WPS3737 Global Antidumping Database Version 1.0 Chad P. Bown, Brandeis University Abstract This paper describes a newly collected, detailed database on national governments' use of the antidumping trade policy instrument. The data collection project was funded by the Development Research Group of the World Bank and Brandeis University. While still preliminary, it goes beyond existing, publicly-used sets of antidumping data in a number of fundamental ways. It is a first attempt to use original source national government documentation to organize information on products, firms, the investigative procedure and outcomes of the historical use (since the 1980s) of the antidumping policy instrument across large importing country users. We also report more and recent data on a number of smaller users of antidumping, as well as some limited information on the use of countervailing measures from national governments that are users of countervailing duty laws. Database Website: http://www.brandeis.edu/~cbown/global_ad/ World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3737, October 2005 The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the view of the World Bank, its Executive Directors, or the countries they represent. Policy Research Working Papers are available online at http://econ.worldbank.org. ____________________ Department of Economics and International Business School, Brandeis University, MS 021, PO Box 549110 Waltham, MA 02454-9110, USA; tel: 781-736-4823; fax: 781-736-2269; email cbown@brandeis.edu, web: http://www.brandeis.edu/~cbown/. Funding for the data collection project is through the World Bank with contributions from a Mazer Award and Tomberg Funds from Brandeis University. I would also like to thank the hospitality of the World Bank (DECRG) which I was visiting while this project was initiated, as well as the Brookings Institution which I was visiting during some of the data collection. For helpful work collecting the data in this project I would especially like to thank the research assistance of David Cheong, Gloria Sheu, Nabeela Alam and Jaewoo Nakajima. Assistance in data acquisition at various stages of the process was also provided by Rebecca McKibbin, Gustav Brink, Honorio Kumé, Eric Haven, Jayanta Roy, Hilda Fridh, Raul Torres, Johann Human, and Kwang Hyok Yoo whose efforts are appreciated. I also thank Bernard Hoekman, Tom Prusa, Bruce Blonigen, James Durling, Nuno Limão, Robert Feinberg, Kara Reynolds, Michael Moore, Patrick Messerlin, J. Michael Finger, Maurizio Zanardi and Meredith Crowley for helpful discussions. Data errors and corrections should be emailed to cbown@brandeis.edu. Table of Contents 1 Introduction....................................................................................... 1 2 Countries and Data Included in the Global Antidumping Database...................... 7 2.1 The "Master" Spreadsheet for Each Country ­ AD-CTY-Master.......... 9 2.2 The "Product" Spreadsheets ­ AD-CTY-Products........................... 11 2.3 The "Domestic Firms" Spreadsheets ­ ADT-CTY-Domestic-Firms...... 12 2.4 The "Foreign Firms" Spreadsheets ­ ADT-CTY-Foreign-Firms........... 12 3 More Country-Specific Information on AD Sources and Data........................... 13 3.1 Argentina (ARG)................................................................. 15 3.2 Australia (AUS).................................................................. 16 3.3 Brazil (BRA)...................................................................... 18 3.4 Canada (CAN).................................................................... 19 3.5 Colombia (COL)................................................................. 21 3.6 European Union (EUN)......................................................... 23 3.7 India (IND)....................................................................... 25 3.8 South Korea (KOR)............................................................. 26 3.9 Mexico (MEX)................................................................... 27 3.10 New Zealand (NZL)............................................................ 29 3.11 Peru (PER)....................................................................... 30 3.12 Turkey (TUR)................................................................... 31 3.13 United States (USA)............................................................ 32 3.14 Venezuela (VEN)............................................................... 34 3.15 South Africa (ZAF)............................................................. 35 4 AD-Using Countries with Data on Initiations Only........................................ 36 5 Countervailing Duty-Using Countries in the Database..................................... 38 5.1 The "Master" Spreadsheet for Each Country ­ CVD-CTY-Master....... 39 5.2 The "Product" Spreadsheets ­ CVD-CTY-Products........................ 41 5.3 Canada (CAN)..................................................................... 41 5.4 Mexico (MEX).................................................................... 42 5.5 United States (USA).............................................................. 43 6 Caveats for Data Use, Discovery of Errors, and Conclusions............................. 45 Appendix.......................................................................................... 47 References........................................................................................ 52 ii List of Tables Table 1.1 International Use of Antidumping and the Global Antidumping Database....... 4 Table 2.1 Antidumping User Countries with Detailed Data in the Database................. 7 Table 2.1.1 Variables in the AD-CTY-Master Spreadsheets...................................... 10 Table 2.2.1 Variables in the AD-CTY-Products Spreadsheets..................................... 11 Table 2.3.1 Variables in the AD-CTY-Domestic-Firms Spreadsheets........................... 12 Table 2.4.1 Variables in the AD-CTY-Foreign-Firms Spreadsheets............................. 12 Table 3.1 User Countries' Antidumping Investigative Agencies, Government Reporting Publications and Website................................................................ 13 Table 3.1.1 Additional Argentine Data Included in AD-ARG-v1.0.xls.......................... 16 Table 3.2.1 Additional Australian Data Included in AD-AUS-v1.0.xls......................... 17 Table 3.3.1 Additional Brazilian Data Included in AD-BRA-v1.0.xls........................ 18 Table 3.4.1 Additional Canadian Data Included in AD-CAN-v1.0.xls........................... 20 Table 3.5.1 Additional Colombian Data Included in AD-COL-v1.0.xls......................... 22 Table 3.6.1 Additional EU Data Included in AD-EUN-v1.0.xls.................................. 24 Table 3.7.1 Additional Indian Data Included in AD-IND-v1.0.xls............................... 25 Table 3.8.1 Additional Korean Data Included in AD-KOR-v1.0.xls............................. 26 Table 3.9.1 Additional Mexican Data Included in AD-MEX-v1.0.xls........................ 27 Table 3.10.1 Additional Data from New Zealand Included in AD-NZL-v1.0.xls............... 29 Table 3.11.1 Additional Peruvian Data Included in AD-PER-v1.0.xls........................... 30 Table 3.12.1 Additional Turkish Data Included in AD-TUR-v1.0.xls............................ 32 Table 3.13.1 Additional US Data Included in AD-USA-v1.0.xls.................................. 33 Table 3.14.1 Additional Venezuelan Data Included in AD-VEN-v1.0.xls....................... 34 Table 3.15.1 Additional South African Data Included in AD-ZAF-v1.0.xls..................... 35 Table 4.1.1 Other Antidumping User Countries with Initiation Information Only in the Database.................................................................................... 37 Table 4.1.2 Variables in the AD-OTH-Master Spreadsheets...................................... 38 Table 5.1 Antidumping User Countries with Detailed Data in the Database................. 38 Table 5.1.1 Variables in the CVD-CTY-Master Spreadsheets.................................... 39 Table 5.2.1 Variables in the CVD-CTY-Products Spreadsheets.................................. 41 Table 5.3.1 Additional Canadian Data Included in CVD-CAN-v1.0.xls........................ 42 Table 5.4.1 Additional Mexican Data Included in CVD-MEX-v1.0.xls........................ 43 Table 5.5.1 Additional US Data Included in CVD-USA-v1.0.xls................................ 44 Table A.1 Country Codes and Country Names Used in the Database.......................... 47 iii 1 Introduction The spread and proliferation of antidumping statutes around the world and the imposition of import- restricting antidumping (AD) measures imposed under the auspices of these laws has been well documented (Miranda, Ruiz and Torres, 1998; Prusa, 2001; Zanardi, 2004). Not surprisingly, researchers seeking to understand this phenomenon would like to test empirically between evolving theories relating to the spread of AD, as well as industry linkages to the use of AD across countries. Furthermore, policymakers, trade negotiators and even legal practitioners involved in the AD process in national localities are also interested in cross-country comparisons of political and/or legal elements of the process, as AD reform is a potential topic on the agenda of WTO negotiations, during the Doha Round if not a future round of negotiations.1 An improved understanding of antidumping requires access to data on its use, of course, so that this data can be effectively scrutinized. Despite such interest in the international aspects of antidumping, empirical economic and political-economic research on antidumping has thus far focused primarily on its use by the United States first, and European Union a distant second.2, Empirical research on other countries' use of antidumping 3 has been extremely spartan in comparison, and even empirical research on the international (externality) implications of one country's use is only beginning to evolve.4 1 See, for example, the symposium on the "Ten Major Problems" of ten countries' use of antidumping, ten years after establishment of the WTO, organized by Horlick and Vermulst (2005). 2Throughout this paper we may refer to the EU or EEC as a "country," for ease of exposition since the antidumping trade policy instrument is administered by the EU/EEC jointly and not by each individual member country. 3For recent surveys on various aspects of the economics research literature on antidumping, see Blonigen and Prusa (2004) and Nelson (forthcoming). See also the collection of published articles reprinted in Nelson and Vandenbussche (forthcoming). 4Exceptions include a handful of empirical studies which have used a cross-country data set collected by researchers at the World Trade Organization (WTO), which is a data set limited to antidumping case initiations and with information on products that is typically categorized only at the industry (2-digit) level, e.g., reported in Miranda, Ruiz and Torres (1998) with updates. Examples of papers that have used this data include Prusa and Skeath (2002, 2005) and Feinberg and Reynolds (forthcoming) which focus on retaliation threats. Related papers that motivate some of this emphasis on cross-country linkages also include Blonigen and Bown (2003) and Bown (2005). There is also some emerging research from other user countries which exploits more detailed data that has been collected on an individual basis - an example is the Mexican use of antidumping examined by Niels and Francois (forthcoming). There are certainly many contributing factors to the resulting emphasis of research focused on the US antidumping process, for example. First, the United States is one of the most frequent "users" of the policy instrument. Until the mid-1990s, there were only four primary users of antidumping was­ the US, EU, Canada and Australia. A second explanation for focus on the United States is the economic size of the market at stake and the value of imports affected by the policies. A third factor is that there is also readily available complementary data required for political-economic empirical analysis, such as data on product-level trade flows, disaggregated industrial level economic activity, and even political activity such as lobbying expenditures or political influence on Congressional committees that may affect the process.5 In addition to these explanations, we believe that a fourth factor is an important determinant of substantial research on the US antidumping process relative to other countries: policy transparency and data availability. Researchers are more likely to scrutinize a policy when detailed information as to how it is being implemented is publicly available, which is the case for the United States' use of antidumping.6 Furthermore, since 2000, Bruce A. Blonigen at the University of Oregon has provided an additional boost to research in this field by posting on the Internet a collection of well-organized and comprehensive Finally, papers examining the ramifications of antidumping on international trade flows use include Bown and Crowley (2005a, 2005b, forthcoming) and Prusa and Durling (forthcoming). 5For example, historical data at high frequencies (e.g., monthly) on product level (at the 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule) trade flows is publicly available in the United States from the US International Trade Commission (http://dataweb.usitc.gov/ ). See also Feenstra, Romalis and Schott (2001). Furthermore, historical data on industry level indicators of economic activity at the 4-digit Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) or 6-digit North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) is also available from surveys posted by the US Census (http://www.census.gov/mcd/index.html ). See also Bartelsman, Becker and Gray (2000). 