Edwin Vermulst and Connie Yang published an article on EU anti-circumvention law and practice in TDI proceedings in 23:1 Journal of International Economic Law. The article gives an overview of the EU’s anti-circumvention law and case law with special emphasis on the many EU AC cases there have been against Chinese producers / exporters during the past 20 years. Chinese producers / exporters are the main target of these cases, with the EU itself being one of the leaders in conducting anti-circumvention investigations worldwide. A copy of the article is attached.
The 11:5 issue of the Global Trade and Customs Journal features the contribution of Edwin Vermulst, Juhi Dion Sud and Professor Simon Evenett to the China MES debate. Titled “Normal Value in Anti-Dumping Proceedings against China Post-2016: Are Some Animals Less Equal Than Others?”, the article argues that from 12 December 2016, WTO Members can no longer use the analogue country or similar methodologies as the basis for normal value calculations in anti-dumping proceedings targeting China and should rather use Chinese domestic prices or costs. However, contrary to what some would like decision-makers to believe, this does not mean that the EU or other WTO Members will have no defense against genuine Chinese dumping practices. Other provisions in either the ADA or the SCM Agreement offer sufficient guarantees against that. Finally, the authors consider that the assessment of the manner in which the Commission has conducted MES reviews casts doubt on the quality of the evidentiary base used, on the apparent willingness to give some trading partners the benefit of the doubt but not to others, and on the utility of the review process as a lever to encourage reforms in transition economies, such as China.
Please read the second part of our blog post about individual fines for antitrust infringements: Administrative antitrust fines for individuals_ part 2
European Parliament Member Christopher Fjellner and VVGB partner Edwin Vermulst appeal for more transparency in EU TDI proceedings through adoption of an APO system in their recent GTCJ contribution “An APO System in EU Trade Defense Investigations: No Guts, No Glory”. The contribution is attached with thanks to Kluwer Law International.
There is a lot of concern about a mechanism in international treaties that allows private parties to challenge government meaures before ad hoc arbitral tribunals (‘ISDS’). In response to these concerns, EU officials and Members States are now suggesting that such treaty-based claims may be best handled by national courts. This is astonishing. For decades governments in the EU have been trying to block private appeals to international law in our courts. VVGB partner Marco Bronckers challenges this outburst of schizophrenia in a recent blog post: http://leidenlawblog.nl/articles/schizophrenia-in-the-eu-about-international-law
Please read our blog post about the Belgian elevators case (private enforcement of competition law): Case Note Elevators Case
Please read our blog post about individual fines for antitrust infringements: Administrative fines for individuals another antitrust case before the European Court of Human Rights
On 24 and 25 June 2014 Edwin Vermulst gave a presentation in Geneva together with Jorge Miranda on “The use of economics in trade remedy & subsidy disputes: double remedies; causality; adverse effects; hands-on discussion of leading cases: Cotton, AD & CVD, FIT case and other ALI reports” at the Dissettle Summer School on Economics in WTO and Investor-State Dispute Settlement and participated in a round table discussion chaired by Joost Pauwelyn on “Best practices for the use of economics in WTO dispute settlement” with James Flett, Alexander Keck, Jorge Miranda and Jan Woznowski.
Together with Rutgers University economics professor Tom Prusa, Edwin Vermulst recently published an article in 13:2 World Trade Review, 229-266, on the WTO case China Countervailing and Anti-dumping Duties on Grain Oriented Flat-rolled Electrical Steel from the United States: exporting US AD/CVD methodologies through WTO dispute settlement?. In July 2009 Chinese steel producers of grain oriented electrical steel filed anti-dumping (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) cases against US and Russian producers. The US challenged the duties subsequently imposed by China in the WTO for a variety of reasons, many of which involved perceived deficiencies in the producers’ application to China’s investigating authority. The US also challenged certain aspects of MOFCOM’s injury analysis. While the Panel and Appellate Body ruled in favour of the US on most issues, we argue that China may well emerge as the ‘winner’ in this dispute as this case establishes important standards for allegations and evidence in applications, standards that other countries (including the US) likely have failed to meet when they have imposed AD and CVD orders on the largest target country, China.
VVGB Partner Marco Slotboom was quoted in an article of the Wall Street Journal on the recent announcement of the merger between Lafarge and Holcim. The article can be found here: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304819004579485390885542018?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304819004579485390885542018.html