Mexico: Adoption of final antidumping on steel chain with welded links, not exceeding 15 kilograms per meter, from China.
Description
On January 5, 2010, the Mexican Government adopted antidumping final duties of $0.50 United States dollars per kilogram to Mexican imports of steel chain with welded links, not exceeding 15 kilograms per meter from China.
The antidumping investigation was initiated on May 10, 2002, upon request of the Mexican enterprise Deacero S.A. de C.V. On July 17, 2003, the Ministry of Economy issued its final determination adopting antidumping duties of $0.72 United States dollars per kilogram on imports of this type of steel chain from China, classified under the Mexican Harmonized System tariff code 7315.82.02.
Article 11.3 of the Anti-dumping Agreement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) establishes that any definitive anti‑dumping duty shall be terminated on a date not later than five years from its imposition (or from the date of the most recent review if that review has covered both dumping and injury), unless the authorities determine, in a review initiated before that date on their own initiative or upon a duly substantiated request made by or on behalf of the domestic industry within a reasonable period of time prior to that date, that the expiry of the duty would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. The duty may remain in force pending the outcome of such a review.
Thus, on July 10, 2008, upon request of Deacero S.A. de C.V. and Industrial de Alambres S.A. de C.V. the Mexican authorities initiated a five-year review of the antidumping duties. This procedure was concluded on January 5, 2010, when the Government of Mexico decided to continue applying, for five more years, an antidumping measure of $0.50 United States dollars per kilogram to Mexican imports of steel chain with welded links, not exceeding 15 kilograms per meter from China.
Any Evidence-Based Deliberation:
| Question | Result |
|---|---|
| Is there anything in the public record to suggest that evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed measure was considered during official deliberations? | |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | |
| Was such evidence identified? | |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? |
Date Discovered: 05/01/2010
Implemented: Yes
Date of inception: 5 Jan 2010
GTA Evaluation: Red
Government Response:
- 410 reads
