9.5 which deals with new shipper reviews. The panel noted that the investigating authority was not always required to make individual margin of dumping but if it didn't make determination individually, where should be shown justification. The panel upheld that the KTC was consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement because various factors such as existence of cross-sale of the subject products and commonality regarding shareholding and management showed that the companies were related. The panel's conclusion appears to be rationale and coherent with Article 4.1 (i) and foot note 11 which provides how to treat related exporters and importers in defining a domestic industry.
In addition, the panel found that the 'like product' of Article 2.6 does not apply to the injury determination in this case. The panel said that there is no requirement that the two different products under consideration in the injury determination must be like each other. Simply, the like product standards means that the group of imported products must be like the group of domestic products as found in 'United States-Final Dumping Determination of Softwood Lumber from Canada' case.
Looking for practical implication for the KTc' s practice, KTC needs to make an effort to explain fully its determination to companies under investigation because the panel did not point out problems of the KTC' s investigation method itself but its proper explanation and disclosure about its investigation. In spite of some lost issues, it should be mentioned that Korea won most of the major issues in this case. It means that the KTc' s practice is in the right direction but needs to make it more sophisticated.
Panel reviewed Indonesia' s arguments and resulted in findings which were summarized to 11 main issues. Korea won most of the issues: (ⅰ) Korea Trade Commission (hereinafter 'KTC')' s decision to disregards domestic sale information and to calculate normal values on the basis of facts available, (ⅱ) KTC' s use of constructed value to determine normal values, (ⅲ) KTC' s alleged failure to make a fair comparison between normal valued and export price, (ⅳ) KTC' s treatment of 3 companies as a single exporter, (ⅴ) KTC' s treatment of "Plain Paper Copier" and "Uncoated Wood-free Printing Paper" as like products, (ⅵ) alleged failure to abide by the Disclosure obligations contained in Article 6 of the Antidumping agreement.
However, the panel upheld Indonesia's claim partially, ruling that KTC acted inconsistently with WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement in determining margin of dumping for on Indonesian exporter, in failing to apply "special circumvention" in use of secondary source information instead of domestic sales data from two Indonesian companies, and in failing to disclose how it calculated the constructed normal value. The Panel also agreed with Indonesia that the ITC erred in its assessment of the impact of dumping Indonesian paper imports on competing Korean producers.
From a legal perspective, this case has a significant implication. The panel reversed its own interim finding that the KTC had not violated its obligation to apply special circumvention when relying on secondary sources of information for determining normal value. Along with Indonesia' s request for change, the Panel decided to review and finally reversed its finding. It was remarkable because it was the first reversal by a panel of a major substantive finding in Its interim report. As Brendan McGivern, a trade expert attorney said, there has been "a widely shared assumption that a panel' s ruling at the interim review stage on the WTO-consistency of a measure was definitive and would not be reversed in the final report." The panel's decision may encourage future dispute parties to prepare more sophisticated submission and future panels to be more attentive to requests during the interim review to revise substantive finding.
Another issue to be considered is the panel' s conclusion on how to treat related parties. The KTC treated 3 different companies as a single exporter based on a reevaluation of the relationship between them. Noting that the Article 6.10 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement did not provide specific guidance, the panel looked into the Article 9.5 which deals with new shipper reviews. The panel noted that the investigating authority was not always required to make individual margin of dumping but if it didn't make determination individually, where should be shown justification. The panel upheld that the KTC was consistent with the Anti-Dumping Agreement because various factors such as existence of cross-sale of the subject products and commonality regarding shareholding and management showed that the companies were related. The panel's conclusion appears to be rationale and coherent with Article 4.1 (i) and foot note 11 which provides how to treat related exporters and importers in defining a domestic industry.
In addition, the panel found that the 'like product' of Article 2.6 does not apply to the injury determination in this case. The panel said that there is no requirement that the two different products under consideration in the injury determination must be like each other. Simply, the like product standards means that the group of imported products must be like the group of domestic products as found in 'United States-Final Dumping Determination of Softwood Lumber from Canada' case.
