2005年-世界发展银行全球_Antidumping_and_Safeguard_Mechanisms___The_Brazilian_Experience_1988-2003_35页_409kb

Summary of "Antidumping and Safeguard Mechanisms: The Brazilian Experience, 1988-2003"

Core Content

This paper evaluates Brazil's use of antidumping (AD) and safeguard mechanisms from 1988 to 2003, within the context of its trade liberalization and macroeconomic stability programs. It highlights the tension between trade liberalization and the need for temporary protection for domestic industries, particularly in the face of foreign competition and macroeconomic instability.

Main Changes in Brazil's Import Policy (1988-2003)

The import policy evolved through four distinct stages:

1. 1988-89 Period

• Two tariff reforms were introduced to reduce water in the tariff and eliminate special tax regimes.
• The reforms were less comprehensive due to resistance from privileged groups.
• Non-tariff barriers remained largely unchanged.

2. 1990-93 Period

• A major shift occurred with the introduction of a flexible exchange rate and the liberalization of imports.
• The government announced a four-year tariff phase-out, aiming to reduce tariffs to a modal rate of 20%.
• Tariff reductions were implemented early, and the Ministry of Finance began to play a more prominent role in managing the liberalization process.

3. 1994-1998 Period

• The Real Plan was launched, leading to significant tariff reductions and exchange rate appreciation.
• This caused a surge in imports and increased pressure on domestic industries.
• The government introduced temporary measures, including a 3% tariff increase in 1997 and the use of safeguard measures for textiles and toys.
• The Mercosur common external tariff was implemented earlier than planned, influencing the structure of import duties.

4. 1999-2003 Period

• A floating exchange rate was adopted in 1999, resulting in a devaluation of 43.6%.
• The tariff reduction process continued, with the 3% increase from 1997 being gradually phased out.
• Trade defense instruments became more important in addressing sector-specific competitiveness issues.

Legal and Institutional Framework

3.1 Legal, Institutional and Operational Aspects

• Brazil introduced AD and safeguard measures in 1987, aligning with WTO agreements.
• The Customs Policy Commission (CPA) was initially responsible for AD and countervailing duties, under the Ministry of Finance.
• In 1995, the Department of Commercial Defense (DECOM) was established under the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Tourism (MICT), marking a shift toward a more protectionist approach.
• The Brazilian Chamber of Foreign Trade (CAMEX), established in 1995, became the central body for decision-making on trade defense measures, including AD and countervailing duties, and safeguard measures.
• The Consultative Committee on Trade Defense (CCDC) was created to provide oversight and review investigations.

3.2 Brazilian Experience with Antidumping and Safeguard Measures

• The number of AD investigations with final affirmative determinations was relatively low (52%) compared to other major users of the AD mechanism.
• Brazil applied AD duties at lower levels than the full dumping margin, reflecting a more moderate protectionist approach.
• The DECOM was responsible for conducting AD investigations and determining injury, but it relied heavily on data from businesses and journals, with limited on-site verifications.
• On-the-spot verifications for injury were more frequent than for dumping, indicating a stronger focus on domestic industry impact than on foreign producers' practices.

Key Findings and Conclusions

• Despite the liberalization of trade, Brazil maintained a relatively small rate of final positive AD determinations.
• The tradition of applying lower AD duties compared to full dumping margins was a notable feature of Brazil's approach.
• The institutional framework evolved significantly, with the Ministry of Finance gradually losing influence to the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Tourism, which became more protectionist.
• The use of safeguard measures increased, especially during periods of trade imbalance and economic volatility.
• The implementation of AD and safeguard mechanisms was influenced by both technical requirements and political considerations, leading to a degree of subjectivity in their application.
• The efficiency of these mechanisms was a key concern, as they could potentially contradict the goals of trade liberalization.

Policy Implications

• The Brazilian experience highlights the complexity of balancing trade liberalization with domestic industry protection.
• The institutional reforms were essential in shaping the use of trade defense instruments.
• The moderate application of AD duties suggests a cautious approach to trade protection.
• The need for transparency and efficiency in the AD and safeguard processes remains critical for future policy development.