Dumping and Antidumping in the United States: A Comprehensive Review of Key Issues release_eatuaj4sc5g2vmjhazp2qmqyge

by Anh Le Tran


NOTE: currently batch computed and may include additional references sources, or be missing recent changes, compared to entity reference list.
Fuzzy reference matching is a work in progress!
Read more about quality, completeness, and caveats in the fatcat guide.
Showing 1 - 27 of 27 references (in 84ms)

via grobid
Tariff-jumping antidumping duties
Bruce A Blonigen
2002   Journal of International Economics

via grobid
Evolving discretionary practices of U.S. antidumping activity
Bruce A. Blonigen
2006   Canadian Journal of Economics
web.archive.org [PDF]

via grobid
The Cost of Antidumping: the Devil is in the Details
Bruce Blonigen, Thomas Prusa
2003   Journal of Policy Reform
web.archive.org [PDF]

via grobid
Feinberg, R. (2003). Exchange rates and U.S. antidumping petitions revisited: Does Commerce matter? Mimeo.

via grobid
Exchange Rates and "Unfair Trade"
Robert M. Feinberg
1989   Review of Economics and Statistics

via grobid
Feketekuty, G. & Stokes B. (Eds.). (1998). Trade strategies for a new era. New York: The Council on Foreign Relations.

via grobid
Finger, M. (1993). Antidumping: How it works and who gets hurt. Ann Arbor:University of Michigan Press.

via grobid
Welfare costs of the U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws
Michael P. Gallaway, Bruce A. Blonigen, Joseph E. Flynn
1999   Journal of International Economics
web.archive.org [PDF]

via grobid
ITC. (1995). The economic effects of antidumping and countervailing duty orders and suspension agreements. Washington, DC: United States International Trade Commission.

via grobid
Jackson, J. (2000). The World Trading System. Cambridge: MIT Press.

via grobid
Jackson, J., Davey, W., & Sykes, A. (1995). Legal problems of international economic relations. Saint Paul: West Publishing Company.

via grobid
Jackson, J., & Vermulst, E. (Eds.). (1989). Antidumping law and practice. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

via fuzzy
Macroeconomic Factors and Antidumping Filings: Evidence from Four Countries [report]
Michael Knetter, Thomas Prusa
2000    unpublished
web.archive.org [PDF]

via grobid
Krueger, A. (Ed.). (1996). The Political Economy of American Trade Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

via grobid
ITC voting behavior on sunset reviews
Benjamin H. Liebman
2004   Review of World Economics
web.archive.org [PDF]

via grobid
Lindsey, B. (1999). The U.S. antidumping law: Rhetoric versus reality. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. [Online] Available: http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3650

via grobid
Lindsey, B., & Ikenson, D. (2003). Antidumping Exposed: The Devilish Details of Unfair Trade Law. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.

via grobid
Mastel, G. (1998). Antidumping Laws and the U.S. Economy. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.

via grobid
Miranda, J. (1996). Should Antidumping Laws Be Dumped? Law and Policy in International Business, 28(1), 255-288.

via grobid
Moore, M. (2002). Commerce department antidumping sunset reviews: A major disappointment. [Online] Available: http://www.uoregon.edu/~bruceb/moore_sunset.pdf

via grobid
Sykes, A. (1999). International Trade. Available: http://encyclo.findlaw.com/5910book.pdf

via grobid
Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States
Robert W. Staiger, Frank A. Wolak, Robert E. Litan, Michael L. Katz, Leonard Waverman
1994   Brookings Papers on Economic Activity Microeconomics

via grobid
Steele, K. (Ed.). (1996). Anti-Dumping Under the WTO: A Comparative Study. London: Kluwer Law International Ltd.

via grobid
Tharakan, P. (Ed.). (1991). Policy Implications of Antidumping Measures. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. Notes Note 1. The law requires that for antidumping duties to be levied against foreign producers/exporters, two conditions must be met: (1) the DOC must find dumping and (2) the ITC must determine that this dumping has caused (or threaten to cause) material injury on the domestic producers.

via grobid
Note 2. See the United States Code, Title 15, Section 72 (15 USC 72).

via grobid
Note 3. For detailed and official definitions of these terms, see the Import Administration Antidumping Manual available at: http://ia.ita.doc.gov/admanual/ Note 4. Under the weak-201 approach, which is similar to the approach used to determine material injury in section-201 cases but at a much less stringent standard, the ITC will rule affirmative if (a) the domestic industry is in poor health (the material injury test) and (b) if this declining in health is due to, among other things, the significant presence of imports (the cause test).

via grobid
The trend analysis approach is similar to the weak-201 approach, it also first seeks to determine material injury to the domestic industry and then seeks to connect this injury to imports. However, in the trend analysis, there is explicit effort to directly link the trends caused by imports to injury. Among these trends include import penetration, decrease in import prices, increase in import market share, decrease in domestic sales, etc. The margins analysis directly measures the effect of dumping on material injury. In so doing, it seeks to compare the dumping margin (the difference between exporter's home market price and exporter's export price) and the underselling margin (the difference between the U.S. domestic price and the import price in the U.S. market). If the dumping margin (e.g., $10) is bigger than the underselling margin (e.g., $5), then dumping does indeed cause material injury, because if there were no dumping, the import price would have been $5 more expensive than the domestic price. Since the $10 dumping margin makes the import price become less expensive than the domestic