Law Offices of Stewart & Stewart
If as stated in recent months, China carries through on a process of potentially shifting towards a more domestic oriented growth policy and continues various economic reforms that align business practices more with its trading partners, there will eventually be fewer trade remedy cases against China. For many trading partners, that day cannot come too quickly as it will reflect a more balanced approach to economic growth that will be more sustainable for all participants, according to international trade attorney Terence P. Stewart.
“Historically, the number of trade remedy measures against any particular country could be explained by the compatability of trading systems between the two countries involved, the rate of increase in trade flows and whether such trade flows were characterized by significant price underselling,” Stewart said in a post he was invited to write for a recent online roundtable sponsored by Who’s Who Legal entitled Trade Remedies: Focus on China.
“Trading relationships are supposed to be mutually supportive and in accordance with the internationally agreed rules. While China has grown rapidly and adopted many changes to its economic system, there remain many distortive practices which result in rapid swings in trade flows to the detriment of domestic industries in trading partners. Where that is the case, one will presumably find occasional cases, some large in scale,” said Stewart. Stewart is managing partner of the Washington, D.C.-based Law Offices of Stewart and Stewart where he focuses on customs law and international trade litigation, negotiations and policy, including trade remedies such as antidumping, countervailing duty, safeguard matters in the U.S. and abroad plus the Special Safeguard against China, Section 421. Stewart is listed in the Best Lawyers in America® for International Trade and Finance Law.
“While China has faced a large number of trade remedy cases around the world over the last decade or so, the real issue has been why there have been so few trade remedy cases against China considering the factual circumstances facing domestic producers in countries all around the world,” Stewart said, adding “That has been my comment, when asked by friends in the Chinese government or when asked by industries in the U.S. or other parts of the world.”
Current trade cases in the U.S., EU, South America, Asia and other parts of the world with active trade remedies that do exist typically reflect rapidly rising imports of goods from China at prices far below levels from any other country in the world where domestic producers are losing market share, laying off workers, closing plants and suffering operating losses, Stewart said.
“Where such consequences flow from dumped or subsidized imports, WTO rules and domestic laws provide a remedy and should be filed,” Stewart advises.
Since 1996 Who’s Who Legal, now the strategic research partner of the American Bar Association’s Section of International Law and of the International Bar Association, has identified the foremost legal practitioners in 32 areas of business law. It features over 10,000 of the world’s leading private practice lawyers in over 100 countries and prides itself “on the integrity and authority of our findings. It is impossible to buy entry into this publication.” Stewart and his law firm are both listed in Who’s Who Legal for Trade & Customs.