Like Product Sample Clauses

Like Product. ADA Article 2.6

Like Product. The concept “like product” is very important in an anti-dumping investigation. According to the URAA9, a product is being dumped, in other words it has been “introduced into the commerce of another country at less than its normal value, if the export price of the product exported from one country to another is less than the comparable price, in the ordinary course of trade, for the like product when destined for consumption in the exporting country”10 (GATT Secretariat 1994:168). A television manufacturer cannot expect to get relief from imports of washing machines, no matter how cheap the washing machines are, but differences or similarities between some products are not always as clear cut as this example, especially when the products under investigation are differentiated products (Messerlin 1991:54). So sometimes it can be disputed whether or not the products are “like products”. Exporters could argue that their product is not a “like product”, while the applicants could argue the opposite. According to the URAA, ‘the term “like product” (“produit similaire”) shall be interpreted to mean a product which is identical, i.e. alike in all respects to the product under consideration, or in the absence of such a product, another product which, although not alike in all respects, has characteristics closely 9 Anti-dumping Agreement, PART I, Article 2, paragraph 2.1. 10 Anti-dumping Agreement, PART I, Article 2, paragraph 2.1. resembling those of the product under consideration’11 (GATT Secretariat 1994:172). The general consensus is that “like product” means the same product and it is usually the physical attributes that determine whether or not products are “like products” (Xxxx 1998:22-24; WTO Secretariat 1995:227). Even so, applicants of anti-dumping actions and exporters and importers sometimes disagree about when products are or are not like products. For example, in India versus EU, Japan, Canada and USA (2002:2-9), the applicants and exporters disagreed about the range of products to be investigated. The description of the products under investigation in the final findings was “cold rolled flat products of stainless steel, of a width of 600mm or more, whether further processed or not of all grades/series”. The exporters and importers argued that the import-competing industry did not produce widths exceeding 1250mm and that for this and other reasons, the description of the product was too broad. The import-competing industry argued that they had produc...