6Information on US antidumping investigations is published in the US government's Federal Register publication, which can be accessed on line at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ . The US antidumping cases follow a numerically chronological categorizing process which makes tracking a single case over time through government records very straightforward. While information on European Union antidumping cases can similarly be found in its publicly available government publication titled the Official Journal (see http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/en/oj/), its case categorizing process is not as transparent so as to allow an individual only minimal effort to be able to track the process of a single case over time. 2 US antidumping data (Blonigen, 2000), thus eliminating a substantial entry barrier to researchers interested in examination of the US process.7 The global antidumping database project described in this paper seeks to emulate the basics of Blonigen's data collection efforts and complement the data generated for the United States by establishing a relatively comprehensive, publicly available database on other countries' use of antidumping. The purpose of this paper is to briefly describe the collected data, so as to provide researchers a starting point for examining other (non-US) users of the controversial trade policy. Our theory is that providing such data will eliminate some entry barriers to research in this area. We hope that additional entry by researchers will result in improved quality of empirical research on the global use of antidumping, like the Blonigen data collection effort has done for the United States' use of the policy. A last goal would be that results of scientific research would lead to additional transparency and understanding as to what is actually taking place under the guise of antidumping laws and policy around the world. With respect to coverage, table 1.1 illustrates the countries that are included in the detailed portion of our database, as a subset of antidumping users (WTO members) over the 1995-2004 period. While close to 50 countries have now adopted antidumping laws and initiated antidumping investigations (Zanardi, 2004), it is still the case that most of the use of antidumping ­ as measured, for example, by total number of investigations or measures imposed ­ is highly concentrated into around a dozen countries. Thus while the current database contains detailed antidumping use data for (only) 15 of these policy-imposing countries, these countries collectively make up a substantial fraction of the policy's use ­ e.g., these countries were responsible for 85% of the antidumping investigations and 87% of antidumping measures imposed by all WTO members over the 1995-2004 period. 7Thanks go to Bruce Blonigen for his collecting and original conception of publicly posting the antidumping data for the United States at his website at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bruceb/adpage.html. His generation of this public good has arguably spawned additional research into antidumping, improving transparency and allowing for more in depth research to improve scientific understanding over the implications of the policy instrument. The current project is largely the result of researchers recognizing the Blonigen contribution and wondering why no one had done something comparable for other countries' use of AD. Additional personal thanks are also due to Tom Prusa for generously sharing his personal collections of antidumping data as well. Furthermore, Robert Staiger and Frank Wolak made data on the use of US antidumping for the 1980-1986 period (Staiger and Wolak, 1994) available on the NBER data CDs earlier in the 1990s (Feenstra, 1997). 3 Table 1.1 International Use of Antidumping and the Global Antidumping Database Number of Antidumping Number of Antidumping Country Investigations, 1995-2004 Measures Imposed, 1995-2004 User-Countries in the Global Antidumping Database Argentina 192 139 Australia 172 54 Brazil 116 62 Canada 133 80 Colombia 23 11 European Union 303 193 India 400 302 Mexico 79 69 New Zealand 47 14 Peru 55 34 South Africa 173 113 South Korea 77 43 Turkey 89 77 United States 354 219 Venezuela 31 25 Subtotal 2244 1435 (share of total) (84.8%) (86.7%) User-Countries not yet in the Global Antidumping Database China (since 2001) 99 52 Egypt 38 30 Indonesia 60 23 Israel 27 15 Malaysia 31 18 Taiwan (since 2000) 8 2 Thailand 34 23 Other WTO Members 105 58 Subtotal 402 221 (share of total) (15.2%) (13.3%) Total 2646 1656 Source: Data for the initiations and measures used in this table is taken from WTO (2005a,b). Before turning to a discussion of the actual data, it is important to highlight a number of data collection hurdles affecting the structure of our approach as well as the end product. First, there is a 4 substantial fixed cost to collect data for each new user country that is added to the database. Given the leniency allowed by the WTO's Agreement on Antidumping, there is substantial heterogeneity across countries as to how national laws are implemented and investigations proceed ­ i.e., each new user country is free to implement its antidumping law and investigative process as it sees fit, provided it is generally consistent with a basic set of principles under the WTO's Agreement on Antidumping.8 Thus there are a number of different administrative approaches that each new user country could take. Second, the WTO imposes only a minimal reporting requirement on member countries' use of the policy instrument which is insufficient from a research perspective.9 While the WTO collects information on AD investigation initiations and measures imposed, it does not appear to systematically collect, organize and publicize data on the actual products (HS codes) under investigation, the dates of preliminary and final decisions and imposition of measures, or the names of firms involved in the investigations. This is the minimal amount of information required for empirical economic researchers to accurately match up AD case information with independently-generated data series on trade flows and other economic activity that is critical to assessing the impact of AD. Thus, the data that we have collected for each of the countries described in section 2 goes beyond what the WTO has made available. Whenever possible, our data derive from original source, national government publications located primarily on domestic government websites, where a number of countries have quite detailed information available. Nevertheless, in a number of instances important elements of the data were only available in hard copy at government depositories in national capitals. For these countries, we dispatched research assistants to these localities to collect the data.10 8One reason why the WTO's Agreement on Antidumping is so lenient is likely because of pre-existing variation in how antidumping was administered by the "old users" who did not want to have too much of their existing procedure changed. For example, Canada's antidumping law was first enacted in 1904, Australia's was enacted in 1906, etc. 9See for example the WTO's website "Notifications under the agreement on implementation of Article VI of GATT 1994" at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/antidum3_e.htm , last accessed on 20 August 2005. 10This resulted in an additional fixed cost of finding and training new research assistance with the language skills and in the (physical) geographic location to translate original source information into our data base. 5 Given these hurdles, our relatively modest goal was to provide both a basic set of minimal information across countries that is essential for economic research while also including additional information, whenever it was available, for countries that report "more" than the basics. Thus, for a substantial number of user countries we have a basic set of information on Harmonized System product codes for the goods that were allegedly dumped and a cause of injury, as well as dates and outcomes of various stages of the investigative process. For most of these countries we were also able to collect information on the names of domestic firms participating in the antidumping investigation, the names of foreign firms being targeted by the investigation, and also the firm-specific outcomes facing those foreign producers at the outcome stage of antidumping investigation that result in the imposition of measures. Equally important was our intention of transparency for the project. Thus we also attempt to provide information on where and how we were able to collect the data for each country, so that researchers have the ability to go back to original source documentation and both check the accuracy of our data as well as to augment the data for their own use. We make no claim to have fully exploited all of the data available in these government notifications. Finally, given the fixed cost associated with data collection for each user country added to the database, the data set at this stage is not comprehensive. With limited resources, our strategy in data construction was to first focus on collecting data for the largest and historically active user countries. Thus, as table 1.1 indicates, while we arguably have decent data on roughly 85% of the use of antidumping by WTO members there are a number of relatively new users (e.g., China, Egypt, Indonesia, Thailand) as well as smaller users and even non-members of the WTO for which detailed data have not yet been collected and compiled. The rest of this paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 describes the structure of the variables and the data contained in the global antidumping database that is common across the 15 user countries. Section 3 then provides more details for each of the 15 user countries on additional, country-specific data included in the database, as well as particular elements of missing data for each user. Section 4 provides a brief discussion of the WTO Member countries that are also users of antidumping but that are not yet part 6 of the global antidumping database, and the limited data that are available for them from the WTO. Section 5 describes the detailed data on countervailing duty use for three countries that we were able to collect. Section 6 discusses some additional caveats to using the antidumping data and concludes. 2 Countries and Data Included in the Global Antidumping Database The basic contribution of the data set is to provide a standardized set of information for as many users of the antidumping policy instrument as possible. To that end, we have collected a reasonably consistent set of detailed data for 15 different user countries, listed in table 2.1. Table 2.1 : Antidumping User Countries with Detailed Data in the Database Country Code Country Excel Workbook Spreadsheet Names within Available Current (3-letter CTY) Name File Name Country Workbook Years of Version Data (last updated) AD-ARG-Master , ARG Argentina AD-ARG-v1.0.xls AD-ARG-Products , v1.0 AD-ARG-Domestic-Firms , 1996-2004 (8/2005) AD-ARG-Foreign-Firms AD-AUS-Master , AUS Australia AD-AUS-v1.0.xls AD-AUS-Products , v1.0 AD-AUS-Domestic-Firms , 1989-2004 (8/2005) AD-AUS-Foreign-Firms BRA Brazil AD-BRA-v1.0.xls AD-BRA-Master , v1.0 AD-BRA-Products 1988-2003 (8/2005) AD-CAN-Master , CAN Canada AD-CAN-v1.0.xls AD-CAN-Products , v1.0 AD-CAN-Domestic-Firms , 1985-2005 (8/2005) AD-CAN-Foreign-Firms COL Colombia AD-COL-v1.0.xls AD-COL-Master , v1.0 AD-COL-Products 1991-2004 (8/2005) AD-EUN-Master , EUN European AD-EUN-Products , v1.0 Union AD-EUN-v1.0.xls AD-EUN-Domestic-Firms , 1987-2005 (8/2005) AD-EUN-Foreign-Firms AD-IND-Master , AD-IND-Products , IND India AD-IND-v1.0.xls AD-IND-Domestic-Firms , 1992-2004 v1.0 AD-IND-Foreign-Firms (8/2005) 7 Country Code Country Excel Workbook Spreadsheet Names within Available Current (3-letter CTY) Name File Name Country Workbook Years of Version Data (last updated) AD-KOR-Master , KOR South Korea AD-KOR-v1.0.xls AD-KOR-Products , v1.0 AD-KOR-Domestic-Firms , 1986-2004 (8/2005) AD-KOR-Foreign-Firms AD-MEX-Master , MEX Mexico AD-MEX-v1.0.xls AD-MEX-Products , v1.0 AD-MEX-Domestic-Firms , 1987-2003 (8/2005) AD-MEX-Foreign-Firms AD-NZL-Master , NZL New Zealand AD-NZL-v1.0.xls AD-NZL-Products , v1.0 AD-NZL-Domestic-Firms , 1995-2004 (8/2005) AD-NZL-Foreign-Firms AD-PER-Master , PER Peru AD-PER-v1.0.xls AD-PER-Products , v1.0 AD-PER-Domestic-Firms , 1992-2002 (8/2005) AD-PER-Foreign-Firms AD-TUR-Master , TUR Turkey AD-TUR-v1.0.xls AD-TUR-Products , v1.0 AD-TUR-Domestic-Firms , 1990-2004 (10/2005?) AD-TUR-Foreign-Firms AD-USA-Master , USA United States AD-USA-v1.0.xls AD-USA-Products , v1.0 AD-USA-Domestic-Firms , 1980-2005 (8/2005) AD-USA-Foreign-Firms AD-VEN-Master , VEN Venezuela AD-VEN-v1.0.xls AD-VEN-Products , v1.0 AD-VEN-Domestic-Firms , 1992-2002 (8/2005) AD-VEN-Foreign-Firms AD-ZAF-Master , ZAF South Africa AD-ZAF-v1.0.xls AD-ZAF-Products , v1.0 AD-ZAF-Domestic-Firms , 1992-2004 (8/2005) AD-ZAF-Foreign-Firms Note that we use the 3-letter UN country symbol to identify both the antidumping using countries (table 2.1), and then also the foreign countries that may be subject to the antidumping investigation, as even something as seemingly simple as the exact spelling of country names can differ across countries and sources of data. The 3-letter UN country symbol for each of the countries and territories in the database is presented in a table in the Appendix. 8 The data for each AD user country are contained in a Microsoft Excel 2003 Workbook file (named as in table 2.1 and posted at http://www.brandeis.edu/~cbown/global_ad/ ), within which are typically four spreadsheets of data: 1) a master spreadsheet with basic antidumping case investigation information on dates and outcomes; 2) a spreadsheet containing information on the Harmonized System (HS) products under investigation; 3) a spreadsheet containing information on domestic firms involved in the antidumping petition; and 4) a spreadsheet containing information on foreign firms named in the antidumping petition. We have also attempted to remove "empty" cells in the spreadsheets, as these affect the ability to easily transform the spreadsheets into machine-readable ASCII files for merging into other data sets. Thus a cell entry for missing data (i.e., data that we are confident exists, but which we were unable to find) was filled in with an "MI." On the other hand, cell entries that were empty because there was no relevant data (e.g., because it never reached that phase of the antidumping investigation) are filled in with a "." In some instances, this admittedly required judgment. For example, consider the failure to find any information regarding consideration of the revocation of an antidumping measure ­ if no information was found, we typically assumed that the cell entry was not relevant (i.e., ".") as opposed to the antidumping measure had been removed and the data was simply missing (i.e., "MI"). The rest of section 2 details how each of these four basic spreadsheets is formatted for consistency across the AD-user countries. 