우리 법원에서의 덤핑방지관세 부과조치에 관한 연구 - WTO 반덤핑협정 제13조와의 관계를 중심으로 -

In 2005, the Seoul Administrative Court first ruled that anti-dumping duty imposition regulations have the nature of agency dispositions and are therefore eligible for judicial review. The court maintained this position in 2009, when it ruled on anti-dumping duty imposition regulations for ceramic tiles from China. However, in 2022, the Supreme Court clarified its position on the agency disposition nature of anti-dumping duty imposition regulations in the Japanese Pneumatic Valves case. The Supreme Court briefly held that the regulation is not subject to judicial review because it lacks the nature of an administrative disposition. However, the court did not seem to be concerned with protecting the rights of exporters in light of the relationship with Article 13 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. According to Article 13 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement, anti-dumping measures must be subject to judicial review for the purpose of promptly reviewing administrative actions related to final determinations. This review can be conducted by independent tribunals or procedures of the authorities responsible for the determination in question. The Supreme Court’s ruling states that importers can challenge customs officers’ enforcement actions after anti-dumping duties have been imposed. Although exporters are expected to suffer economic disadvantages under the imposition regulation, they cannot challenge the imposition regulation nor the enforcement actions. This article argues that there is no particular reason why exporters should be excluded from Article 13 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. It also argues that an interpretation that recognizes the dispositive nature of the final determination of the Korea Trade Commission is consistent with Article 13 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Therefore, once there is a final determination of the Korea Trade Commission, exporters can appeal the final determination. Importers can also seek judicial review, either by appealing the final determination or by appealing the specific enforcement actions of the Commissioner of Customs after the implementation of the imposition regulation.