Looking for practical implication for the KTc' s practice, KTC needs to make an effort to explain fully its determination to companies under investigation because the panel did not point out problems of the KTC' s investigation method itself but its proper explanation and disclosure about its investigation. In spite of some lost issues, it should be mentioned that Korea won most of the major issues in this case. It means that the KTc' s practice is in the right direction but needs to make it more sophisticated.
목차
Ⅰ. 사건개관
Ⅱ. 실체적 쟁점 및 패널의 평결개관
Ⅲ. 주요 실체적 쟁점의 분석
Ⅳ. 평석 및 시사점
參考文獻
Abstract
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
1997년 한ㆍ미 D램 분쟁에 대한 WTO 패널보고서의 비판적 분석
국제경제법연구
2004 .12
-
A Note on Evidentiary Scope of Review in WTO Anti-Dumping Disputes
통상법률
2004 .12
-
관세행정법상 덤핑규제에 관한 節次法規의 개선방안
관세학회지
2005 .12
-
중국반덤핑제도와 WTO규정과의 부합성
경영법률
2007 .01
-
WTO 반덤핑협정 제2.4.2조에 의거한 네거티브 덤핑마진 산정 방식(“제로잉”)의 법적 문제
무역상무연구
2008 .05
-
반덤핑협정의 문제점 및 개정방향-WTO체제적 접근
법학논집
2003 .01
-
Current Status of Anti-Dumping Investigations: The Korean Perspective
[KIEP] KIEP Opinions
2016 .12
-
WTO 규범에 근거한 중국 반덤핑 법규의 비교 연구
관세학회지
2006 .12
-
A Study on Anti-Dumping Measures of China and Countermeasures of Korea
관세학회지
2005 .12
-
WTO반덤핑협정 제2조 제2항 제2호의 해석과 적용 : 한국과 미국 간 유정용강관 사건(DS488)에서 나타난 구성가격 관련 쟁점을 중심으로
국제경제법연구
2018 .11
-
중국의 불공정무역 조사제도 현황과 운용에 관한 연구
관세학회지
2010 .02
-
중국 반덤핑 사실과 절차에 관한 考察
무역상무연구
2006 .08
-
The Ambiguity and Incompleteness of the ADA, and the Necessity of Dumping Margin Modeling
관세학회지
2010 .08
-
WTO 반덤핑협정 상 표적덤핑에서의 제로잉에 대한 고찰: 최근 분쟁을 중심으로
통상법률
2020 .02
-
중국산 도자기질 타일 반덤핑관세부과 사례에 관한 연구
무역상무연구
2009 .05
-
WTO체제하의 반덤핑 협상전략에 관한 연구
무역학회지
2003 .12
-
Analysis of China's Anti-Dumping System
통상법률
2006 .12
-
WTO 반덤핑협정에서의 표적덤핑과 ‘패턴’에 대한 고찰
국제법학회논총
2020 .06
-
중국의 반덤핑 규제요인에 관한 연구 : 한ㆍ중 양국간 산업경쟁력을 중심으로
무역학회지
2005 .04
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
한ㆍ인도간의 통상분쟁 현황과 사례 분석 : 인도의 반덤핑 관세정책을 중심으로
이종원
통상정보연구
2010
.09
DDA 규범협상의 반덤핑협정 관련 주요 쟁점
안민호
국제경제법연구
2009
.11
유럽연합(EU)의 對 한국 반덤핑 조치 분석 : 철강 부문 사례를 중심으로
김태황
무역학회지
2005
.12
WTO 반덤핑 관련 주요 분쟁사례 이해 (1)
이환규
,
김민진
국제경제법연구
2009
.05
미국의 반덤핑 및 상계관세 판정에서의 ‘불리한 이용가능한 사실’의 적용에 관한 연구 : 2015년 개정법을 중심으로
배연재
국제경제법연구
2016
.11
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2010-361-002576377