GAO Concludes AD/CVD Process Insures Accuracy and Transparency
The antidumping and countervailing duty processes insure that proceedings are accurate and based on complete information, a Government Accountability Office report found. The report, released Jan. 9, was commissioned at the request of Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in order to examine concerns that domestic companies may sometimes file petitions without merit to obstruct domestic market competition, the GAO said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
The report found that "some features of the AD/CVD process design function as internal controls that may lessen the risk of the agencies initiating or conducting an investigation with inaccurate or incomplete information." Both the Commerce Department and the International Trade Commission were found to communicate the informational requirements of the process adequately through public guidance and counseling parties prior to petitions. The transparency of case information and required rationale for agency determinations further ensure that the process is open and accurate, the GAO said.
One potential shortcoming found in the GAO report was that AD/CVD law contains no provision for the ITC to consider potentially negative economic effects of AD/CV duties on downstream purchasers and consumers when determining injury. The agency said it may solicit downstream information to analyze competitive conditions in the domestic market, which plays a role in helping the agency determine whether the cause of injury.
ITC officials said that injury determination focuses exclusively on injury to domestic producers even though the agency solicits public comments from stakeholders across the economic sphere. WTO agreements permit member states to widely consider public interest when adopting safeguard measures. However, the government has consistently opposed the integration of mandatory public interest tests into AD/CVD decision making. These tests could "politicize the use of AD/CVD measures" said Commerce officials, adding that "political considerations including consumer or downstream industry interests" should not factor into AD/CVD determinations.