July 2001: "My manufacturing members are going to kick in doors at the next election, because there is not a manufacturing industry in Australia that's import competitive with China...if this Government won't change the law, we will support a government that will." Bruce McAllen, chairman, Industry Task Force. Australian Financial Review 13 Jul 2001
The benefit of losing access to cheaper goods (i.e.. by users as their raw materials and inputs to industry or the consequent cost to consumers) is not formally addressed in its application.
Antidumping duties may be applied to the imported goods if found to have been dumped. Dumping is defined to have occurred if the imported goods are;
The discount margin on the selling price is redressed by either a dumping duty of equal value or an undertaking by the importer to desist in future. The benefit to the protected manufacturer can be substantial, 20 per cent or more of the imported price and in just one claim can involve imports from many countries. Such legislation provides a substantial measure of protection to industry. Even the presence of the legislation acts as a deterrent, so that the number of claims by industry can understate its impact in inflating the price of imported goods in the home market.
Normally a claim is made by a manufacturer of like goods that have closely resembling characteristics but not necessarily identical to the imported goods.
Anti-dumping also applies to where government subsidies have been used to promote exports (e.g.. loans and export incentives).
Injury is signalled by a change in market share, an effect on prices, production, forward orders, profits, employment, cash flow and investment. These signals must be significant and greater than that likely to occur in the course of normal business. Anti-dumping protection rules do not consider the fundamental competitiveness of the manufacturer seeking protection (or cost impact on users).
Provisional duties may be required which take the form of bank guarantees or cash payments that investigators can require importers to pay as a security part way through an investigation. If the final result of the inquiry is that the imports are dumped, penalty duties can be imposed on imports for several years and the importer forfeits the security.
The chemical industry is a capital-intensive industry (i.e.. the variable cost is low when compared to the fixed cost) providing scope for significant variation in the prices of goods between markets. Therefore, while there is unused production capacity, manufacturers may create a variety of prices according to the market or region to minimise the penalty of operating at less than full capacity. Anti-dumping legislation is therefore a controversial form of assistance with arguments for and against.
Number of Anti-Dumping Investigations,
by Country from WTO figures to end June 1996
It has to be noted that Australia has now one of the more open economies with a 5 per cent ceiling tariff and few if any invisible protection measures. Anti-dumping legislation therefore presents the one remaining protection measures available to industry. In an overall perspective, its impact and benefit is small.
Chemicals - largely petrochemicals, have represented nearly one-half the number of claims in Australia (one-third world-wide) though they were only one-tenth the value of imports. For comparison, China, Indonesia, Taiwan and Thailand do not have anti-dumping systems, Japan has only recently used it for the first time, and Singapore rarely uses the system (a report by the Department of Industry, Science and Technology).
CommentsThe primary argument for anti-dumping assistance is that unregulated dumping can hinder industry development as surplus production from one industry could be (dumped) sold into a smaller market where a new industry is being established. The new industry, without the resources, the breath and depth of longer established firms, may be unable to tolerate a price reduction causing its collapse.
Dumping is projected as a predatory pricing practice to sell surplus products at marginal prices into small markets like Australia to deliberately damage the local industry to permit future unimpeded entry.
The gold mining industry has claimed anti-dumping legislation adds $40 million per year to the cost of sodium cyanide (the Association of Mining and Exploration Companies, in Australian Mining Monthly, October 1991 page 79). Not recorded, one of the local manufacturers as a claimant for relief from dumping is said to have been exporting sodium cyanide to gold companies in Fiji at a price that would in Australia have been deemed to be dumped. Fiji in that sense, benefits from not having a sodium cyanide manufacturing industry.
Some beneficiaries of the legislation have sought to distinguish dumping from assistance as simply an issue of fair trading. The same companies often practice extreme examples of what some smaller operators have described as predatory manipulation in the Australian market place. If the Australian states were sovereign countries, they would have been subject to anti-dumping legislation.
Some arguments against anti-dumping include;
Some industries benefit as for example the New Zealand plastics industry which, because there is no local plastic resin (chemical) manufacturing industry, is able to import the plastic resins at dumped prices.
For example, "ICI goes to court against refusal to stop dumping", Australian Financial Review, July 18, 1991. The Anti-Dumping Authority found that dumping had occurred and dumping duties were imposed. The consequent increases in prices of products (sodium cyanide used by the gold mining industry), prompted a response by their association calling the court appeal a blatant bid to shore up its own interests ("Miners unite to rap ICI", Australian Financial Review, 25 July, 1991).
Chemlink Pty Ltd ACN
007 034 022. Publications 1997. All contents Copyright
© 1997. All rights reserved. Information in this document is subject
to change without notice. Products and companies referred to are trademarks
or registered trademarks of their respective companies or mark holders.