Trade Remedies

É possível a identificação de algumas semelhanças entre a política concorrencial e a política de defesa comercial. Entretanto, o presente estudo denotará que seus objetivos, regras e métodos de análise são distintos. Há uma diferença que emerge da própria concepção destas políticas. Nesse contexto, o diálogo entre elas passa a ser necessário quando os efeitos das decisões no âmbito da defesa da concorrência ou no âmbito do direito do comércio internacional (i.e. defesa comercial) atingem ambas as políticas.

Neste artigo, a professora Juliana Domingues (FDRP/USP), advoga pela participação do Cade na Camex como forma de melhorar o diálogo entre as duas políticas públicas. Entende a autora que defesa comercial e defesa da concorrência são complementares e interdependentes e que sua interação já ocorre no mercado. Portanto, negligenciar essa interação pode resultar na definição pelos agentes públicos de diretrizes equivocadas.

The ongoing plurilateral WTO Environmental Goods Agreement negotiations reflect the two defining dynamics that affect global environmental and trade governance. First of all, the rising trade remedies against environmental goods increased the cost of pursuing green growth for countries. Secondly, the looming fragmentation caused by mega-regionalism, such as the Trans-Pacific- Partnership, and its trade diversion effects might disincentivize developing countries from pursuing environmentally-friendly growth in order to obtain market access. Current negotiations for a plurilateral approach reflect the efforts of multilateral systems to confront these challenges through a reform of the rules of global trade architecture, thereby paving the way for further green
growth. That’s why this paper is divided into three sections. The first one analyzes the trade remedies targeting environmental goods, and its consequences for global environmental governance. The second section analyses whether the current plurilateral approach can provide developing
countries with an alternative incentive for green growth to compensate the potential trade diversion of the Trans-Pacific-Partnership. The third part gives a brief overview of the progress of the ongoing negotiations.

Although Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty laws are similar in important respects to the unfair trade laws of Mexico’s NAFTA partners, the United States and Canada, there are significant procedural and substantive differences. In light of these differences, and given that Mexico is one of the WTO’s most frequent users of unfair trade laws (including at least 25 actions against United States producers in recent years), the subject warrants closer study and analysis by academics and practitioners alike. This article explores the subject of Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty laws in detail by discussing their origins and historical development; comparing them to their US and Canadian counterparts; and guiding the reader through the life-cycle of Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty cases. It also analyzes the various administrative and judicial review options, including NAFTA’s Chapter 19, along with relevant Mexican court, NAFTA binational panel and WTO Dispu...

Although Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty laws are similar in important respects to the unfair trade laws of Mexico’s NAFTA partners, the United States and Canada, there are significant procedural and substantive differences. In light of these differences, and given that Mexico is one of the WTO’s most frequent users of unfair trade laws (including at least 25 actions against United States producers in recent years), the subject warrants closer study and analysis by academics and practitioners alike. This article explores the subject of Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty laws in detail by discussing their origins and historical development; comparing them to their U.S. and Canadian counterparts; and guiding the reader through the life-cycle of Mexican antidumping and countervailing duty cases. It also analyzes the various administrative and judicial review options, including NAFTA’s Chapter 19, along with relevant Mexican court, NAFTA binational panel and WTO Dispute Settlement Body jurisprudence. (The article in slightly different form is Chapter 5 in Trade Remedies in North America (Kluwer Law Int’l, 2010).

Keywords: Mexico, international trade, antidumping, countervailing duty, trade remedies, NAFTA

Global trade liberalization, promoted by GATT/WTO, stimulated major world economies to extensively cut their average tariff levels through a number of bilateral and multilateral trade agreements. However, simultaneously with the reduction of tariffs and in order to protect their national interests in the changing global environment, member states adjusted their trade policies toward a more frequent application of trade remedies. In this paper, the authors empirically examined the actual imposition cases of trade remedies by Japan. The study results demonstrate that anti-dumping duties are the most frequently applied trade remedies administrated on intermediate products, primarily from developing countries (China, Republic of Korea, South Africa, Pakistan). However, the number of these measures actually imposed by Japan is not comparable with the frequency of similar measures initiated against Japanese exporters abroad. Actual imposition cases of countervailing duties and safeguards remain low, nevertheless Japan shows concerns regarding the upward rising trend of safeguards in the world. The study conducted envisages a more frequent application of trade remedies by Japan due to the gradual increase in imports of manufactured goods from developing countries. The imports from the respective countries is expected to further expand in the context of a new strategic approach to emerging economies aiming at building new extensive networks of regional trade agreements as stipulated by the Strategy of the Global Outreach drafted by the Japanese government.

There is no question that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) greatly enhanced trade among the United States, Canada and Mexico. Still, despite the Agreement’s title, a sizeable portion of trade between the three countries is not ‘free’ at all. Likewise, notwithstanding successive multilateral trade deals and dozens of bilateral free trade agreements concluded individually by the NAFTA countries with other countries, a great deal of trade between the NAFTA countries and non-NAFTA countries remains subject to various restrictions. These restrictions include trade remedies, i.e. antidumping duties, countervailing duties, and safeguards.

The aim of this timely book is to bring together in a single detailed work the law and practice of trade remedies in all three NAFTA countries, including the role of legal and economic analysis in trade remedy determinations, in light of the relevant international trade rules at the bilateral, NAFTA and WTO levels and their economic and political underpinnings.

‘This treatise is without doubt the most comprehensive and well written on the subject... a tour de force that sets a new high-water mark in published works on the topic. Three Cheers for Trade Remedies in North America!’ – Rajeev Sharma, Bayer Inc./York University

‘This publication fills a void... superlative’. – Anthony Eyton, former Chairman of the Canadian International Trade Tribunal