Anti dumping action differs from safe guard action in the sense that, a variety of a method is obtainable in the determination of dumped goods. This can involve the inspection of the cost of the goods in the manufacturer’s domestic market. If it is not possible to access through this means, then two other solutions could be obtained. These are the expense consumers are required to offer, and the estimate which is dependent on the total of the manufacturer’s assembly cost. The anti dumping actions could be placed only when the effect of the dumping is affecting the importing economy (Van den Bossche 2005).
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
This is why detailed analysis has to be carried out before the action of anti-dumping is taken. In the anti-dumping measure all key details pertaining to the economy are considered in relation to the business involved in scrutiny. When the analysis is carried out and the industry under review found wanting, then it will be recommended for the anti-dumping company to increase its price on the particular commodity, so it can be pardoned in facing the penalty of paying the antidumping fine. A variety of measures are put in place for the process of the anti- dumping action to be carried out, the way in which the process is carried out, the conditions that are in place to determine how the, disputed sides put forward their evidence is also a unique feature.
The time limit for the action to elapse is normally around five (5) years, after the placement of the action. However it could be extended if putting an end to it will further dampen the activities of the affected economy. The action can also be put to a halt if the findings reveal that the barrier in dumping is relatively less than the cost of obtaining the goods through importation. Certain limits are also to be met, which can be the termination of the process of questioning if the quantity of dumped products is insignificant (Paolo 2006).
Safe guard action on the other hand is applied when there is increase in the importation of goods and services. The industries that are affected can demand for a placement of the safe guard action, through their national governments. Safe guard actions have a stipulated requirement that is endorsed by the world trade organization (WTO). The guidelines are placed around the issue of transparency, with the culture of preventing illogical procedures. The bodies concerned are to declare information openly to the general society when there is any case of unfair practice. They are also required to present tangible outcomes on the situation at hand.
Safe guard action only rescues harsh decline in the possession of the goods of the domestic country, by enabling the company or industry to get back to its feet. In the case of substantial orders on safe guard measures amount of goods into a particular economy do not get decreased. In normal routine safe guard actions cannot be pointed at the direction of goods from a particular economy. Theoretically, anti dumping with safe guard action are connected to the principle of fair trade. The aim of these actions is to protect various markets, from the practice of unfair trade activities. Anti- dumping action is a trade corrective measure (Fabio 2002).
Another aim of the measure can also be viewed as a means to make up the harmful consequence of global price intolerance. The action does not take the form of a tax pay say, they are directly placed on an ailing industry suspected to be engaged in dumping or unfair trade practices. Safeguard action which is another protective measure of economies, is put in place when there seems to be increased goods and services, into a particular market thereby affecting the domestic country. The action is placed on all goods and services found to be hindering the growth of the domestic industries. It is not specific as it will be enforced no matter where the origin of the goods and services are from (Eggert 2007).
This is a unique characteristic, which establishes safeguard action from the anti-dumping action. The world trade organization has set aside some basic principles of trade which two agreements such as the safe guard action and the anti-dumping action are a key ingredient of promoting free and fair trade. Looking on at why they are different in aspect and consequence, we see that the anti-dumping actions are carried out normally when trade seems to be less profitable for the domestic country, where as safe guard actions are put in place when business is profitable for the domestic country.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
The Safeguard action can also be referred to as a crisis measure, which is when the impact is very alarming. Significantly if a safeguard action is not lifted, some entitlements are to be given to the, countries hindered from carrying out their business. This normally happens when the period gets to a couple of years and over.
Safeguard actions are requested, but the issue of anti-dumping is almost automatic. It is always necessary for full proof evidence, before a safe guard application is allowed to pass through the registration process. There is always one source of interrogation, since in an anti-dumping dispute you can have only a single place to carry out investigation on the problem. Safe guard actions can be taken even if, sometimes the affected industry in question does not request for its application, the government of the domestic country will be able to take action (Europa 2009).
Eggert, J 2007 ‘Observations of the EU anti-dumping regulation FTA position for the expert meeting’, Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 3, no. 18, pp. 904-14.
Europa 2009, Tackling unfair trade. Web.
Fabio, S 2002 ‘Discriminatory safeguards in the light of the Admission of the People’s Republic of China to the World Trade Organization’ Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 421-43.
Paolo, F 2006 ‘Five years of China’s WTO membership. EU and US perspectives about China’s compliance with transparency commitments and the transitional review mechanism, legal issues of economic integration’, Kluwer Law International, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 263-304.
Van den Bossche, P 2005, The law and policy of the world trade organization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.