GAO China Antidumping Database (GAO-06-652sp)

Read the Full Report

Scope and Methodology

In the report, U.S.–China Trade, we analyzed the U.S. application of antidumping duties to China. We also compared duty rates that the Deparment of Commerce applied to China and to market economy countries, and we evaluated the potential effect of ceasing to apply the nonmarket economy methodology to China.

Compiling the Database

With information we collected from the Department of Commerce, the International Trade Commission, and the Federal Register, we constructed a database of all U.S. antidumping investigations from January 1, 1980, through December 31, 2004. We also assembled data on 303 company-specific, weighted average, and countrywide duty rate determinations on Chinese products and 168 duty rate determinations on market economy products. The database is reproduced in this e-supplement.

The Data Files in This E-Supplement

Having examined in our report U.S. antidumping investigations from January 1, 1980, through December 31, 2004, we list in this e-supplement the countries and products involved in those investigations and their status (data file 1).

In addition, we collected and analyzed duty rates on the 68 cases in which the Department of Commerce issued antidumping duty orders against Chinese products (data file 2). Finally, we focused on the 25 cases against China in which the Department of Commerce imposed duties against a similar product from one or more market economy countries. These 25 cases included all market economy orders that had the same product name and were initiated within 1 year of an antidumping investigation against China (data file 3). For comparision, data file 3 also includes cases against nonmarket economies besides China for which there was also at least one order against a market economy country in a product.

More on Methodology

Having verified our data with the official sources, we found them to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. The Department of Commerce officials who reviewed the database provided technical comments. We conducted our work from June 2005 through December 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. More information on our methodology is in the report (app. I).