2.1 The "Master" Spreadsheet for Each Country ­ AD-CTY-Master Each country has a master spreadsheet presenting a common set of information. The AD-CTY-Master11 spreadsheet has the same 21 initial column headings (Columns A through T) for each of the AD using countries. For each country, columns U through (END) may contain unique additional variables depending on the country's nuances of its own antidumping process and the availability of reported 11CTY is replaced with the 3-letter UN country code for each of the 15 user countries in the data set. 9 information. Section 3 below describes the unique information for each country in columns U through (END), as well as descriptions of the sources of information for users that would like to go back and check/verify information in the data set or augment the data set for their own use. The following table describes the contents of the first 21 rows of each master spreadsheet for each country. Table 2.1.1 : Variables in the AD-CTY-Master Spreadsheets Column Variable Name Description A. AD_CTY_NAME Country name of the user initiating the antidumping investigation B. CASE_ID Case identifier used to link observations across different elements of the database [generated by us] C. CASE_REPCODE Related antidumping investigations of multiple countries at the same time over the same product D. INV_CTY_NAME Country name of the foreign country under investigation E. INV_CTY_CODE 3-letter UN country code of the foreign country under investigation (see table 2.2) F. PRODUCT Description of the product under investigation G. INIT_DATE Date of initiation of the investigation (MM/DD/YEAR) H. P_DUMP_DATE Date of preliminary dumping decision (MM/DD/YEAR) I. P_INJ_DATE Date of preliminary injury decision (MM/DD/YEAR) J. P_DUMP_DEC Preliminary dumping decision: A(ffirmative), N(egative), W(ithdrawn prior to ruling by petitioning industry), T(erminated prior to ruling by government agency), P(artial ­ some products were found affirmative/others negative), B(ypassed, as sometimes the preliminary decision is skipped and the first decision is the final decision), OTH(er, explain in the notes section), "." (not relevant as case never reached that stage of the investigation) K. P_INJ_DEC Preliminary injury decision: A(ffirmative), N(egative), W(ithdrawn prior to ruling by petitioning industry), T(erminated prior to ruling by government agency), P(artial ­ some products were found affirmative/others negative), B(ypassed, as sometimes the preliminary decision is skipped and the first decision is the final decision), OTH(er, explain in the notes section), "." (not relevant as case never reached that stage of the investigation) L. P_AD_DATE Date of imposition of preliminary antidumping measure (MM/DD/YEAR) M. P_AD_MEASURE Preliminary antidumping measure imposed: AVD (= ad valorem duty), SD (= specific duty), PU (= price undertaking), DPU (=duty if price falls under a given level), SA (= suspension agreement) N. F_DUMP_DATE Date of final dumping decision (MM/DD/YEAR) O. F_INJ_DATE Date of final injury decision (MM/DD/YEAR) P. F_DUMP_DEC Final dumping decision: A(ffirmative), N(egative), W(ithdrawn prior to ruling by petitioning industry), T(erminated prior to ruling by government agency), P(artial ­ some products were found affirmative/others negative), OTH(er, explain in the notes section), "." (not relevant as case never reached that stage of the investigation) Q. F_INJ_DEC Final injury decision: A(ffirmative), N(egative), W(ithdrawn prior to ruling by petitioning industry), T(erminated prior to ruling by government agency), P(artial 10 Column Variable Name Description ­ some products were found affirmative/others negative), OTH(er, explain in the notes section), "." (not relevant as case never reached that stage of the investigation) R. F_AD_DATE Date of imposition of final antidumping measure (MM/DD/YEAR) S. F_AD_MEASURE Final antidumping measure imposed: AVD (= ad valorem duty), SD (= specific duty), PU (= price undertaking), DPU (=duty if price falls under a given level), SA (= suspension agreement) T. REVOKE_DATE Date of revocation of antidumping order (MM/DD/YEAR) Before describing the other spreadsheets available across countries, it is important to identify that for a number of countries, much of the data described in the master spreadsheet in one column would be redundant ­ i.e., the same as that found in another column. For example, for a "single track" country that has one government agency carrying out a simultaneous injury and dumping investigation, the preliminary dumping and injury decisions (and any measures imposed) might take place on the same date. The same is likely to be the case for final decisions as well. Because some countries have "dual track" investigative processes, we have chosen this data presentation approach so as to have some standardization across country spreadsheets. 2.2 The "Product" Spreadsheets ­ AD-CTY-Products Each user country also has a spreadsheet presenting information on the Harmonized System (HS) product codes listed in the antidumping investigation petition. The AD-CTY-Products spreadsheet has the same 3 initial column headings (Columns A through C) for each of the using countries, listed in table 2.2.1 . Table 2.2.1 : Variables in the AD-CTY-Products Spreadsheets Column Variable Name Description A. CASE_ID Case identifier used to link observations across different elements of the database [generated by us] B. HS_CODE Harmonized System product code for the product under investigation C. HS_DIGITS Number of digits of the HS product code reported in HS_CODE 11 2.3 The "Domestic Firms" Spreadsheets ­ AD-CTY-Domestic-Firms For many user countries, we also have a spreadsheet presenting a common set of information on domestic firms, trade associations and/or labor unions that are part of the filing of the antidumping investigation petition. The AD-CTY-Domestic-Firms spreadsheet has the same 2 initial column headings (Columns A and B) for each of the using countries, described in table 2.3.1. Table 2.3.1 : Variables in the AD-CTY-Domestic-Firms Spreadsheets Column Variable Name Description A. CASE_ID Case identifier used to link observations across different elements of the database [generated by us] B. D_FIRM Domestic firm, trade association, industry group, labor union, etc. that is part of the antidumping petition requesting the investigation 2.4 The "Foreign Firms" Spreadsheets ­ AD-CTY-Foreign-Firms For many user countries, we also have a spreadsheet presenting a common set of information on foreign firms subject to the antidumping investigation, and, where available, the foreign-firm specific outcomes (e.g., level of duties imposed) at the resolution of the investigation. The AD-CTY-Foreign-Firms spreadsheet has the same 3 initial column headings (Columns A through C) as described in table 2.4.1. Table 2.4.1 : Variables in the AD-CTY-Foreign-Firms Spreadsheets Column Variable Name Description A. CASE_ID Case identifier used to link observations across different elements of the database [generated by us] B. F_FIRM Foreign firm under investigation in the antidumping petition C. F_AD_MEASURE_FIRM Foreign firm-specific final antidumping measure imposed 12 3 More Country-Specific Information on AD Sources and Data For each of the AD user countries for which we have detailed data formatted as described in section 2, we describe in this section the additional and "unique" information specific to each user country. Table 3.1 reports the sources of much of our information on national government agencies handling the dumping and injury determination of the antidumping process, their websites (if available) and the names of official government documents in which antidumping investigation notifications are published. Table 3.1 : User Countries' Antidumping Investigative Agencies, Government Reporting Publications and Websites Country Government Agency Handling Government Agency Handling Government Publications that Dumping Investigation Injury Investigation Report Antidumping Activity Argentina Secretariat of Industry and Trade National Commision of Foreign Resolutions and Acts published by (Secretaría de Industria y Comercio) Trade (Comisión Nacional de the Documentation and Information Comercio Exterior (CNCE)) Center of the Argentine Economic Ministry http://infoleg.mecon.gov.ar/ Australia Dumping Unit of the Australian Dumping Unit of the Australian Commonwealth of Australian Customs Service Customs Service Gazette, Australian Financial Review, and Australian Customs Dumping Notices (ACDNs) http://www.customs.gov.au/ Brazil Department of Commercial Defense Department of Commercial Official Diary of the Union (Diario (Departamento de Defesa Comercial Defense (Departamento de Defesa Oficial da Uniao), a circular of the (DECOM)) at the Secretariat of Comercial (DECOM)) at the Secretariat of Foreign Trade Foreign Trade (Secretaria de Comercio Secretariat of Foreign Trade (SECEX) Exterior (SECEX)) (Secretaria de Comercio Exterior http://www.desenvolvimento.gov.br/s (SECEX)) itio/secex/secex/competencia.php Canada Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Canadian International Trade Canada Gazette Directorate of the Canada Border Tribunal http://canadagazette.gc.ca/ Services Agency (CBSA) http://www.citt- http://www.cbsa-asfc.gc.ca/sima/menu- tcce.gc.ca/index_e.asp e.html Colombia Subdirección de Prácticas Comerciales Subdirección de Prácticas Diaro Oficial (Assistant Director of Trade Practices) Comerciales (Assistant Director http://www.imprenta.gov.co/print- in the Ministerio de Comercio, of Trade Practices) in the int/HTML/frameset/inter_diariofi.htm Industria y Turismo (Ministry of Trade, Ministerio de Comercio, Industria Industry, and Tourism) y Turismo (Ministry of Trade, http://www.mincomercio.gov.co Industry, and Tourism) http://www.mincomercio.gov.co 13 Country Government Agency Handling Government Agency Handling Government Publications that Dumping Investigation Injury Investigation Report Antidumping Activity European Trade Directorate of the European Trade Directorate of the European Official Journal of the European Union Commission Commission Communities http://europa.eu.int/eur- lex/lex/JOIndex.do?ihmlang=en India Directorate General of Antidumping Directorate General of The Gazette of India and Allied Duties in the Ministry of Antidumping and Allied Duties in http://commerce.nic.in/ad_cases.htm Commerce the Ministry of Commerce South Korean Trade Commission (KTC) Korean Trade Commission (KTC) Korean Official Gazette (Gwanbo) Korea http://gwanbo.korea.go.kr/ http://www.ktc.go.kr/eng/main.asp Mexico Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Diario Oficial de la Federación Internacionales (UPCI, Internatational Internacionales (UPCI, http://dof.terra.com.mx/ Trade Practices Unit) in La Secretaría Internatational Trade Practices de Economía (Economic Secretary) Unit) in La Secretaría de http://www.economia.gob.mx/?P=104 Economía (Economic Secretary) http://www.economia.gob.mx/?P= 104 New Trade Remedies Group at the Ministry Trade Remedies Group at the New Zealand Gazette Zealand of Economic Development Ministry of Economic http://www.med.govt.nz/buslt/trade_r Development em.html Peru Comisión de Fiscalización de Dumping Comisión de Fiscalización de El Peruano y Subsidio (Commission Inspecting Dumping y Subsidio http://www.elperuano.com.pe/ Dumping and Subsidies) in INDECOPI (Commission Inspecting Dumping http://www.indecopi.gob.pe/ and Subsidies) in INDECOPI http://www.indecopi.gob.pe/ Turkey "Board of Evaluation of Unfair "Board of Evaluation of Unfair Resmî Gazete (Official Gazette) Competition in Importation" (the Competition in Importation" (the published in Turkish with links to Board) and the "Department of Board) and the "Department of antidumping measures imposed and Dumping and Subsidy Investigation" Dumping and Subsidy current investigations at (the Department) Investigation" (the Department) http://www.dtm.gov.tr/ITHALAT/da mping/dampgiris.htm United International Trade Administration US International Trade Federal Register States (ITA) in the Department of Commerce Commission http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/ http://www.ita.doc.gov/ http://www.usitc.gov Venezuela Comisión Antidumping y Sobre Comisión Antidumping y Sobre Gaceta Oficial Subsidios (CASS) Subsidios (CASS) http://www.tsj.gov.ve/ http://www.cass.com.ve/ http://www.cass.com.ve/ gaceta/gacetaoficial.asp South Trade Remedies Directorates at the Trade Remedies Directorates at International Trade Administration Africa Department of Trade and Industry the Department of Trade and Commission Reports (DTI) Industry (DTI) http://www.dti.gov.za/offerings/offeri ng.asp?offeringid=82 14 In each user country-specific section that follows below, we add basic information on each country's antidumping process. We also describe key missing elements of the data that we experienced during the data collection. Finally, so as not to throw away useful, but country-specific information, for each country's spreadsheets we describe the additional data columns in AD-CTY-Master, AD-CTY- Products, AD-CTY-Domestic-Firms, AD-CTY-Foreign-Firms spreadsheets beyond the columns of data described in section 2. 3.1 Argentina (ARG) Argentina uses a dual track system: dumping is assessed by the Secretariat for Industry and Commerce while injury is determined by the National Commission for Foreign Trade (CNCE). Antidumping decisions by the two agencies are contained in Acts (Actas) and Resolutions (Resoluciones), which are available through the Economic Ministry's "Documentation and Information Centre." The source of the underlying data was online publications of Acts and Resolutions via the website of the Economic Ministry's Documentation and Information Centre as well as tables in Nogués and Baracat (2005), which describes more detail on the Argentine antidumping process. The Argentine spreadsheet contains additional data beyond the standard information described in Section 2. The additional items are described in the table below. 15 Table 3.1.1 : Additional Argentine Data Included in AD-ARG-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-ARG-Master: U. INIT_GP The government publication initiating the investigation V. P_GP The government publication containing the preliminary finding W. P_MEASURES_GP The government publication containing the preliminary measures X. P_AD_DUTY The preliminary antidumping duty imposed with details on the measure(s). Y. F_GP The government publication containing the final finding Z. F_MEASURES_GP The government publication containing the final measures AA. F_AD_DUTY The final antidumping duty imposed with details on the measure(s). AB. F_AD_MARGIN(min) The final minimum dumping margin found AC. F_AD_MARGIN(max) The final maximum dumping margin found AD. DUTY_RULE Either FD- Full duty or LD- Lesser Duty, where full duty implies the full dumping margin was imposed as an antidumping duty while lesser duty implies that the antidumping duty imposed was less than the full margin. Source: Nogués and Baracat (2005) AE. METHOD Methodology used to determine the dumping margin (DM- Domestic market, TC- Third country, CB- Cost based) Source: Nogués and Baracat (2005) AF. TYPE Either D-Dumping Case or RD -Review of Dumping Case Source: Nogués and Baracat (2005) In terms of incomplete or missing data, the Argentine data set does not have complete information on the revocation or continuation of measures, as this information is only available for cases that have undergone a review. Furthermore, the database contains only partial information on foreign exporters as only some were named in the official documents. 