The World Trade Organization (WTO) Panel Report in Australia – Anti-Dumping Measures on A4 Copy Paper (Australia – A4 Copy Paper) marks a significant development of the multilateral rules on anti-dumping. Under certain circumstances, WTO agreements permit members to impose anti-dumping measures to counteract the injurious effect of dumping on domestic industries, typically through import duties. The Report is the first to examine in detail when an anti-dumping authority may determine that a “particular market situation” exists in the country of exportation under Article 2.2 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, potentially justifying the imposition of elevated remedial duties. The Report also develops the jurisprudence on how such remedies may be calculated, expounding the use of benchmark costs for the calculation of a constructed normal value (CNV) under Article 2.2.1.1. These doctrinal questions are central to the longstanding debate over how far the Anti-Dumping Agreement allows anti-dumping measures against state intervention and market distortions. On both fronts, the Australia – A4 Copy Paper panel created flexibilities for WTO members to respond to government-induced distortions. In doing so, the Report deviates considerably from the course set by the Appellate Body in the landmark EU – Biodiesel decision, which seemed to confine anti-dumping measures to responding to private action. At the same time, the panel left open several important issues relating to the adoption of CNVs and the use of benchmarks for their calculation, leaving wide latitude for investigating authorities to inflate dumping margins in practice.

中文翻译：

---

澳大利亚——A4复印纸反倾销措施

世界贸易组织 (WTO) 小组报告澳大利亚——针对 A4 复印纸的反倾销措施(澳大利亚 – A4 复印纸)标志着反倾销多边规则的重大发展。在某些情况下，世贸组织协议允许成员实施反倾销措施，以抵消倾销对国内产业的有害影响，通常是通过进口关税。该报告首次详细审查了反倾销当局何时可以根据 WTO 反倾销协议第 2.2 条确定出口国存在“特定市场情况”，从而可能证明征收更高的补救税是合理的。该报告还发展了有关如何计算此类补救措施的判例，阐述了使用基准成本来计算第 2.2.1.1 条下的构造正常值 (CNV)。这些理论问题是长期以来关于反倾销协议在多大程度上允许采取反倾销措施以应对国家干预和市场扭曲的争论的核心。在这两个方面，澳大利亚 – A4 复印纸专家组为 WTO 成员创造了应对政府引起的扭曲的灵活性。在这样做的过程中，报告大大偏离了上诉机构在具有里程碑意义的过程中设定的路线欧盟——生物柴油决定，这似乎将反倾销措施限制在对私人行动的回应上。同时，专家组未解决与采用 CNVs 及其计算基准有关的几个重要问题，为调查当局在实践中夸大倾销幅度留下了很大的余地。