Argentina has started a dispute against the United States in the World Trade Organization (WTO) in relation to tubular products used in oil production, the international body reported on Thursday. And it is that our country presented a “request for inquiries”which is the first formal step in the WTO dispute settlement process, in which it refers to the use of anti-dumping measures by the United States against the welded pipes for the oil industry of national industry, and request their review.
“One of the tools most used by the countries of the WTO to resolve issues with possible damage to the national industry due to the sale of products abroad with prices different from those of the countries in which they are produced, are the anti-dumping measures”, he pointed out to Ambit the former Secretary of Imports of the Nation, Esteban Marzorati.
The document presented by Argentina details the obstacles imposed on the sales of Siderca, a Techint Group company, and, according to information, this is the third dispute of this type presented by Argentina regarding this same subject.
How is the measure against Argentina
As detailed by Marzorati, what determined, in November 2022, the United States Department of Commercein this case, is that the tubes for the oil industry manufactured by Siderca in Argentina incurred in unfair competition and they incurred in practices that imply damage to the industry of the northern country.
Consequently, a anti-dumping measure which establishes that tubes for the oil industry from Argentina manufactured by Siderca or by any other company have to pay an additional duty of 78.3% to enter the United States.
“In general, these are one of the most effective measures that exist in foreign trade because the value that is determined ends up solving the price problem, which is a difference between the value at which they are sold in the country of destination and that which the products have in their origin”, indicates Marzoratti.
What is the claim made to the United States?
Now, there is a negotiation term in which Argentina argues that the research process that was carried out to apply this anti-dumping measure does not comply with the international rules of the WTO. Apparently, the information used was not correct. And, now, a negotiation process lies ahead.
Among other points, the Argentine claim maintains that the measures applied by the United States “seem to nullify or impair the benefits accruing to Argentina directly or indirectly” from various provisions of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement and previous agreements relating to international trade (mainly the GATT 1994), which are based on the unconditional principle of the most favored nation.
Furthermore, Argentina reserves the right to raise additional factual and legal issues and to address additional measures and related claims in relation to the issues set out above, in the course of consultations and in a possible request for the establishment of a panel.
Antidumping rules or an appeal for tariff?
What are the chances that our country is right? As Marzoratti answers this question, “the anti-dumping measure is often used by countries as a ‘para-tariff’ measure in practice because, sometimes, local producers have no chance to compete with foreign products”, given the low prices they command, even though they are not violating antidumping regulations.
Thus, it is probable that, in this particular case, there may be an intention to protect, perhaps without Argentina actually violating the antidumping rules, the local. But we will have to wait for the response from the United States to see how this issue continues and what the WTO defines in this regard.
Source: Ambito
