United States of America: AD and CVD investigations of bottom mount combination refrigerator-freezers imported from Korea and Mexico
Description
In a pair of petitions filed on March 30, 2011, Whirlpool Corporation seeks the imposition of antidumping (AD) and countervailing duties (CVD) against imports into the United States of bottom-mount combination refrigerator-freezers from Korea (AD and CVD) and Mexico (AD only).
The petitioners allege dumping margins of 27.1-183.2% for Mexico and 33.8-61.8% for Korea, and that Korean producers also benefit from a variety of countervailable subsidies.
The first formal step in the case is the preliminary injury determination by the U.S. International Trade Commission, which reached an affirmative decision on May 13, 2011. The case then proceeded to the AD/CVD investigations by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
On August 30, 2011, the Department of Commerce preliminarily determined that Korean producers/exporters have no countervailable subsidies. As a result of this preliminary determination, Commerce will not instruct U.S. Customs Protection to collect a cash deposit or bond based on these preliminary rates.
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? | Don't know |
| Is there any evidence that alternatives to the proposed measure were considered? | Don't Know |
| Is there anything in the public record that suggests that empirical evidence informed the comparison across the alternatives available to government? | Don't Know |
| Was such evidence identified? | Don't Know |
| Is such evidence publicly available? | Don't Know |
| Did the official decision-maker in question provide an explanation as to why a chosen measure was favoured over alternatives? | Don't Know |
| Is there any evidence to suggest that potentially affected trading partners were consulted before the measures were taken? | Don't Know |
| Is there any evidence that safeguards have been put in place to ensure that implementation of the initiative is transparent and non-discriminatory? | Don't Know |
| Did the government state its intention to review the measure within one year of implementation? | Don't Know |
Date Discovered:
Implemented: No
Date of inception:
GTA Evaluation: Amber
Source:
See the documents at http://www.usitc.gov/trade_remedy/731_ad_701_cvd/investigations/2011/bot....
Government Response:
- 347 reads