3.2 Australia (AUS) The Australian Customs Service (or Customs) is solely responsible for anti-dumping investigations and determines if dumping and/or injury has occurred for each case. The decisions of the Australian Customs Service's Dumping Unit are sometimes reviewed by a Trade Measures Review Officer from the Trade Measures Review Secretariat. The initiation and outcomes of each investigation are published in the Australian Commonwealth Gazette and in Australian Customs Dumping Notices (ACDNs), which are available online at the Customs website. The sources for data included in the database is online 16 publications of Customs Notices and Reports at the Australian Customs website, as well as on-site inspection of Customs Documents at the Australian Customs Office in Canberra. Information about Australia's antidumping process is available as an online public document named "Australia's Anti- Dumping and Countervailing Administration", which can be accessed via the Customs website. For a discussion of Australia's antidumping process see also Moulis and Gay (2005). In addition to the standard data described in section 2, the Australian spreadsheets contain additional data, which are described in the table below. Table 3.2.1 : Additional Australian Data Included in AD-AUS-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-AUS-Master : U. P_DUTY(MIN) The minimum preliminary anti-dumping duty imposed V. P_DUTY(MAX) The maximum preliminary anti-dumping duty imposed W. F_DUTY (MIN) The minimum final anti-dumping duty imposed X. F_DUTY (MAX) The maximum final anti-dumping duty imposed Y. INIT_GP_ACDN The government publication (Australian Customs Dumping Notice) containing the initiation of the case Z. P_GP_ACDN The government publication (Australian Customs Dumping Notice) containing the preliminary findings of the case AA. F_GP_ACDN The government publication (Australian Customs Dumping Notice) containing the final findings of the case AB. GP_ADD_ACDN The government publication (Australian Customs Dumping Notice) mentioning the imposition of antidumping duties AC. GP_ACDN_TERM The government publication (Australian Customs Dumping Notice) mentioning the termination of the case AD. GP_ACDN_REVOKE The government publication (Australian Customs Dumping Notice) mentioning the revocation of anti-dumping measures AE. NOTES Comments In AD-AUS-Foreign-Firms: D. P_DEC The preliminary decision for the case in which the foreign exporting firm is involved E. F_DEC The final decision for the case in which the foreign exporting firm is involved F. FIRM_D_MARGINS The dumping margin assessed for the foreign exporting firm G. NOTES Comments 17 In terms of missing or incomplete data, the Australian spreadsheet lacks details on final antidumping duties imposed such as Australian Customs Dumping Notice (ACDN) documents, dates on which antidumping duties were imposed, and the size of duties imposed for certain cases (especially those initiated between 1996 and 2004). Furthermore, the Australian data does not contain the outcomes of reviews. 3.3 Brazil (BRA) Brazilian antidumping investigations are carried out solely by the Department of Commercial Defense (DECOM), which is part of the Secretariat for Foreign Trade (SECEX). The Secretariat itself is under the Brazilian Ministry of Development, Trade, and Industry. The outcomes of investigations are published by the Secretariat (SECEX) in circulars, some of which are available online at the Secretariat's website. The Brazilian data was provided by Honorio Kumé and is based on Kumé and Piani (2005), which includes a history and analysis of the use of antidumping in Brazil. See also Caetano (2005). The Brazilian spreadsheet contains the standard data items described in section 2, as well as a few additional data items described below. Table 3.3.1 : Additional Brazilian Data Included in AD-BRA-v1.0.xls Column Variable Description In AD-BRA-Master : U. P_AD_DUTY The preliminary antidumping duty imposed. If several duties were imposed, this column contains the maximum duty V. F_AD_DUTY The final antidumping duty imposed. If several duties were imposed, this column contains the maximum duty W. TYPE An indicator of review cases (R=review case) In terms of missing or incomplete data, the Brazilian spreadsheet lacks data on the preliminary outcomes for certain cases. There is also no firm-level data (neither for domestic nor foreign firms). 18 3.4 Canada (CAN) Canada's antidumping process has a two-track determination of injury and dumping. Dumping determinations are handled by the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Directorate of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), while injury determinations are made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT). Both bodies initiate their own investigations, each followed by preliminary and final decisions. Note however that this system was not used prior to mid-2000. Prior to 2000 the CBSA was known as the CCRA (Canada Customs and Revenue Agency) and the CITT did not initiate a separate investigation in the preliminary phase. The CCRA would briefly discuss whether injury was evident if they found preliminary evidence of dumping. Then the CITT would begin a separate injury investigation only if the case proceeded to the final phase. Alternatively, if an interested party (such as a company named in the case) referred the preliminary issue of injury to the CITT, the tribunal would hold a preliminary investigation. A number of data sources were used to collect the Canadian information. The primary resources were the websites of the CBSA and the CITT. If possible, any discrepancies in the data (such as a difference in a date listed in two separate sources) were decided in favor of the information found in the actual case files on these sites. However, for pre-1995 CCRA cases, hard copies were used because the site did not have coverage of that era. They were provided by the Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Directorate and only covered final determinations. Therefore, information on preliminary CCRA cases before 1995 was gathered from three sources: the CBSA Historical Listing (http://www.cbsa- asfc.gc.ca/sima/historic-e.html), a list of CCRA decision dates provided by the Directorate, and the Canada Gazette microfiche collection at Harvard University. Similarly, CITT cases before 1988 were not available online, and information on these was gathered from the Canada Gazette microfiche. The additional data collected for Canada beyond that described in section 2 is detailed in the following table: 19 Table 3.4.1 : Additional Canadian Data Included in AD-CAN-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-CAN-Master : U. CASE_CBSA Case code associated with the dumping investigation administered by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) V. CASE_CITT Case code associated with the injury investigation administered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT). Only assigned in the final stage. W. RELATED_CVD Case code of a related countervailing duty investigation against the same product and country, see CVD-CAN workbook X. INIT_DATE_CBSA Date of initiation of the case at the CBSA Y. INIT_DATE_CITT Date of initiation of the case at the CITT Z. P_AVG_DUTY The weighted average preliminary duty AA. F_AVG_DUTY The weighted average final duty AB. TERM_DATE The date a case was terminated for reasons such as the case was withdrawn by the petitioner or there was insignificant evidence of dumping AC. NOTES Comments In AD-CAN-Products : D. NOTES Comments In AD-CAN-Domestic-Firms : C. NOTES Comments In AD-CAN-Foreign-Firms : D. F_AD_MARGIN_FIRM Final dumping margin in percentage terms of normal value as decided for a specific firm by the CBSA E. F_AD_NDUTY_FIRM Final firm-specific dumping duty assessed in percentage terms of normal value F. F_AD_DUTYPAYABLE_FIRM Final dumping margin in percentage terms of export price as decided for a specific firm by the CBSA G. F_AD_EDUTY_FIRM Final firm-specific dumping duty assessed in percentage terms of export price H. NOTES Comments There are a few important caveats to the Canadian data with respect to the levels of duties imposed. Prior to 2001, most duties were reported in percentage terms of normal value, as opposed to percentage terms of export price. Thus, on the Master Spreadsheet, duties are in terms of normal value 20 until case CAN-AD-302 (Cold-rolled steel sheet from Brazil). Furthermore, duties were usually imposed as ad valorem rates. Nevertheless, there were some instances in which the duty was imposed as a tax on any good entering Canada at a price lower than a given selling price reported to customs. Finally, the levels of duty described in the Master spreadsheet are typically the trade-weighted average margin of dumping found across all investigated firms. However, in some cases, the weighted average was not available, so a proxy, such as the un-weighted average, was used instead. We include notes as to how the proxy was constructed. Next, we were unable to verify the preliminary duty levels on cases appearing before CAN-AD- 209 and on a few cases afterwards, i.e., CAN-AD-218 through CAN-AD-225. These were gathered from the CBSA Historical Listing, which we found to contain a few minor errors. Second, the dates for CITT cases before CAN-AD-79 were gathered from the Gazette, which means that these dates may be the publication dates for the decision, which usually occurred about 15 days after the actual decision date. The decision dates after CAN-AD-79 have been verified. Third, CITT dates for preliminary rulings before CAN-AD-272 were only available on a select number of cases that went to the final stage. Any cases that were terminated or suspended earlier lacked this information. There are a few data columns that are redundant in the Canadian data. First, the P_AD_DATE series is largely identical to the P_DUMP_DEC series, as preliminary duties are assessed immediately from the date of the CBSA preliminary decision. Similarly, the F_AD_DATE is largely identical to the F_INJ_DEC, as final duties are assessed as soon as the CITT hands down an affirmative decision. Depending on the specifics of the tribunal's decision, the final duty may be applied retroactively to goods imported during the provisional duty period. Finally, the INIT_DATE series is identical to the INIT_DATE_CBSA series, as the CBSA always initiates an investigation before the CITT. 3.5 Colombia (COL) In Colombia, injury, dumping, and causation are handled as a single track process. The main investigative authority is the Subdirección de Prácticas Comerciales (Assistant Director of Trade Practices), which is 21 the body that processes claims in dumping cases. The Subdirección presents its findings to the Comité de Prácticas Comerciales (Trade Practices Committee) which makes a final recommendation. The Ministerio de Comercio, Industria y Turismo (Ministry of Trade, Industry, and Tourism) issues the overall decision corresponding to these recommendations. A more complete discussion (in Spanish) can be found at the Ministry website, http://www.mincomercio.gov.co/. The original source material for this data can be found in the dumping/subsidizing section of that website, particularly in the summary excel sheet provided there. The Colombian spreadsheet contains the standard data items described in section 2, as well as a few additional data items described below. Table 3.5.1 : Additional Colombian Data Included in AD-COL-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-COL-Master : U. TERM_DATE Date of termination, usually instituted because the case was denied initiation V. P_AD_DUTY The preliminary rate W. F_AD_DUTY The final rate X. INIT_GP The resolution number of the initiation action Y. P_GP The resolution number of the preliminary decision of dumping and injury Z. F_GP The resolution number of the final decision of dumping and injury AA. TERM_GP The resolution number of the termination action AB. REVOKE_GP The resolution number of the revocation action AC. NOTES Comments In AD-COL-Products : D. NOTES Comments Because this data was compiled from a secondary source (the Ministry's excel file), and not from the actual case files, some information is incomplete. It was unclear exactly when duties were imposed, so the P_AD_DATE and F_AD_DATE columns are largely missing. All other dates are those listed with 22 the resolution numbers by the Ministry, which does not describe whether these are the dates of decision or of publication. Furthermore, termination dates and resolution numbers were only available for a select number of cases. Lastly, specific revocation resolutions were listed for only two cases. Other duties are known to have been revoked, but no details were available. Therefore, these revocations dates are simply listed as the standard five-year expiration date. Finally, the "DUMP" and "INJ" columns are identical, since Colombia uses a single track antidumping process. Firm-specific information is also currently unavailable. 3.6 European Union (EUN) Antidumping investigations in the European Union are handled by the Trade Directorate of the European Commission. Investigations follow a single-track i.e. the system assigns the responsibility for dumping and injury assessment only to the Commission. The initiations and outcomes of each investigation are published in the European Union's Official Journal. Electronic versions of antidumping-related documents are available online in the form of Information and Notices (prefix C) and Legislation (prefix L). The source of the data was primarily the European Union's Official Journal website. In cases where the online documents lacked certain data items, the Office for Official Publications provided the complete versions of these documents upon request by email. There is a fairly extensive research literature on various aspects of EU antidumping, e.g., for procedural descriptions and analyses see Messerlin (2001) and Vermulst (2005). In addition to the standard antidumping information described in section 2, the AD-EUN workbook contains much additional information that may be of use to researchers, as we describe in the table below. 