Almost ten years back, Thailand adopted its new law concerning Anti-dumping measures so called Antidumping and Countervailing Act B.E. 2542 (the “AD Law”) which came to replace the previous anti-dumping provisions prescribed in the Anti-dumping Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Notification of Ministry of Commerce B.E. 2539 (1996). To date, Thailand has initiated and proceeded with sixteen anti-dumping investigations under the AD Law. Out of those investigations, six cases were related to the steel industry, five cases were against chemical products, only one case concerned textile and garment industry and the remaining cases were against other products.

          The first investigation under the AD Law was the anti-dumping investigation on H-Beam Steel originated from China which was initiated in April 2001. The final determination of this case was made 18 months after the initiation and it was found that there was an existence of dumping and it had caused material injury to the Thai domestic industry. The antidumping measures were therefore imposed for a period of five years effective from October 10, 2002. Prior to the expiry of anti-dumping measures on October 9, 2007, the Thai domestic industry submitted to the authority, i.e. the Bureau of Trade Interests and Remedies (the “Bureau”) under Department of Foreign Trade, the request for an expiry review claiming the likelihood of recurrence of the dumping should the measures were allowed to expire. The Bureau thereby reported such request to the Committee on Dumping and Subsidy (the “Committee”) for their consideration. Just shortly before the expiry of the measures, the Committee determined to initiate the review. Unlike the interim or change of circumstances review, there is no specific timeframe for the expiry review proceeding and no preliminary findings must be made. The overall proceeding however tends to take at least one year approximately. In this case, the final determination was also made 1 year after the initiation. The Committee determined that the expiry of the measures would result in a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Thus, the measures have been extended for a period of 3 years.

          Follow the first review proceeding above, there were supposed to be another three expiry review proceedings in the early of 2008. All three cases in the pipe-line were also related to steel products. The first one would be the review of the measures on cold rolled steel originated from Argentina, Russia and Kazakhstan. The measures were however let to expire for this case. The second runner-up would be the case on cold-rolled stainless steel sheet, in coil and not in coil originated from Japan, European Union, South Korea and Taiwan which the Thai domestic industry had filed the application requesting for the review of the measures and the Committed later determined to undertake the review process. The initiation of the review was published on March 12, 2007, and the questionnaires were sent out about a week later. This review process were expected to be a time-and-manpower consuming one for the Bureau since the case involved the whole European Union which is now consisted of 27 member states, not just 15 member states as it used to be at the time of the original investigation in 2002. However, none of the EU members submitted meaningful response to the Bureau within the time limit. In fact there was only one exporter who had fully cooperated in the proceeding. At the time of final determination, it was found that the expiry of the measures would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury and the measures were allowed to extend in March 2009. Nevertheless, as there were many interested parties expressing their concerns on the scope of product subject to the measures, the Committee determined to put the AD measures on hold for a period of 6 months in order to reconsider the scope of subject merchandise. In July 2009, the DFT decided to self-initiate an interim review with regard to the scope of product and this seemed to automatically put the decision to continue AD measures from the time of expiry review on hold again, until the determination in interim review is finalized.

          Other than the aforesaid reviews, the Bureau also initiated another expiry review in May 2008 based on the application submitted by the domestic industry of hot-rolled steel (in coil and not in coil) before the expiry of the measures against Ukraine, Indonesia, Russia, Kazakhstan, South Africa, Venezuela, Algeria, Argentina, Slovak, Romania, South Korea, Taiwan, Japan and India. In addition to the expiry review requested by the domestic industry, the Committee also foreseen the issue of the product scope and therefore initiated by itself a change of circumstances review. Although the two proceedings were conducted in parallel and these reviews concerned 14 exporting countries, only a few exporters from certain countries responded to the questionnaire. In May 2009, the AD Committee also made final determination to continue AD measures for a period of 5 years as there was a likelihood that the dumping may continue or recur if the AD measures were allowed to expire.  As the fact shown in the expiry review and product scope review, the dumping circumstances clearly had changed.  The DFT by order of the AD Committee initiated another changed circumstances review with regard to the applicable dumping rates. This is the first and only case of which the Thai authority has self-initiated the review with regard to “the dumping rate”. The review proceeding is now during the process of information gathering and analysis. The final determination may be expected sometimes next year, probably within the 2nd quarter.

          Other than the high-profile review of those steel products, the DFT has recently completed the anti-dumping investigations concerning Cotton and Polyester Fabrics products and Sodium Tripolyphosphate. These two cases are against China and our firm has represented the clients in both cases. From our perspective, China will be a big target of dumping allegation for the next couple of years as many industries have raised their concerns on the dumped products exported by China.

          However, there may not be a new case against China if the petitioners cannot prove that there is dumping and they have suffered injury caused by such dumping. From the recent cases, the dumping rates for Chinese exporters became rather low. This is probably because more of them are aware of the AD measures and have tried to adjust themselves in certain ways to avoid such measures. Thus, whether or not the new cases will be initiated, it depends on the fact and the Thai authorities’ discretion and probably their policy towards trade with China.