|
[17] Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C § 1673c(a)(2)
[18] Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C § 1673c(e)
[19] Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(i)(I)
[20] Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C § 1673d(c)(1)(B)(i)(II) and Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C § 1673d(c)(5)
[21] Joseph A. Laroski, Jr., A Love Story Nonmarket and Market Economy Status under U.S. Anti-dumping law, 30 Law & Policy in International Business, at 376 (1999)
[22] Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR at 20588; Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR at 22585; Carbon Steel from Ukraine, 62 FD at 61757; Disposable Pocket Lighters from the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR at 22359 and 22361; Bicycles from the People’s Republic of China, 61 FR at 19026 and 19027; etc.
[23] 19 CFR § 351.107(c)(iii)(d)
[24] Sparklers from the People’s Republic of China, 56 FR at 20588; Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR at 22585
[25] Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, 62 FR at 61757; Memorandum from Roland L. MacDonald, Executive Director, Office VII, to Joseph A. Spetrini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for AD/CVD Enforcement Group III, U.S. Department of Commerce, regarding Separate Rates in the Antidumping Duty Investigation on Cut-to-Length Carbon Steel Plate from Ukraine, at 1, June 3, 1997
[26] Disposable Pocket Lighters from the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR at 22359 and 22361; Bicycles from the People’s Republic of China, 61 FR at 19026 and 19027
[27] Silicon Carbide from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR at 22587; Sebacie Acid from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR at 28053; Certain Paper Clips from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR at 51168; Coumarin from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR at 66895; Saccharin from the People’s Republic of China, 59 FR at 58818; Honey from the People’s Republic of China, 60 FR at 14725
[28] Ringbinder Mechanisms, O.J. 1996 L.187/51
[29] US-China WTO Market Access Agreement, Section III: Protocol Commitments, Price Comparability In Determining Dumping and Subsidization, 参见：http://www.uschina.org/public/wto/market/227-237.pdf
[Abstract]: In recent years, our exporters and producers lost most of the antidumping proceedings in US. The reasons here are various and complicated. But the non-market economy treatment under the US antidumping law is surely a key one. Thus, it’s essential to make a research on the non-market economy rules of antidumping legislation and practice of US. Section one of this article delineate the point at which the Department of Commerce will determine that whether a country is a non-market economy country or not under U.S. antidumping law through an analysis of the petitions for market economy treatment made by Poland and Ukraine. In section two, we analyze the non-market economy antidumping rules such as the valuation of factors of production method, market oriented industry test, volume restriction agreement, one country one duty, and separate rates test. Finally, the article points out the rules applicable to us under US antidumping law will remain unchanged in a long period according to US-China WTO Market Access Agreement. Notwithstanding, we should try to find the better countermeasures as possible as we can.
|