23 Table 3.6.1 : Additional EU Data Included in AD-EUN-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-EUN-Master : U. INIT_GP The government publication containing the initiation notice V. P_AD_DUTY The preliminary antidumping duty imposed. If there were several duties imposed, this column contains the maximum dumping duty W. F_AD_DUTY The final antidumping duty imposed. If there were several duties imposed, this column contains the maximum dumping duty X. P_AD_MARGIN The preliminary dumping margin assessed. If there were several dumping margins assessed, this column contains the maximum dumping margin found Y. F_AD_MARGIN The final dumping margin assessed. If there were several dumping margins assessed, this column contains the maximum dumping margin found Z. P_GP The government publication containing the preliminary outcome of the investigation AA. F_GP The government publication containing the final outcome of the investigation AB. NOTES Comments In AD-EUN-Products : D. CN_ P_ex This column indicates whether the HS code (referred to as the CN code in the European Union) of the good under investigation has an `ex' prefix at the preliminary stage. The `ex' prefix indicates that the products being investigated are only a subset of the products in the reported CN code. E. P_HS_CODE The HS code of the investigated good at the preliminary stage F. SIG_DIGITS_P_HSCODE Number of digits of the HS product code reported at the preliminary stage. G. CN_F_ex This column indicates whether the HS code (referred to as the CN code in the European Union) of the good under investigation has an `ex' prefix at the final stage. The `ex' prefix indicates that the products being investigated are only a subset of the products in the reported CN code. H. F_HS_CODE The HS code of the investigated good at the final stage I. SIG_DIGITS_F_HSCODE Number of digits of the HS product code reported at the final stage J. NOTES Comments In AD-EUN-Domestic-Firms : C. COUNTRY The European country in which the plaintiff domestic firm is located In AD-EUN-Foreign-Firms : D. P_AD_MEASURE_FIRM The firm-specific preliminary antidumping measure imposed E. P_AD_MARGIN The firm-specific preliminary antidumping margin imposed F. F_AD_MARGIN The firm-specific final antidumping margin imposed G. P_AD_DUTY The firm-specific preliminary antidumping duty imposed H. F_AD_DUTY The firm-specific final antidumping duty imposed I. NOTES Comments In terms of missing or incomplete data, the European Union dataset lacks information on reviews. 24 3.7 India (IND) India's antidumping process has a single track determination of injury and dumping, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Directorate General of Antidumping and Allied Duties in the Ministry of Commerce. The Designated Authority initiates and carries out both the dumping and the injury investigations, and makes a ruling based on its findings. Information on these investigations are made public through The Gazette of India: Extraordinary (an issue of the Ministry of Commerce) and is available online at http://commerce.nic.in/ad_cases.htm. More information regarding the Indian antidumping process can be found in Kumaran (2005) and Banik (1998). In addition to the standard antidumping information described in section 2, additional data collected for India is described below: Table 3.7.1 : Additional Indian AD Data Included in AD-IND-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-IND-Master : U. NOTES Comments In AD-IND-Domestic-Firms : C. PET A dummy variable taking a value of 1 if the firm/entity in COLUMN B filed or supported the AD petition and 0 if the firm/entity forms part of the domestic industry and is mentioned in the investigation but did not file or act in support of the petition. In AD-IND-Foreign-Firms : D. F_AD_MARGIN The firm-specific final antidumping margin imposed E. F_AD_DUTY The firm-specific final antidumping duty imposed F. P_AD_MARGIN The firm-specific preliminary antidumping margin imposed G. P_AD_DUTY The firm-specific preliminary antidumping duty imposed 25 Aside from information on antidumping revocations (if any exist), there is nothing systematically missing from the Indian data for all investigations. Nevertheless, for any given investigation there may some missing elements such as dates, decisions or even product codes. 3.8 South Korea (KOR) In South Korea, the Korean Trade Commission is wholly responsible for anti-dumping investigations. This quasi-judicial agency determines if dumping and/or injury has occurred for each case. The initiation and outcomes of each investigation are published in the Korean Official Gazette (Gwanbo). The Korean Trade Commission also publishes information about ongoing antidumping cases online at its website. The source of the data was hard-copies of antidumping documents in Korean provided by the Korean Trade Commission. Summary information about Korea's antidumping process is available on the Korean Trade Commission's website. In addition to the standard data described in section 2, the Korean file contains additional data described in the table below. Table 3.8.1 : Additional Korean Data Included in AD-KOR-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-KOR-Master : U. P_AD_DUTY The maximum (or range) of preliminary anti-dumping duty (duties) imposed V. F_AD_DUTY The maximum (or range) of final anti-dumping duty (duties) imposed W. REVIEW_DUTY The range and schedule of anti-dumping duties maintained after a sunset review X. REVIEW_F_DATE The date when a sunset review final decision was taken Y. REVIEW_DUTY_DATE The date when reviewed antidumping duties became effective Z. TYPE A variable indicating if a sunset review was performed on the case (Review=Sunset Review was carried out) In AD-KOR-Foreign-Firms: D. F_AD_MARGIN The maximum (or range) of firm-specific dumping margin(s) found at the final stage E. F_AD_DUTY Details on the firm-specific antidumping duty (measures) imposed at the final stage. F. COUNTRY The country in which the foreign exporting firm is located 26 In terms of missing or incomplete data, the Korean dataset is missing several cases for which hard-copy documents were not available, although antidumping investigations had been notified to the WTO, and this problem is especially severe between 2000 and 2004. The data is also missing the details on the government publications related to antidumping investigations at the initiation, preliminary, and final stages. Finally, the database lacks some information on preliminary outcomes in certain cases and it does not contain information on when antidumping measures were revoked. 3.9 Mexico (MEX) In Mexico, determinations of dumping and injury are made by one body, the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales (UPCI, International Trade Practices Unit), which is part of the Secretaría de Economía. Unlike many other countries, the Mexican authority is quite likely to continue an investigation through the preliminary phase without placing duties. Mexico was one of the earlier Latin American countries to introduce a dumping investigation system, in place since 1987. The current law which governs this process can be found at the OAS SICE website, http://www.sice.oas.org/antidumping/legislation/mexico/LCEXT.asp. The data for this set was found in electronic copies of the Mexican case files. For a discussion of Mexico's antidumping process see Leycegui and de la Torre (2005), as well as Niels and Francois (forthcoming). In addition to the standard data described in section 2, the Mexican file contains additional data described in the table below. Table 3.9.1 : Additional Mexican Data Included in AD-MEX-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-MEX-Master : U. RELATED_CVD Case code of a related countervailing duty investigation against the same product and country, see MEX-CVD workbook V. P_AD_DUTY The "all others" preliminary rate W. F_AD_DUTY The "all others" final rate X. NOTES Comments Y. FURTHER NOTES Comments that would not fit in the first notes column 27 Column Variable Name Description In AD-MEX-Products : D. NOTES Comments In AD-MEX-Domestic-Firms : C. NOTES Comments In AD-MEX-Foreign-Firms : D. F_AD_MARGIN_FIRM Final firm-specific dumping margin E. NOTES Comments There were a number of difficulties in standardizing the Mexican data. First there was substantial variation in methods used to assess duties in the early cases. Rates could be expressed in per unit terms, as a percentage, or as the difference between an export price and a given normal value. Furthermore, some duties were only put in effect if the export price dropped below a set limit. Additionally, before the creation of the current dumping law, the Mexican authority could levy duties almost simultaneously with the case's initiation. They only needed to use the amounts of dumping established in the initiation brief to decide tax levels. Therefore, a number of early cases lack separate initiation dates, and instead have the same date listed for both the preliminary and initiation phases. Note also that the preliminary duty was often revised later in the process. Finally, prior to 2000, the dates in all series are those listed at the top of each case file, and these dates appear to be the dates of publication in the Diario Oficial. After 2000 the only available dates were those listed at the bottom of the case file, which appear to be the actual decision dates. Because of this inconsistency, P_AD_DATE and F_AD_DATE are incomplete. Note however that duties appeared to come into effect the day after publication. A few columns are redundant, but were maintained to keep consistent with the overall format, because the same authority handles injury and dumping investigations in Mexico. P_DUMP_DATE and P_INJ_DATE are identical, as are P_DUMP_DEC and P_INJ_DEC. 28 3.10 New Zealand (NZL) In New Zealand, antidumping investigations are conducted by the Trade Remedies Group at the Ministry of Economic Development. The Trade Remedies Group publishes initiations and outcomes of antidumping cases in the official New Zealand Gazette as well as on the Ministry of Economic Development's website. The source of the data was the Ministry's website which was combined with some information provided directly by the Trade Remedies Group. Information about New Zealand's antidumping investigative process can be found on the Ministry's website via the Trade Remedies link. In addition to the standard data described in section 2, the file for New Zealand contains additional data described in the table below. Table 3.10.1 : Additional Data from New Zealand Included in AD-NZL-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-NZL-Master : U. P_AD_DUTY The preliminary anti-dumping duty for all non-named foreign exporting firms imposed V. F_AD_DUTY The final anti-dumping duty for all non-named foreign exporting firms or range of duties imposed W. INIT_GP The government publication containing the case initiation X. P_GP The government publication containing the preliminary case outcomes Y. F_GP The government publication containing the final case outcomes Z. NOTES Comments In AD-NZL-Foreign-Firms: D. F_AD_MARGIN The trade-weighted average (or range of) firm-specific dumping margin(s) found E. F_AD_DUTY The ad-valorem equivalent of the firm-specific final antidumping duties imposed In terms of missing or incomplete data, the New Zealand workbook does not contain preliminary outcomes because New Zealand's antidumping procedures differ from those of other countries in that a preliminary outcome is rarely issued unless provisional measures are imposed. Furthermore, the data is 29 missing the references to government publications from 1999 onwards. The data also lacks exact details on final antidumping duties imposed as these are often in terms of reference prices ­ e.g., Normal Value (Value for Duty Equivalent) or Non-Injurious Free-On-Board - for further sub-classifications of the investigated good. However, the workbook contains the ad-valorem equivalents of antidumping duties imposed as calculated by the Trade Remedies Group. 3.11 Peru (PER) In Peru, one authority investigates both dumping and injury, La Comisión de Fiscalización de Dumping y Subsidios (Commission Investigating Dumping and Subsidies). This body is part of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI). The actual laws governing this process can be found at the INDECOPI website (in Spanish).12 This website includes the case files in html or PDF formats, which provided the source material for this data set. At the time of our data construction, this particular element of the Peruvian government's website infrastructure was a bit unreliable, thus we found it useful to save relevant web pages if they are needed for long-term use. In addition to the standard data described in section 2, the file for Peru contains additional data described in the table below. Table 3.11.1 : Additional Peruvian Data Included in AD-PER-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-PER-Master : U. P_AD_DUTY Preliminary duty imposed V. F_AD_DUTY Final duty imposed W. INIT_GP Resolution number for the initiation action X. P_GP Resolution number for the preliminary dumping/injury decision Y. F_GP Resolution number for the final dumping/injury decision Z. REVOKE_GP Resolution number for the revocation action AA. NOTES Comments 12See http://www.indecopi.gob.pe/legislacionyjurisprudencia/cds/antidumping.asp , last accessed on 15 August 2005. 30 Column Variable Name Description In AD-PER-Products : D. NOTES Comments In AD-PER-Foreign-Firms : D. F_AD_MARGIN_FIRM Final margin of dumping for a specific firm E. NOTES Comments The primary concern with the Peruvian data is that it is incomplete. The INDECOPI site does have the majority of the case files as several early investigations seem to be missing, and the documentation ends in 2002. 3.12 Turkey (TUR) The Turkish antidumping process is administered by two separate bodies, the "Board of Evaluation of Unfair Competition in Importation" (the Board) and the "Department of Dumping and Subsidy Investigation" (the Department). According to the Turkish government's website, "The Board is an independent body consisting of 8 members, representing 7 different public institutions and non-profit organisations. The Board is empowered to take decisions for the initiation of an investigation, acceptance of undertakings, termination of an investigation or imposition of anti-dumping duties. The Department is subordinated to the Prime Ministry Undersecretariat for Foreign Trade, Directorate General for Imports. The Department is entitled to make preliminary examination upon complaint, to present proposals to the Board on whether to initiate an investigation or to take measures and to carry out such investigations." (DTM, 2005) Despite the existence of two bodies the investigations tend to follow a single track procedure as announcements on dumping and injury tend to be made simultaneously. Announcements are published in the Turkish government's Official Gazette (Resmî Gazete) publications which is available online, but only in Turkish. 