Antidumping and International Price Discrimination

Antidumping and International Price Discrimination

Introduction

Among all the members of the WTO (World Trade Organization) Canada is commonly viewed as one of the open members of the organization. According to the WTO's trade policy review, in Canada, “trade regime is amongst the world's most transparent and liberal”. Yet, in such a transparent ambience, policy makers in Canada regularly come under influence of protectionist from domestic industries that hinder their ability to remain compliant with principals of WTO to make the country trade practices remain liberal and transparent. WTO has also extended some exceptions as trade remedy practices in the member countries. One of such permitted exception is antidumping regulations under certain situations. As the trade process evolved, the same antidumping laws become more intricate which paved way for price discrimination in which even the policy makers are involved.

Thesis Statement

International Price Discriminations provides grounds for imposing laws to forbid dumping. The essay will discussion various rationales provided for the justification of antidumping in the presence of International Price Discrimination while studying the nature of price discriminations in Canada.

Historical Perspective

Canada amended its Customs Tariff in a1904 ato aprovide afor aantidumping aduties, aand ain aso adoing abecame athe afirst acountry ain athe aworld ato aestablish aan aantidumping aregime. aThe acurrent alegislation ais aset aout ain athe aSpecial aImport aMeasures aAct a(the aSIMA). aThe afirst aspecific aU.S. aantidumping astatute, awhich ais astill ain aforce, ais aknown aas athe aAntidumping aAct aof a1916. aThis astatute acondemns athe asystematic asale aof agoods ain athe aUnited aStates a"at aa aprice asubstantially aless athan athe aactual amarket avalue aor awholesale aprice aof asuch aarticles" ain athe acountry aof aorigin aof athe agoods. aThe astatute aimposes acriminal apenalties aand atreble adamages, aand arequires aproof aof aintent ato amonopolize aor ato ainjure aa aU.S. aindustry. aBecause aof athe aonerous apredatory aintent arequirement, athere ahas anot ayet abeen aeither aa asuccessful aprosecution aor aa acivil ajudgment aunder athe aAntidumping aAct aof a1916. aThe aU.S. aCongress aenacted athe aAntidumping aAct aof a1921 ato aprovide acomplainants awith aa agreater ascope afor arelief athan athe a1916 aAct. aThe acurrent aU.S. alegislation ais aembodied ain aTitle aVII aof athe aTariff aAct aof a1930.

The aimposition aof aantidumping aduties aon aimports ais acontemplated aby aArticle aVI aof athe aGATT. aBoth aCanada aand athe aUnited aStates aare asignatories ato athe aRevised aGATT aAntidumping aCode a(the aGATT aCode) awhich aresulted afrom athe aTokyo aRound aof amultilateral atrade anegotiations. aBoth acountries aimpose aantidumping aduties aon aimports awhen ait ais aestablished athat, afirst, athose aimported agoods aare abeing a"dumped," aand asecond, athat athe adumping acauses amaterial ainjury ato adomestic aproducers aof alike agoods. aThis ais arequired aby athe apreamble ato athe aGATT aCoded aas awell aas aby aArticle aVI aof athe aGATT aitself. aThe ainstitutional aresponsibilities afor adetermining a"dumping" aand a"material ainjury" aare aseparated. a"Dumping" adeterminations aare amade aby athe aDeputy aMinister aof aNational aRevenue afor aCustoms aand aExcise a(DMNR) ain aCanada aand aby athe aInternational aTrade aAdministration aof athe aDepartment aof aCommerce a(ITA) ain athe aUnited ...