Trade: U.S. Antidumping Duties on Washing Machines

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

On 29 August 2013, South Korea addressed the World Trade Organization (WTO) in order to request the consultation regarding the specific anti-dumping measures that were implemented by the United States against the South Korean producers of large residential washers (“Dispute DS464”).

This request became a result of implementing a range of anti-dumping tariffs against such South Korean producers of large residential washers as Daewoo Electronics, Samsung Electronics, and LG Electronics in January of 2013 (“Whirlpool Wins Duties on Washers from Mexico, S. Korea” par. 2). Focusing on the details of the anti-dumping case that was brought before the WTO in 2013, it is necessary to discuss the main actors, the products, and the specific punitive measures proposed by the retaliating nation.

In 2012, Whirlpool, the U.S. producer of residential washers among other home appliances, requested the U.S. Commerce Department to review the conditions according to which the South Korean producers of washers set prices in the United States (“U.S. Sets Duties on Washers from Mexico, South Korea” par. 2).

It was the first stage in the process of setting anti-dumping duties against the South Korean producers of larger residential washers (Barkley par. 1). From this point, the nations involved in the anti-dumping case are the United States and South Korea, and these nations represent the interests of the domestic producers of such large home appliances as residential washers.

Having discussed the request of Whirlpool, the U.S. Commerce Department developed a set of punitive measures, and the U.S. International Trade Commission voted for implementing the anti-dumping tariffs because of the identified threat to the U.S. industry and market of residential washers (“Whirlpool Wins Duties on Washers from Mexico, S. Korea” par. 3).

Thus, the punitive measures included the anti-dumping tariff in 82.41% for products made by Daewoo Electronics; the anti-dumping tariff in 72.41% for products made by Samsung Electronics; and the anti-dumping tariff in 12.15% for large residential washers manufactured by LG Electronics (Barkley par. 3). In response to the declared and implemented anti-dumping measures, South Korea requested for the consultation of the WTO in order to prove the inconsistency of determined tariffs.

While discussing the case from the perspective of the WTO dispute settlement body, it is possible to state that the punitive measures proposed by the U.S. Commerce Department are relevant because they are based on the investigation conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission regarding the threats of dumping to the U.S. economy and to the development of the U.S. residential washer manufacturers (“Whirlpool Wins Duties on Washers from Mexico, S. Korea” par. 6).

In spite of the fact that the implemented tariffs are discussed as overstated by the South Korean manufacturers, these measures are necessary to predict the downfall of the U.S. producers of the competitive products, and concerns of Whirlpool and similar companies should be addressed in this case.

The discussion of the anti-dumping case that involves the United States and South Korea by the WTO dispute settlement body should result in supporting the position of the United States and voting against the complainant’s request because the process of undercutting the prices for many manufacturers importing one type of products in the United States is disadvantageous for the development of the international trade. Furthermore, the phenomenon of dumping observed in this case violates several norms that regulate the trade relations in the United States.