31 In addition to the basic antidumping data described in section 2, additional data for Turkey is as described in the following table Table 3.12.1 : Additional Turkish Data Included in AD-TUR-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-TUR-Master : U. P_AD_DUTY Description of the preliminary antidumping duty imposed V. F_AD_DUTY Description of the final antidumping duty imposed W. F_AD_GP Official Gazette government publication number documenting the final antidumping determination 3.13 United States (USA) The United States' antidumping process is a two-track procedure handled by two distinct government agencies ­ the dumping investigations are administered by the International Trade Administration within the Department of Commerce, and the injury investigations are handled by the quasi-judicial United States International Trade Commission. Information on United States' antidumping investigations is reported by these agencies to the public through the Federal Register. The US antidumping process has been studied extensively, see for example, Boltuck and Litan (1991), Staiger and Wolak (1994), Blonigen and Prusa (2004), Horlick (2005), and Nelson (forthcoming). In addition to the standard antidumping information described in section 2, the AD-USA workbook contains much additional information13 that may be of use to researchers. 13Much of the information in the workbook on US domestic and foreign firms is graciously provided by Bruce A. Blonigen as posted at his website, http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bruceb/adpage.html. The data can also be compiled from notifications to the Federal Register (foreign firms and outcomes) and the ITA's website, http://ia.ita.doc.gov/stats/pet-init.htm (domestic petitioners), last accessed on 22 July 2005. 32 Table 3.13.1 : Additional US Data Included in AD-USA-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-USA-Master : U. CASE_ITA Case code associated with the dumping investigation administered by the International Trade Administration (ITA) at the Department of Commerce V. CASE_ITC Case code associated with the injury investigation administered by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) W. RELATED_CVD Case code of a related countervailing duty investigation against the same product and country, see CVD-USA workbook X. ITC_REPCODE First (chronological) ITC case code for multiple country/identical product antidumping investigations Y. INIT_DATE_ITA Date of initiation of the case at the ITA Z. INIT_DATE_ITC Date of initiation of the case at the ITC AA. TERM_DATE Date of termination of investigation if terminated AB. P_AD_DUTY Preliminary "all other firm" antidumping duty imposed AC. F_AD_DUTY Final "all other firm" antidumping duty imposed AD. INIT_ITA_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for initiation at the ITA AE. INIT_ITC_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for initiation at the ITC AF. P_DUMP_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for ITA preliminary dumping determination AG. P_INJ_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for ITC preliminary injury determination AH. F_DUMP_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for ITA final dumping determination AI. F_INJ_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for ITC final injury determination AJ. F_AD_MEASURE_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for imposition of antidumping measure order AK. REVOKE_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for revocation of antidumping order AL. NOTES Comments In AD-USA-Products : D. TS_CODE Prior to 1989, the US did not subscribe to the HS system and instead used the TSUSA system to classify imports, thus this column reports the pre- 1989 cases which referenced the investigated products' 5-7 digit TSUSA code E. TS_DIGITS Number of digits of the TSUSA product code reported in TS_CODE (e.g., 5,7, etc.) F. CASE_ITC Case code associated with the injury investigation administered by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) G. NOTES Comments In AD-USA-Domestic-Firms : C. CASE_ITC Case code associated with the injury investigation administered by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) In AD-USA-Foreign-Firms : D. CASE_ITC Case code associated with the injury investigation administered by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) 33 In terms of missing or incomplete data, the US data set is complete, with the exception of information on domestic and foreign firms involved in the investigations ­ that data is only collected through investigation USA-AD-1058 (cases initiated through October 2003). More recent data on firms can be updated from the Federal Register. 3.14 Venezuela (VEN) Venezuela has a single track antidumping investigation procedure administered by the Comisión Antidumping y Sobre Subsidios (CASS, Anti-dumping and Subsidy Commission), which is assisted by the Secretaría Técnica (ST). CASS issues the rulings, while the ST helps with administration and investigation duties. The Venezuelan system was instituted in the early 1990s. The CASS website, http://www.cass.com.ve/ contains useful information on the dumping legislation and on the cases themselves. However, the Venezuelan internet infrastructure is relatively unreliable, so we found it useful to archive pages offline for extended use. This site provided the information for this data set. In addition to the standard data described in section 2, the file for Venezuela contains additional data described in the table below. Table 3.14.1 : Additional Venezuelan Data Included in AD-VEN-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-VEN-Master : U. TERM_DATE Date of the termination action V. P_AD_DUTY Preliminary antidumping duty imposed W. F_AD_DUTY Final antidumping duty imposed X. INIT_GP Decision number of the initiation action Y. P_GP Decision number of the preliminary dumping/injury determination Z. F_GP Decision number of the final dumping/injury determination AA. TERM_GP Decision number of the termination action AB. REVOKE_GP Decision number of the revocation action AC. CASE_WORKING_ID Number on the folders used to organize the case files AD. NOTES Comments In AD-VEN-Products : D. NOTES Comments In AD-VEN-Foreign-Firms : D. F_AD_MARGIN_FIRM Final dumping margin for a specific firm E. NOTES Comments 34 The Venezuelan data typically reports duties in CIF (cost, insurance, freight) terms, though on some occasions they are reported as FOB (free on board). Furthermore, the data in P_AD_DATE and F_AD_DATE is missing. Resolutions would come into effect on the date of publication, but that date was not usually listed in the files. Some notes on publication may be available on the CASS website. Also, the "DUMP" and "INJ" series are largely identical, because CASS makes both decisions simultaneously. 3.15 South Africa (ZAF) South African antidumping investigations are administered by the Trade Remedies Directorates in the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). The outcomes of investigations are published in the International Trade Administration Commission's reports. Data for South Africa was kindly provided by Gustav Brink and is based on Brink (2005). Holden (2002) provides an earlier analysis of South African antidumping as a reaction to trade liberalization or an anti-competitive instrument. The two articles contain descriptions of the antidumping process in South Africa, but a current summary of antidumping procedures can be found on the Department of Industry and Trade's website. The South African workbook contains the standard data items, as in Section 2, as well as a few additional data items described below. Table 3.15.1 : Additional South African Data Included in AD-ZAF-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In AD-ZAF-Master : U. P_AD_DUTY The maximum (or range of) preliminary antidumping duty (duties) imposed V. F_AD_DUTY The maximum (or range of ) final antidumping duty (duties) imposed W. GP_P_Report The government publication reporting the outcomes of the preliminary stage X. GP_F_Report The government publication reporting the outcomes of the final stage In AD-ZAF-Foreign-Firms: D. AD_MARGIN_FIRM The final firm-specific dumping margin(s) found E. P_AD_DUTY The preliminary firm-specific antidumping duty imposed F. F_AD_DUTY The final firm-specific antidumping duty imposed 35 In terms of missing or incomplete data, the South Africa dataset lacks dates when preliminary antidumping duties came into effect as well as dates when antidumping measures were revoked. Furthermore, the data set is missing preliminary outcomes, final outcomes, and HS codes for a few cases where hard-copy documents were missing. Finally, firm-specific information for a few cases where these were not published in the government reports. 4 AD-Using Countries with Data on Initiations Only As indicated already in table 1.1, there are a number of countries that also use antidumping policies but for which we have not managed to collect data, typically because of the lack of transparency making the data inaccessible. While most of these other ("OTH") countries would qualify as "new" users, some of them have become quite prolific users of the antidumping policy instrument. For a discussion of various countries use of antidumping, see Bundjamin (2005) for Indonesia, Sutham, Attavipach and Eiamchinda (2005) for Thailand, and Tian (2005) for China. Thus, in a separate file included in the data set (AD-OTH-v1.0.xls) we document basic information from the WTO on initiations by member countries (described below) over 1995-2003 that are not part of the more detailed database described in sections 2 and 3: 36 Table 4.1.1 : Other Antidumping User Countries with Initiation Information Only in the Database Spreadsheet Country Code Excel Workbook Names within Available Current (3-letter CTY) Country Name File Name Country Years of Version Workbook Data (last updated) BGR Bulgaria AD-BGR-Master , CHL Chile AD-CHL-Master , CHN China AD-CHN-Master , CRI Costa Rica AD-CRI-Master , CZE Czech Republic AD-CZE-Master , ECU Ecuador AD-ECU-Master , EGY Egypt AD-EGY-Master , GTM Guatemala AD-GTM-Master , IDN Indonesia AD-IDN-Master , ISR Israel AD-ISR-Master , JAM Jamaica AD-JAM-Master , JPN Japan AD-JPN-Master , LVA Latvia AD-LVA-Master , v1.0 LTU Lithuania AD-OTH-v1.0.xls AD-LTU-Master , 1995-2003 (8/2005) MYS Malaysia AD-MYS-Master , NIC Nicaragua AD-NIC-Master , PAK Pakistan AD-PAK-Master , PAN Panama AD-PAN-Master , PRY Paraguay AD-PRY-Master , PHL Philippines AD-PHL-Master , POL Poland AD-POL-Master , SVN Slovenia AD-SVN-Master , TWN Taiwan AD-TWN-Master , THA Thailand AD-THA-Master , TTO Trinidad and Tobago AD-TTO-Master , URY Uruguay AD-URY-Master The WTO data was originally collected and described in Miranda, Torres and Ruiz (1998) and has since been updated as part of the WTO's Rules Division Antidumping database.14 We report only the information available in the WTO dataset on investigations for other WTO members, as detailed in the table below, with one "Master" sheet per using country: 14The data for the WTO Rules Division Antidumping database is taken from the Semi-annual reports Members are obliged to submit to the WTO Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices. Thanks to Raul Torres and Johann Human for making this database available. 37 Table 4.1.2 : Variables in the AD-OTH-Master Spreadsheets Column Variable Name Description A. AD_CTY_NAME Country name of the user initiating the antidumping investigation B. CASE_ID Case identifier used to link observations across different elements of the database [generated by us] C. CASE_REPCODE Related antidumping investigations of multiple countries at the same time over the same product D. INV_CTY_NAME Country name of the foreign country under investigation E. INV_CTY_CODE 3-letter UN country code of the foreign country under investigation (see table 2.2) F. PRODUCT Description of the product under investigation G. INIT_DATE Date of initiation of the investigation (MM/DD/YEAR) 5 Countervailing Duty-Using Countries in the Database The data for each CVD user country is contained in a Microsoft Excel 2003 Workbook file (posted at http://www.brandeis.edu/~cbown/global_ad/ ), within which are typically two spreadsheets of data: 1) a master spreadsheet with basic antidumping case investigation information; and 2) a spreadsheet containing information on the Harmonized System (HS) products under investigation. There are only three countries with detailed countervailing duty data in the database thus far: Table 5.1 : Antidumping User Countries with Detailed Data in the Database Country Code Country Excel Workbook File Spreadsheet Names within Available Current (3-letter CTY) Name Name Country Workbook Years of Version Data (last updated) CAN Canada CVD-CAN-v1.0.xls CVD-CAN-Master , v1.0 CVD-CAN-Products 1985-2005 (8/2005) MEX Mexico CVD-MEX-v1.0.xls CVD-MEX-Master , v1.0 CVD-MEX-Products 1990-2003 (8/2005) USA United CVD-USA-Master , v1.0 States CVD-USA-v1.0.xls CVD-USA-Products 1980-2005 (8/2005) 38 The rest of section 5 details how each of these two basic spreadsheets is formatted for consistency across the CVD-user countries, before turning to country-specific descriptions for unique data found for each country. 