반덤핑 관세 흡수 행위의 규제 현황 및 개선 방안- EU･미국의 제도를 중심으로 -

An antidumping duty is imposed to remedy the injurious effects of dumped goods, based on the assumption that a reasonable importer would pass on the additional costs incurred due to the duty to the subsequent purchasers by increasing the resale prices of the goods. However, the remedial effect is lost when the exporter or importer absorbs the additional costs, resulting in little change to the resale prices of the goods. The WTO Anti-dumping Agreement does not contain any specific provision about duty absorption except Article 9.3.3 which only deals with the concept in relation to the reimbursement of overpaid antidumping duties. Accordingly, each country maintains different regulations regarding duty absorption. For example, the United States and the European Union have different regulations regarding whether antidumping duties should be treated as costs. The EU generally deducts antidumping duties as costs when calculating the constructed export price unless there is conclusive evidence that the antidumping duties have duly passed on to the resale prices in which case no deduction is made. The U.S., on the contrary, does not deduct antidumping duties as costs unless the exporter pays the duties on behalf of the importer or makes reimbursements to the importer. The United States and the European Union also differ in how they investigate duty absorption. The EU conducts a separate duty absorption investigation to recalculate the dumping margin when the export prices have declined or the resale prices have not increased sufficiently. The EU even provides for retroactive application of the revised dumping margin when it conducts the complex anti-absorption investigation which recalculates both the export price and normal price. In the U.S., on the other hands, a duty absorption investigation in only conducted as part of the 2nd and 4th annual administrative reviews, which results do not affect dumping margins, but are only considered at the sunset review to examine the likelihood of recurrence of injury. The investigating authority in each country should improve its duty absorption regulations to be consistent with the fundamental principles of the WTO. First, in order to avoid double remedy, antidumping duties should not be deducted as costs when calculating constructed export prices. Second, the result of a separate duty absorption investigation, like interim reviews, should only be applied proactively as required under Article 11 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. Moreover, in order to ensure a fair comparison as required under Article 2.4, a duty absorption investigation should take the form of a full-fledged investigation which examines both the normal value and the export prices.