Dumping and antidumping regulations with specific reference to the legal framework in South Africa and China
| dc.contributor.advisor | Snyman-van Deventer, E. | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tao, Meng | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2015-11-10T11:03:58Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2015-11-10T11:03:58Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2006-05 | |
| dc.description.abstract | From 1904 the world’s first antidumping law was enacted by Canada, South Africa followed in 1914, the GATT in 1947, and China in 1994. Over time, antidumping law has become a potent weapon in most countries of the world. South Africa and China, as member states of the WTO, increasingly participate in international trade and must remain aware of their legal right in respect of antidumping law. The purpose of this study is to identify and analyse some problematic issues of antidumping regulations, with specific reference to the legal framework in South Africa and China. With this purpose in mind, firstly, the background information and a brief history of the development of antidumping legislations by the international community, South Africa and China are discussed. Then, the issues of antidumping substantive law (including normal value, export price, dumping margin, injury, and domestic industry), especially with the problem of a nonmarket economy country and captive production, price undertaking, price undertaking reviews, and anticircumvention are analysed. In order to come to a clear understanding of the problems and solutions, the antidumping laws of the U.S., the E.U., South Africa and China are compared. This study resulted in the following conclusions: • The provision for a nonmarket economy country in the South African Antidumping Regulation is not adequate. China has no stipulation about this problem. • Both South African and Chinese antidumping regulations have no captive production provisions. The E.U. model is recommended. • With respect to price undertaking, the South African Anti- dumping Regulation followed the stipulations of the WTO. The Chinese Antidumping Statute is only superficially compliant with the WTO Antidumping Agreement. • The South African Antidumping Regulation leaves a gap with regard to price undertaking reviews. China has definite provisions on it. • With respect to anticircumvention, both countries’ antidump- ing regulations are not adequate, especially for China. Recommendations are made with regard to South African and China’s antidumping laws. This research is hoped to contribute to the improvement of the legal framework of antidumping regulations in South Africa and China. | en_ZA |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11660/1542 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_ZA |
| dc.publisher | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Antidumping duties -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Antidumping duties -- China | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Dumping (International trade) -- Law and legislation -- South Africa | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Dumping (International trade) -- Law and legislation -- China | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Dissertation (LL.M. (Mercantile Law))--University of the Free State, 2006 | en_ZA |
| dc.title | Dumping and antidumping regulations with specific reference to the legal framework in South Africa and China | en_ZA |
| dc.type | Dissertation | en_ZA |