5.1 The "Master" Spreadsheet for Each Country ­ CVD-CTY-Master Each country has a master spreadsheet presenting a common set of information. The CVD-CTY-Master15 spreadsheet has the same 21 initial column headings (Columns A through T) for each of the using countries that we describe below. For each additional country, columns U through (END) contain unique variables depending on the country's nuances of its own antidumping process and the availability of reported information. The following table describes the contents of the first 21 rows of each master spreadsheet for each country. Table 5.1.1 : Variables in the CVD-CTY-Master Spreadsheets Column Variable Name Description A. CVD_CTY_NAME Country name of the user initiating the countervailing duty investigation B. CASE_ID Case identifier used to link observations across different elements of the database [generated by us] C. CASE_REPCODE Related CVD investigations of multiple countries at the same time over the same product D. INV_CTY_NAME Country name of the foreign country under investigation E. INV_CTY_CODE 3-letter UN country code of the foreign country under investigation (see table 2.2) F. PRODUCT Description of the product under investigation G. INIT_DATE Date of initiation of the investigation (MM/DD/YEAR) H. P_SUB_DATE Date of preliminary subsidy decision (MM/DD/YEAR) I. P_INJ_DATE Date of preliminary injury decision (MM/DD/YEAR) J. P_SUB_DEC Preliminary subsidy decision: A(ffirmative), N(egative), W(ithdrawn prior to ruling by petitioning industry), T(erminated prior to ruling by government agency), P(artial ­ some products were found affirmative/others negative), B(ypassed, as sometimes the preliminary decision is skipped and the first decision is the final decision), OTH(er, explain in the notes section), "." (not relevant as case never reached that stage of the investigation) 15CTY is replaced with the 3-letter UN country code for each of the 15 user countries in the data set. 39 Column Variable Name Description K. P_INJ_DEC Preliminary injury decision: A(ffirmative), N(egative), W(ithdrawn prior to ruling by petitioning industry), T(erminated prior to ruling by government agency), P(artial ­ some products were found affirmative/others negative), B(ypassed, as sometimes the preliminary decision is skipped and the first decision is the final decision), OTH(er, explain in the notes section), "." (not relevant as case never reached that stage of the investigation) L. P_CVD_DATE Date of imposition of preliminary countervailing measure (MM/DD/YEAR) M. P_CVD_MEASURE Preliminary countervailing measure imposed: AVD (= ad valorem duty), SD (= specific duty), PU (= price undertaking), DPU (=duty if price falls under a given level), SA (= suspension agreement) N. F_SUB_DATE Date of final subsidy decision (MM/DD/YEAR) O. F_INJ_DATE Date of final injury decision (MM/DD/YEAR) P. F_SUB_DEC Final subsidy decision: A(ffirmative), N(egative), W(ithdrawn prior to ruling by petitioning industry), T(erminated prior to ruling by government agency), P(artial ­ some products were found affirmative/others negative), OTH(er, explain in the notes section), "." (not relevant as case never reached that stage of the investigation) Q. F_INJ_DEC Final injury decision: A(ffirmative), N(egative), W(ithdrawn prior to ruling by petitioning industry), T(erminated prior to ruling by government agency), P(artial ­ some products were found affirmative/others negative), OTH(er, explain in the notes section), "." (not relevant as case never reached that stage of the investigation) R. F_CVD_DATE Date of imposition of final countervailing measure (MM/DD/YEAR) S. F_CVD_MEASURE Final countervailing measure imposed: AVD (= ad valorem duty), SD (= specific duty), PU (= price undertaking), DPU (=duty if price falls under a given level), SA (= suspension agreement) T. REVOKE_DATE Date of revocation of countervailing measure (MM/DD/YEAR) Before describing the other spreadsheets available across countries, it is important to point out that for a number of countries, much of the data described in the master spreadsheet may be redundant. For example, for a "single track" country that has one government agency carrying out a simultaneous injury and subsidy investigation, the preliminary subsidy and injury decisions (and any measures imposed) might take place on the same date. The same is likely to be the case for final decisions as well. Because some countries have "dual track" investigative processes, we have chosen this approach so as to have some standardization across country spreadsheets. 40 5.2 The "Product" Spreadsheets ­ CVD-CTY-Products Each user country also has a spreadsheet presenting information on the Harmonized System (HS) product codes listed in the countervailing duty investigation petition. The CVD-CTY-Products spreadsheet has the same 3 initial column headings (Columns A through C) for each of the using countries, listed in table 2.2.1 . Table 5.2.1 : Variables in the CVD-CTY-Products Spreadsheets Column Variable Name Description D. CASE_ID Case identifier used to link observations across different elements of the database [generated by us] E. HS_CODE Harmonized System product code for the product under investigation F. HS_DIGITS Number of digits of the HS product code reported in HS_CODE 5.3 Canada (CAN) Canada's countervailing duty cases are handled by the same authorities that investigate dumping. The Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Directorate of the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA, formerly the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, CCRA) examines subsidy issues, while injury determinations are made by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT). Before late 2000, the CITT initiated an investigation only in two cases: after a preliminary determination of subsidizing had been made by the CCRA or if an interested party referred the issue of injury to the tribunal. The data sources used for these figures are identical to those used for the Canadian dumping data described in section 3. The Canadian CVD workbook contains the standard data items described above as well as a few additional data items described below. 41 Table 5.3.1 : Additional Canadian Data Included in CVD-CAN-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In CVD-CAN-Master : U. CASE_CBSA Case code associated with the subsidy investigation administered by the Canadian Border Services Agency (CBSA) V. CASE_CITT Case code associated with the injury investigation administered by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal (CITT). Only assigned in the final stage. W. INIT_DATE_CBSA Date of initiation of the case at the CBSA X. INIT_DATE_CITT Date of initiation of the case at the CITT Y. P_AVG_DUTY The weighted average preliminary duty Z. F_AVG_DUTY The weighted average final duty AA. TERM_DATE The date a case was terminated for reasons such as the case was withdrawn by the petitioner or there was insignificant evidence of dumping AB. NOTES Comments In CVD-CAN-Products : D. NOTES Comments In terms of the data, the duties were usually reported in per unit terms until CAN-CVD-24, when duties were imposed as a percentage of the export price, for the most part. Second, preliminary case information for the years covered by hard-copy cases were not available at the time of data collection, so a number of duty values are missing in that time period. 5.4 Mexico (MEX) As with Mexican dumping investigations, subsidy cases are investigated by the Unidad de Prácticas Comerciales Internacionales (UPCI, International Trade Practices Unit), part of the Secretaría de Economía. Countervailing duty investigations are far less common than antidumping actions. The first cases described in the database date from 1990, while dumping cases began in 1987. Regardless, countervailing duty investigations follow the same track as that used for dumping, with the UPCI ruling on both injury and the existence of subsidies simultaneously. The data here was gathered from electronic copies of the existing case files. 42 The Mexican CVD workbook contains the standard data items described above as well as a few additional data items described below. Table 5.4.1 : Additional Mexican Data Included in CVD-MEX-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In CVD-MEX-Master : U. P_CVD_DUTY Preliminary "all others" rate V. F_CVD_DUTY Final "all others" rate W. NOTES Comments There are a few notable omissions in the current data set. In particular, the P_CVD_DATE and F_CVD_DATE series are missing, since the publication dates of decisions were not verifiable. Normally duties would come into effect the day after publication. We believe that the dates listed are the publication dates, but this would require further checking against the Diario. Finally, the "SUB" and "INJ" columns are redundant, since Mexico has a one-track injury/subsidy investigation process. 5.5 United States (USA) Countervailing duty cases in the United States are investigated by the International Trade Administration (ITA) and the International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC handles the injury determination, while the ITA determines the existence of countervailable subsidies. However, a number of cases prior to 1995 did not require ITC rulings because the target country was not a signatory to the Tokyo Round's plurilateral Subsidy Agreement. Many of these cases are identified by ITC numbers in the form "COUNTRY-#" (such as COLOMBIA-1), which were created during data collection. The data was compiled from the Federal Register. The United States' CVD workbook contains the standard data items described above as well as a few additional data items described below. 43 Table 5.5.1 : Additional US Data Included in CVD-USA-v1.0.xls Column Variable Name Description In CVD-USA-Master : U. CASE_ITA Case code associated with the subsidy investigation administered by the International Trade Administration (ITA) V. CASE_ITC Case code associated with the injury investigation administered by the International Trade Commission (ITC) W. ITC_REPCODE First (chronological) ITC case code for multiple country/identical product investigations X. INIT_DATE_ITA Date of initiation of the case at the ITA Y. INIT_DATE_ITC Date of initiation of the case at the ITC Z. TERM_DATE Date of the termination action AA. P_CVD_DUTY The preliminary "all others" rate AB. F_CVD_DUTY The final "all others" rate AC. INIT_ITA_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for initiation at the ITA AD. INIT_ITC_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for initiation at the ITC AE. P_SUB_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for ITA preliminary subsidy determination AF. P_INJ_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for ITC preliminary injury determination AG. F_SUB_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for ITA final subsidy determination AH. F_INJ_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for ITC final injury determination AI. F_CVD_MEASURE_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for imposition of countervailing measure order AJ. TERM_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for termination of the case AK. REVOKE_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for revocation of countervailing duty order AL. SUSP_GP Citation to the Federal Register government publication for suspension of the case and acceptance of a suspension agreement AM. NOTES Comments In CVD-USA-Products : D. TS_CODE Prior to 1989, the US did not subscribe to the HS system and instead used the TSUSA system to classify imports, thus this column reports the pre-1989 cases which referenced the investigated products' 5-7 digit TSUSA code E. TS_DIGITS Number of digits of the TSUSA product code reported in TS_CODE (e.g., 5,7, etc.) F. CASE_ITC Case code associated with the injury investigation administered by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) G. NOTES Comments 44 6 Caveats for Data Use, Discovery of Errors, and Conclusions Given that the database has not yet been used in any actual research (that might help identify errors in the coding of data), we are certain that there are typographical errors, as well as errors that are more fundamental in nature in the data set. We also note that the quality of data available across countries varies substantially. To the extent that country notifications were unclear and data entry and collection require our research assistants to make decisions involving discretion at the margin, there are likely to be inconsistencies and the introduction of errors. As the data collection project is ongoing, we will correct such errors and repost the more accurate data to the research community via the website if notified by email at cbown@brandeis.edu. Our intention is to correct errors and to fill in the remaining holes of missing data for countries for which we have not been able to track down detailed data, and then to make the additional data available with updated and more accurate information at the website. It is also important to point out that researchers who have experience focusing on the United States or the European Union's antidumping process may be quite surprised when examining the data of other using countries for the first time, as their investigative procedures may be quite different. Furthermore, for many of the new user countries especially, there may be learning-by-doing with respect to antidumping. Thus, it was sometimes challenging for even an experienced AD researcher to always determine what government agencies were deciding, when they were making decisions, and what the exact antidumping measures were that were being imposed. Finally, antidumping measures in new user countries are extremely likely to be in the form of specific duties or complicated price undertaking arrangements with threats to reversion to duties if minimum price thresholds are not met. These outcomes, of course, make the coding of data difficult to standardize, especially in comparison to antidumping measures applied as ad valorem duties. Next, given language barriers and translation difficulties as well as the actions of new user countries, we are least confident in the accuracy of the exact dates of decisions and impositions reported in the spreadsheets. For example, there are likely instances where the date of a government publication reporting the antidumping outcome/decision was used in lieu of the date that the actual announcement 45 was made (which may not have been reported in a government publication in some countries until one or two weeks later). For most research using low frequency (e.g., yearly) data the exact date is not necessarily important. However, imprecise or inaccurate dates could have implications, for example, for event studies which match investigation announcements with high frequency data on economic activity (e.g., stock price movements). In such instances researchers are invited to go back and check the original government publications to verify the exact dates and timing of announcements and impositions. Furthermore, the "start" years (in table 2.1) of available data for each user country do not necessarily indicate when the use of the AD instrument in a given country might have begun. It only represents the year for which we were first able to collect detailed data for the user countries. Furthermore, there is a substantial amount of missing data (denoted with `MI') for the outcomes of antidumping investigations initiated in more recent years given the time lag to when government publications make information on outcomes available in some countries. While we have reported data on antidumping revocations wherever they were available, for the most part when we could not find data on revocations of a final AD measure that was imposed we treated it as not revoked (a "." entry, as opposed to a missing, "MI," entry), though this is admittedly a guess based on the presumption that antidumping measures are politically difficult to remove once in place. Thus any research interested in focusing on the removal of antidumping measures should not treat this data set as exhaustive of such information, as this was admittedly not a priority in terms of initial data collection and reporting. 