Journal -1 r %i-; i'ofl~e aid Applie'd F, wI j A I pi~t.I 21)J3


the legal pFredures for jsdiuL ILip.,1 trade dis-
I.'llen in the United States,

Brief Overview of the General Framework
for -Adjudirating Trade Diputes in the
United States

U-S- trade laws are intended to prc, cni unfair
trade practices by brleiLl firms by L-n.I.tlIAir
domestic producers to seek IIUie'rli.ii. lInin
imports that allgedl; iniure '[pk.ifit lirms or
industries,. Tli three main statues thal offlil
such protection are the "-afl'u.ir[L" provi-
sions of Sections 201-3 1I the Ir.ilrC Act of
IL)-74 the \" nllidlmpinlg,"Q provisions under
Section 7 1iia of the Tariff Act of l').1. arnd
the "Cl('uierl. iliii." Duty" provisions under
Section 701 ,'i the T.jnfi Act li 1I33t' Al-
thlough the airal tin. j[ procedures are somewhat
similar in these cases, the I'lmerLr IS.irLLjuarTL
provisions) iphokld, a hither injury standard
than the latter. An affirmative in a "-.it4-_'i,,iiijI
provisions" case requires that the domestic in-
dustry must be materially harmed and that the
injury is bs cause of dumped imports, 'This
Lilien. I'r in tihe iiiljir standard in inldlunlIp.-
ihi. and countervailing duty cases that require
"harm which is not inconsequential, immate-
rial or unimiiportant."' In JuiiiiillM1 ;pl; I and
LLiLunJILai 'aihng duty cases, the criteria can be
satisfied b% .implyl ~lI i ri|: that imponts have
resulted in a decline ir industry capacity.
Hiilwe'cr. in S.ifegu:.rd cases. the evidence
"rulJ have to show that there was actual clos-
ing of lrinn, or a decline in industry capacity,
in addition to other evidence of injury such as
Jeclinc- in prices. i 1iip r -' iernT, '.. es or
Lr!Llith or the .ibilii to raise capital for in-
vestment.
 1he iwo l.edrVLl agencies with mandates t'Lr
.JL.IitLIlliC; nai trade Jiputc, in the United
States are the ITC and the U.S. Department ,'I
Commerce I)t IK), Foll wir i ihec filing ,i, a
couinlcri ilinL duty or .ntidumpirit. petition

 Section 'iil provisions apply when subjhel im-
pjlrt are from a countrI ty py to the World Trade Or-
..rhnI,',i[I, ni ScCtlion 303 i, applied to iiin .i fruom
CoUtriesF not party to the 5..rld Irj.JI r )ri'.,itall n
 '19 U.S.C. 2252 i I'**l,
 *ld. .I,'" .


with both agencies, the investigation tIllti t
a broadly classified two-step process. First, the
DOC defines tlle .1iihjiL :utIirh.!ir Llhe to be in-
vestigated in the case and conducts its own
inI'ci-'.iViLtiIn to determine whether an unfair
trade practice occurred. For countervailing
duty cases, the DOC determines whether im-
ports received countervatiable subsidies i ImI
the :, L-ini.llllni r1 the country or any public
entity. In antidumping cases, the DOLC( deter-
mines whether the imported product was being
sold in the United itatetc at less than fair value
LTIV). The standard measure is to rirf'- com-
pare prices r.i< export to home market sales. It
export sales prices are less than home market
prices. then that -cl1 iiiol dumping on the
part of the e-iportei Home market sales are
excluded when jdtci iiniiii fair value when
the home market sales are below cost of pro-
duction over an extended period of time and
in -i1nllic iin quantities and are not at prices
that permit recovery ri all costs ithin a rea-
sonable period of time in the normal course il
trade If there are not sufficient home market
sales above cost ,0 production, then the DO )C
can turn to the third country (est. If the third
country test fails the standard ii sales above
cost il production, the fair value test becomes
constructed value, which assesses the cost of
prldutri,,n1 by iakini_ into account the cost Ilf
pi',.iicliion inputs. The determination tI
dumping margin in many a.JiiitIli.ii.il cases
lii;it onit the constructed value test.
 The second 'lep of the process involves the
ITC's inr.cii.tieti,,n to determine whether the
domestic industry is ni.iiiii.illy injured or
threatened with material injury by reason of
the tubjct.1 mercy handise as detemintmed I' the
H'i)" In ..iirt'ill, out this 'LIp. tihe I it is re-
quired to (a) 4Jtlne the domestic like product
to the imporicd priLJdu.1 and the scope II the
domestic industry and ih, subsequently deter-
mine whether iniury has been suffered by the
domestic industry,
 RIK .jitlliii point a. above. Section
771(4)(A) of the Thriff Act of I 4 i1, as amend-
ed, provides a;iimdl-lc by Ldillilng the ideli ant
industry as the "pi odtcer-, as a 1T lihile of a