Start your weekend right and have a look at our new podcast episodes, webinars and more!
✉️ https://t.co/I4O8mlTIfzhttps://t.co/OGnB3mMG8CRT IIEA @iiea: 7 years on from the #Brexit vote we're continuing to analyse the impact of the UK's withdrawal from the #EU.
Join… https://t.co/cYlxTquavgThe EU is taking charge in regulating data and the digital economy, launching new regulations like the #DMA, #DSA,… https://t.co/jfOuY6kaPNLet's talk about #AI regulations in the #EU!
It is important to understand and enhance the benefits, but also min… https://t.co/OU6PEWlg6j? New global economy podcast episode!
We talk about the US trade policy and America's role in the world economic o… https://t.co/DHHvBdKZ4M
WTO rules require national anti-dumping authorities to answer two questions – does the local industry display symptoms of injury? and, are these symptoms caused by dumping? In this in-depth study of ten recent cases, Brian Hindley finds that the European Commission is good at finding positive responses to the first question, but not the second. He finds that the EC is perfunctory and ritualistic in its approach to determining the cause of injury in anti-dumping investigations. The danger is that duties are imposed on the basis of inaccurate justification. His findings provide a strong case for a new body, independent of the anti-dumping authority, to examine injury and provide cause-of-injury analysis.