46 Appendix Table A.1 : Country Codes and Country Names Used in the Database Alphabetic, by Code Alphabetic, by Country Name Code Country Name Code Country Name ABW Aruba AFG Afghanistan AFG Afghanistan ALA Åland Islands AGO Angola ALB Albania AIA Anguilla DZA Algeria ALA Åland Islands ASM American Samoa ALB Albania AND Andorra AND Andorra AGO Angola ANT Netherlands Antilles AIA Anguilla ARE United Arab Emirates ATG Antigua and Barbuda ARG Argentina ARG Argentina ARM Armenia ARM Armenia ASM American Samoa ABW Aruba ATG Antigua and Barbuda AUS Australia AUS Australia AUT Austria AUT Austria AZE Azerbaijan AZE Azerbaijan BHS Bahamas BDI Burundi BHR Bahrain BEL Belgium BGD Bangladesh BEN Benin BRB Barbados BFA Burkina Faso BLR Belarus BGD Bangladesh BEL Belgium BGR Bulgaria BLZ Belize BHR Bahrain BEN Benin BHS Bahamas BMU Bermuda BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina BTN Bhutan BLR Belarus BOL Bolivia BLZ Belize BIH Bosnia and Herzegovina BMU Bermuda BWA Botswana BOL Bolivia BRA Brazil BRA Brazil VGB British Virgin Islands BRB Barbados BRN Brunei Darussalam BRN Brunei Darussalam BGR Bulgaria BTN Bhutan BFA Burkina Faso BWA Botswana BDI Burundi CAF Central African Republic KHM Cambodia CAN Canada CMR Cameroon CHE Switzerland CAN Canada CHL Chile CPV Cape Verde CHN China CYM Cayman Islands CIV Côte d'Ivoire CAF Central African Republic CMR Cameroon TCD Chad COD Democratic Republic of the Congo CHL Chile COG Congo CHN China COK Cook Islands COL Colombia COL Colombia COM Comoros COM Comoros COG Congo CPV Cape Verde COK Cook Islands 47 Alphabetic, by Code Alphabetic, by Country Name Code Country Name Code Country Name CRI Costa Rica CRI Costa Rica CSV Czechoslovakia (pre-1993) CIV Côte d'Ivoire CUB Cuba HRV Croatia CYM Cayman Islands CUB Cuba CYP Cyprus CYP Cyprus CZE Czech Republic CZE Czech Republic DEU Germany CSV Czechoslovakia (pre-1993) DJI Djibouti COD Democratic Republic of the Congo DMA Dominica DNK Denmark DNK Denmark DJI Djibouti DOM Dominican Republic DMA Dominica DZA Algeria DOM Dominican Republic ECU Ecuador GDR East Germany (pre-1989) EGY Egypt ECU Ecuador ERI Eritrea EGY Egypt ESH Western Sahara SLV El Salvador ESP Spain GNQ Equatorial Guinea EST Estonia ERI Eritrea ETH Ethiopia EST Estonia EUN European Union ETH Ethiopia FIN Finland EUN European Union FJI Fiji FRO Faeroe Islands FLK Falkland Islands FLK Falkland Islands FRA France FJI Fiji FRG West Germany (pre-1989) FIN Finland FRO Faeroe Islands FRA France FSM Micronesia GUF French Guiana GAB Gabon PYF French Polynesia GBR United Kingdom GAB Gabon GDR East Germany (pre-1989) GMB Gambia GEO Georgia GEO Georgia GHA Ghana DEU Germany GIB Gibraltar GHA Ghana GIN Guinea GIB Gibraltar GLP Guadeloupe GRC Greece GMB Gambia GRL Greenland GNB Guinea-Bissau GRD Grenada GNQ Equatorial Guinea GLP Guadeloupe GRC Greece GUM Guam GRD Grenada GTM Guatemala GRL Greenland GIN Guinea GTM Guatemala GNB Guinea-Bissau GUF French Guiana GUY Guyana GUM Guam HTI Haiti GUY Guyana VAT Holy See HKG Hong Kong HND Honduras HND Honduras HKG Hong Kong HRV Croatia HUN Hungary HTI Haiti ISL Iceland HUN Hungary IND India IDN Indonesia IDN Indonesia IND India IRN Iran 48 Alphabetic, by Code Alphabetic, by Country Name Code Country Name Code Country Name IRL Ireland IRQ Iraq IRN Iran IRL Ireland IRQ Iraq ISR Israel ISL Iceland ITA Italy ISR Israel JAM Jamaica ITA Italy JPN Japan JAM Jamaica JOR Jordan JOR Jordan KAZ Kazakhstan JPN Japan KEN Kenya KAZ Kazakhstan KIR Kiribati KEN Kenya KWT Kuwait KGZ Kyrgyzstan KGZ Kyrgyzstan KHM Cambodia LAO Laos KIR Kiribati LVA Latvia KNA Saint Kitts and Nevis LBN Lebanon KOR South Korea LSO Lesotho KWT Kuwait LBR Liberia LAO Laos LBY Libya LBN Lebanon LIE Liechtenstein LBR Liberia LTU Lithuania LBY Libya LUX Luxembourg LCA Saint Lucia MAC Macao LIE Liechtenstein MKD Macedonia LKA Sri Lanka MDG Madagascar LSO Lesotho MWI Malawi LTU Lithuania MYS Malaysia LUX Luxembourg MDV Maldives LVA Latvia MLI Mali MAC Macao MLT Malta MAR Morocco MHL Marshall Islands MCO Monaco MTQ Martinique MDA Moldova MRT Mauritania MDG Madagascar MUS Mauritius MDV Maldives MYT Mayotte MEX Mexico MEX Mexico MHL Marshall Islands FSM Micronesia MKD Macedonia MDA Moldova MLI Mali MCO Monaco MLT Malta MNG Mongolia MMR Myanmar MSR Montserrat MNG Mongolia MAR Morocco MNP Northern Mariana Islands MOZ Mozambique MOZ Mozambique MMR Myanmar MRT Mauritania NAM Namibia MSR Montserrat NRU Nauru MTQ Martinique NPL Nepal MUS Mauritius NLD Netherlands MWI Malawi ANT Netherlands Antilles MYS Malaysia NCL New Caledonia MYT Mayotte NZL New Zealand NAM Namibia NIC Nicaragua NCL New Caledonia NER Niger 49 Alphabetic, by Code Alphabetic, by Country Name Code Country Name Code Country Name NER Niger NGA Nigeria NFK Norfolk Island NIU Niue NGA Nigeria NFK Norfolk Island NIC Nicaragua PRK North Korea NIU Niue MNP Northern Mariana Islands NLD Netherlands NOR Norway NOR Norway PSE Occupied Palestinian Territory NPL Nepal OMN Oman NRU Nauru PAK Pakistan NZL New Zealand PLW Palau OMN Oman PAN Panama PAK Pakistan PNG Papua New Guinea PAN Panama PRY Paraguay PCN Pitcairn PER Peru PER Peru PHL Philippines PHL Philippines PCN Pitcairn PLW Palau POL Poland PNG Papua New Guinea PRT Portugal POL Poland PRI Puerto Rico PRI Puerto Rico QAT Qatar PRK North Korea REU Reunion PRT Portugal ROU Romania PRY Paraguay RUS Russia PSE Occupied Palestinian Territory RWA Rwanda PYF French Polynesia SHN Saint Helena QAT Qatar KNA Saint Kitts and Nevis REU Reunion LCA Saint Lucia ROU Romania SPM Saint Pierre and Miquelon RUS Russia VCT Saint Vincent and the Grenadines RWA Rwanda WSM Samoa SAU Saudi Arabia SMR San Marino SCG Serbia and Montenegro STP Sao Tome and Principe SDN Sudan SAU Saudi Arabia SEN Senegal SEN Senegal SGP Singapore SCG Serbia and Montenegro SHN Saint Helena SYC Seychelles SJM Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands SLE Sierra Leone SLB Solomon Islands SGP Singapore SLE Sierra Leone SVK Slovakia SLV El Salvador SVN Slovenia SMR San Marino SLB Solomon Islands SOM Somalia SOM Somalia SPM Saint Pierre and Miquelon ZAF South Africa STP Sao Tome and Principe KOR South Korea SUR Suriname USR Soviet Union (pre-1992) SVK Slovakia ESP Spain SVN Slovenia LKA Sri Lanka SWE Sweden SDN Sudan SWZ Swaziland SUR Suriname SYC Seychelles SJM Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands SYR Syria SWZ Swaziland TCA Turks and Caicos Islands SWE Sweden 50 Alphabetic, by Code Alphabetic, by Country Name Code Country Name Code Country Name TCD Chad CHE Switzerland TGO Togo SYR Syria THA Thailand TWN Taiwan TJK Tajikistan TJK Tajikistan TKL Tokelau TZA Tanzania TKM Turkmenistan THA Thailand TLS Timor-Leste TLS Timor-Leste TON Tonga TGO Togo TTO Trinidad and Tobago TKL Tokelau TUN Tunisia TON Tonga TUR Turkey TTO Trinidad and Tobago TUV Tuvalu TUN Tunisia TWN Taiwan TUR Turkey TZA Tanzania TKM Turkmenistan UGA Uganda TCA Turks and Caicos Islands UKR Ukraine TUV Tuvalu URY Uruguay UGA Uganda USA USA UKR Ukraine UZB Uzbekistan ARE United Arab Emirates USR Soviet Union (pre-1992) GBR United Kingdom VAT Holy See URY Uruguay VCT Saint Vincent and the Grenadines VIR US Virgin Islands VEN Venezuela USA USA VGB British Virgin Islands UZB Uzbekistan VIR US Virgin Islands VUT Vanuatu VNM Viet Nam VEN Venezuela VUT Vanuatu VNM Viet Nam WLF Wallis and Futuna Islands WLF Wallis and Futuna Islands WSM Samoa FRG West Germany (pre-1989) YEM Yemen ESH Western Sahara YUG Yugoslavia (pre-1992) YEM Yemen ZAF South Africa YUG Yugoslavia (pre-1992) ZMB Zambia ZMB Zambia ZWE Zimbabwe ZWE Zimbabwe Source: United Nations Statistics Division "Countries or areas, codes and abbreviations" website, http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49alpha.htm , last accessed on 21 July 2005. FRG (West Germany), CSV (Czechoslovakia), GDR (East Germany), TWN (Taiwan), USR (Soviet Union), Yugoslavia (YUG)­ codes added by the author. Reproduced in the Database as AD-CTY-Codes-Names.xls. 51 References Banik, Nilanjan (1998) "Antidumping Measures - an Indian Perspective," Rajiv Gandhi Institute for Contemporary Studies, manuscript. Bartelsman, Eric J., Randy A. Becker, and Wayne B. Gray (2000) "NBER-CES Manufacturing Industry Database" available at http://www.nber.org/nberces/nbprod96.htm, June. Blonigen, Bruce A. (2000) "U.S. Antidumping Database Webpage," available at http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~bruceb/adpage.html , last accessed on 19 July 2005. Blonigen,, Bruce A. and Chad P. Bown (2003) "Antidumping and Retaliation Threats," Journal of International Economics 60(2): 249-273. Blonigen, Bruce A. and Thomas J. Prusa (2003) "The Cost of Antidumping: The Devil is in the Details," Journal of Policy Reform 6(4): 233-245. Blonigen, Bruce A. and Thomas J. Prusa (2004) "Antidumping," in E. Kwan Choi and James Harrigan (eds.) Handbook of International Trade Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishers. Boltuck, Richard and Robert Litan, eds. (1991) Down in the Dumps: Administration of the Unfair Trade Laws. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Bown, Chad P. (2005) "Trade Remedies and World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement: Why Are So Few Challenged?" Journal of Legal Studies 34(2): 515-555. Bown, Chad P. and Meredith A. Crowley (forthcoming) "Policy Externalities: How U.S. Antidumping Affects Japanese Exports to the E.U.," European Journal of Political Economy. Bown, Chad P. and Meredith A. Crowley (2005a) "Trade Deflection and Trade Depression," Brandeis University manuscript, August (revised). Bown, Chad P. and Meredith A. Crowley (2005b) "China's Export Growth: Threat to the International Trading System?" Brandeis University manuscript, August. Brink, Gustav (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument in South Africa," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 147-158. Bundjamin, Erry (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument in Indonesia," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 125-136. Caetano, Ana (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument in Brazil," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 87-96. Durling, James and Thomas J. Prusa (forthcoming) "The Trade Effects Associated with an Antidumping Epidemic: The Hot-Rolled Steel Market, 1996-2001," European Journal of Political Economy. DTM (2005) "Anti-Dumping Practices in Turkey," Undersecretariat of the Prime Minister for Foreign Trade website, http://www.dtm.gov.tr/ithalat/english/trade/anti.htm , last accessed on 20 August 2005. 52 Feenstra, Robert C. (1997) "U.S. Exports, 1978-1994: With State Exports and other U.S. Data," NBER Working Paper No. 5990, April. Feenstra, Robert C., John Romalis and Peter K. Schott (2002) "U.S. Imports, Exports and Tariff Data, 1989 to 2001." NBER Working Paper No. 9387, November. Feinberg, Robert M. and Kara M. Reynolds (forthcoming) "The Spread of Antidumping Regimes and the Role of Retaliation in Filings," Southern Economic Journal. Finger, J. Michael and Julio N. Nogués (2005) Safeguards and Antidumping in Latin American Trade Liberalization: Fighting Fire With Fire, Palgrave and the World Bank. Holden, Merle (2002) "Antidumping: A Reaction to Trade Liberalisation or Anti- Competitive?" The South African Journal of Economics, June. Horlick, Gary N. (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument in the United States," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 169-179. Horlick, Gary N. and Edwin Vermulst (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument: An Attempt at Synthesis," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 67-74. Kumaran, V. Lakshmi (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument in India," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 115-124. Kumé, Honorio and Guida Piani (2005) "Antidumping and Safeguard Mechanisms: The Brazilian Experience, 1988-2003," in J. Michael Finger and Julio N. Nogués, eds. Safeguards and Antidumping in Latin American Trade Liberalization: Fighting Fire With Fire, Palgrave and the World Bank. Leycegui, Beatriz and Luz Elena Reyes de la Torre (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti- dumping Instrument in Mexico," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 137-146. Messerlin, Patrick A. (2001) Measuring the Costs of Protection in Europe: European Commercial Policy in the 2000s. Washington, Institute for International Economics. Messerlin, Patrick A. (2004) "China in the World Trade Organization: Antidumping and Safeguards," World Bank Economic Review 18(1): 105-130. Miranda, Jorge, Raul A. Torres, Raul and Mario Ruiz (1998) "The International Use of Antidumping: 1987-1997." Journal of World Trade 32(5): 5-71. Moulis, Daniel and Patrick Gay (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument in Australia," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 75-86. Nelson, Douglas (forthcoming) "The Political Economy of Anti-Dumping: A Survey." European Journal of Political Economy. Nelson, Douglas and Hylke Vandenbussche, eds. (forthcoming) The WTO and Antidumping. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. 53 Niels, Gunnar and Joseph Francois (forthcoming) "Business Cycles, the Exchange Rate, and Demand for Antidumping Protection in Mexico," Review of Development Economics. Nogués, Julio N. and Elias Baracat (2005) "The Political-Economy of Antidumping and Safeguards in Argentina," in J. Michael Finger and Julio N. Nogués, eds. Safeguards and Antidumping in Latin American Trade Liberalization: Fighting Fire With Fire, Palgrave and the World Bank. Prusa, Thomas J. (2001) "On the Spread and Impact of Antidumping," Canadian Journal of Economics 34(3): 591-611. Prusa, Thomas J., and Susan Skeath (2002) "The Economic and Strategic Motives for Antidumping Filings," Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 138(3): 389-413 Prusa, Thomas J., and Susan Skeath (2005) "Modern Commercial Policy: Managed Trade or Retaliation?" in James Hartigan (ed.), Handbook of International Trade and Law. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishing. Staiger, Robert W. and Frank A. Wolak (1994) "Measuring Industry-Specific Protection: Antidumping in the United States," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: Microeconomics 51-118. Sutham, Apisith John, Parate Attavipach and Patamaporn Eiamchinda (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument in Thailand," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 159-168. Tian, Yu (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument in the People's Republic of China," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 97-104. Vermulst, Edwin (2005) "The 10 Major Problems with the Anti-dumping Instrument in the European Community," Journal of World Trade 39(1): 105-114. WTO (2005a) "Anti-dumping Initiations: by Reporting Member," on-line excel spreadsheet available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_stattab2_e.xls , last accessed on 20 August 2005. WTO (2005b) "Anti-dumping Measures: by Reporting Member," on-line excel spreadsheet available at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/adp_e/adp_stattab7_e.xls , last accessed on 20 August 2005. Zanaradi, Maurizio (2004) "Antidumping: What are the Numbers to Discuss at Doha?" The World Economy 27(3): 403-433. 54