I find the concept of “overcapacity” ridiculous. Does Germany have an overcapacity in cars? France one in wine? Sweden in heavy trucks? Italy in fashion? And don’t tell me that European food exports aren’t subsidized. https://t.co/Bl2yiF8hdg
Looking forward to speaking at the Strategic Alliance on WTO and Trade Remedies (SAWTR) Annual Summit in Riyadh this December and to insightful discussions on trade remedies and international law with industry leaders. #SAWTRSummit2024#WTO
Save the date! #TDI 2024 conference will take stock of EVs, FSR and multiple other topics regarding the practice of the @EU_Commission, the EU Courts and the @wto in 2024 with practitioners working at the coal face of #trade defence. 🇪🇺
🗓️ 12 Dec 2024
📍 U-Residence, @VUBrussel Campus
More: https://t.co/mvIpkZOYz4
One problem (of many) with allowing DOC to contemplate, attempt to measure, and quantify the impact of differences in social/regulatory conditions between the home country and the US (and adjust "normal value" accordingly) is that this new approach will widen the already yawning gap between the actual practice and alleged purpose of antidumping laws. Under the law, different production conditions (labor regs, enviro, whatever) between US and foreign country have no bearing on any margin of dumping because the foreign producers (of allegedly dumped goods) operate under the same rules and regs regardless of whether they are producing for domestic consumption or export. There is no legitimate basis to adjust "normal value" for differences in countries' social conditions given that the antidumping law (theoretically) is for remedying price differences between markets (that are by default assumed to be the product of "unfair" price discrimination or sales below cost).
We just published plenty of updates on the #SummerAcademy 2024 courses: syllabi, lecturers profiles, course descriptions …
Check it out and register ASAP! Places are running out quickly!
https://t.co/9bY8z7df33