Anti-Dumping Duties Appeal: Orca Eventyr Kayaks, Inc. vs. U.S. Department of Commerce
Introduction
Orca Eventyr Kayaks, Inc. is a Norwegian producer of luxury glass bottom kayaks. Those kayaks were imported into the United States and were the “subject imports” in the proceeding. Orca Eventyr Kayaks, Inc. is the appellant in this court.
On March 19, 2022, P.N.W. Kayaks, Inc. filed petitions to impose antidumping duties on the relevant imports under 19 U.S.C. 1673-1673h. The U.S. Department of Commerce eventually wrongfully agreed with PNW Kayaks, Inc. that the subject imports were being sold in the United States at less than its fair value.
In fulfilling its role in the statutory imposition of duties, the International Trade Commission (referred to herein as the “Commission”) improperly and incorrectly determined that the arrival of glass-bottomed kayaks from Norway, which are sold in the USA at below fair value, had a significant impact on the US outdoor recreation industry. Orca Eventyr Kayaks, Inc. (referred to as “OEC” in this brief) now respectfully appeals the Commission’s determination to the United States Court of International Trade.
Regarding this case, OEC contends that the Commission failed to establish the causal link between the allegedly unfairly priced kayaks and any alleged weakened state of the American outdoor recreation industry. Nor has the Commission identified that the market has been “materially injured because of” the imported kayaks.
Rule
Trade protection and export control/sanctions measures are two significant international trade sectors at the home level. Trade defense measures are instruments governments use to take corrective action against imported goods that seriously harm domestic industries due to unfair foreign prices or foreign government subsidies (Chang and Raza 1). An example of a trade remedy is the anti-dumping duties imposed by the International Trade Commission in response to dumping. This happens when a foreign company sells its products in the US or Europe at a price below what it would sell in its “home” market, harming the industry.
Congress has directed the federal government to impose anti-dumping duties on “foreign goods” that may be sold at less than fair value in the United States. 19 U.S.C. § 1673(1). Congress also directed the government to impose countervailing duties on “goods sold (or likely to be sold) for import or import under certain circumstances.” In contrast, “the central government or domestic government agencies provide subsidies, directly or indirectly, to discourage the production, manufacture, or export of these commodities.” Id. § 1671(a)(1) (Ginsburg 1). Requirement trade determines whether subsidies for unfair prices or anti-dumping tariffs “are or may be sold in the United States for less than their fair value,” the report said. § 1673d(a)(1); see also “ID.” § 1673(1).
Analysis
However, it can be concluded that the OEC companies did not violate the anti-dumping laws because they only violated this law when they caused damage to US companies. Norwegian firms’ pricing did not impact other competitors, as market conditions allowed all firms to increase sales. It is worth mentioning that the company worked to its detriment not to raise prices to be uncompetitive. It had no choice but to set the price below the cost of production and delivery.
Conclusion
Domestic producers of goods initiate anti-dumping investigations aiming that dumped imports of similar foreign-made goods harm domestic producers. To apply anti-dumping measures, it is necessary to prove the fact of dumping and the injury suffered by domestic producers of raw materials (Miller 291). To prove dumping, the ministry calculates the dumping margin, which is the difference between the average cost of goods (usually the price of goods in the country of origin) and the export price (Zheng et al. 3). The amount of dumped imports, the effect of dumped imports on the pricing of comparable items in the domestic market, and the subsequent effect of these imports on domestic manufacturers of similar goods are all evaluated to find the damage facts.
Anti-dumping proceedings are a synthesis of law, economics, and diplomacy. First and foremost, consider the activity of diplomats and economists during the probe. The imposition of anti-dumping measures and the mere commencement of an anti-dumping inquiry against goods from another country immediately impact bilateral trade ties between these countries.
In most circumstances, negotiations are the best approach to resolve a problem, and the anti-dumping inquiry is no exception. It is important to emphasize that such conversation between diplomats is one of the legal safeguards. As previously stated, as parties to the inquiry, the relevant authorities of the nation against whose manufacturers an investigation has been begun may intervene. As a result, they are entitled to all the benefits of such status, such as participation in public hearings and discussions with the opposing party or the responsible authorities.
To estimate the impact of dumped imports, relevant domestic production sector circumstances are analyzed, including examining all relevant economic aspects and indicators. The fact of harm can also be recognized as fear of harm. The participants in the anti-dumping investigation are domestic producers, petitioners, foreign producers, and exporters, who, in this case, are defendants (Zhu and Prusa 2). Relevant authorities in the foreign manufacturer’s country are often involved in the investigation, such as that country’s embassy in the United States, the foreign government itself, or the country’s competent authorities (such as the Trade and Defense Agency). Therefore, the OEC has not violated this law because it has not proven any harm to its competitors.
Works Cited
Chang, Yang-Ming, and Mian F. Raza. “Dumping, antidumping duties, and price undertakings.” Research in Economics 77.1 (2023): 131-151. Web.
Ginsburg, J. “Daimler AG V. Bauman.” Legal Research Tools from Casetext. 2014. Web.
Miller, Roger LeRoy. Business law today: The essentials. Cengagelearning, 2018.
Zheng, Shuxian, et al. “Impact of anti-dumping on global embodied air emissions: a complex network perspective.” Environmental Science and Pollution Research 30.19 (2023): 56844-56862. Web.
Zhu, Min, and Thomas J. Prusa. “The impact of preferential trade agreements on the duration of antidumping protection.” Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d’Ă©conomique (2023). Web.