An Analysis of Factors Influencing the Anti-Dumping Behaviour in India

The use of anti-dumping measures as a trade protection tool, has increased phenomenally during the last decade. One significant aspect of this new trend is the increasing involvement of developing countries. India is one such country which has emerged as a very frequent user of anti-dumping measures, surpassing even the traditional users. It had initiated more than 300 anti-dumping cases by the end of 2002-03. Many of these cases are against developing countries. Most of the cases are concentrated in narrow range product groups, like chemicals and petrochemicals, iron and steel, pharmaceuticals and textiles. This study examines India's experience with anti-dumping measures. The main objective of the study is to identify the factors which might have influenced the anti-dumping behaviour in India. Discussion of these factors shows that imports have increased considerably. This is particularly true for a number of developing countries facing dumping charges in India. At the same time, many of the domestic producers of the like products have performed poorly during the last decade. Such trends may instigate the import-competing industries to seek anti-dumping protection and may also influence the authority to provide that. However, the results of our statistical exercise show that, although imports and performance of the domestic industry might have influenced the initiation of anti-dumping cases, these factors did not seem to significantly influence the final decision of the authority. The results rather indicated a tendency on the part of the authority to provide anti-dumping protection to industries, which are characterised by a large number of firms. Copyright 2007 The Author Journal compilation 2007 Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington Road, .

[1]  Thomas J. Prusa Anti-Dumping: A Growing Problem in International Trade , 2005 .

[2]  Adriaan ten Kate,et al.  Anti-Dumping Protection in a Liberalising Country: Mexico's Anti-Dumping Policy and Practice , 2004 .

[3]  Aradhna Aggarwal,et al.  Macro Economic Determinants of Antidumping: A Comparative Analysis of Developed and Developing Countries , 2004 .

[4]  D. Feaver,et al.  Modelling Contingent Protection , 2004 .

[5]  J. Human,et al.  A Handbook on Anti-Dumping Investigations by Judith Czako , 2003 .

[6]  J. Human,et al.  A Handbook on Anti-Dumping Investigations: Sample Dumping Investigation Questionnaire , 2003 .

[7]  Thomas J. Prusa On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping , 1999 .

[8]  D. Greenaway,et al.  Cumulation and injury determination of the European community in antidumping cases , 1998 .

[9]  Alan V. Deardorff,et al.  Analysis of India’s Policy Reforms , 1998 .

[10]  M. Leidy Macroeconomic Conditions and Pressures for Protection Under Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Laws: Empirical Evidence from the United States , 1996, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[11]  Thomas J. Prusa,et al.  Cumulation and Itc Decision-Making: The Sum of the Parts is Greater Thanthe Whole , 1995 .

[12]  Jeffrey W. Steagall,et al.  An Analysis of Factors Influencing Itc Decisions in Antidumoing, Countervailing Duty and Safeguard Cases , 1993 .

[13]  Michael O. Moore RULES OR POLITICS?: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF ITC ANTI-DUMPING DECISIONS , 1992 .

[14]  W. Hansen The International Trade Commission and the Politics of Protectionism , 1990, American Political Science Review.

[15]  B. Hirsch,et al.  Industry rent seeking and the filing of ‘unfair trade’ complaints , 1989 .

[16]  Douglas Nelson,et al.  The political economy of administered protection , 1982 .

[17]  W. Takacs PRESSURES FOR PROTECTIONISM: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS , 1981 .

[18]  Roberto Ippoliti,et al.  Anti-Dumping , 1979, International Legal Materials.