In 2003, the International Trade Centre (ITC) published a 290-page book on trade remedies, titled Business Guide to Trade Remedies in South Africa and the Southern African Customs Union – Antidumping, Countervailing and Safeguards Legislation, Practices and Procedures. I know this, as I was its author. It was the fourth in a series on trade remedies, the others being for the US, Canada and the European Union.

It has been a while since I last picked on or even thought about the book, which I was reminded of on the afternoon of May 24, when the International Trade Administration Commission of South Africa (Itac) published a notice in the Government Gazette.

The notice was in respect of the possible expiry of six antidumping duties unless manufacturers in the Southern African Customs Union (Sacu) region provide substantiated comments and motivation for their retention. Trade remedies are imposed for a period of five years. In the final year of a trade measure, Itac invites interested parties, through a Government Gazette notice, to provide evidence that the removal of the antidumping duty would result in the recurrence of dumping, causing material injury to Sacu manufacturers.

The six products, with the date on which comment is due in brackets, are frozen bone-in chicken portions from Germany and the Netherlands (August 27, 2019); stainless- steel sinks from the People’s Republic of China and Malaysia (January 31, 2020); float and flat glass from China and India (January 31, 2020); wheelbarrows from China (March 4, 2020); garlic from China (April 30, 2020); and cement from Pakistan (June 18, 2020).

At first glance, there is nothing remarkable about this Government Gazette notice, but, on closer inspection, and with the ITC book on hand, it is quite insightful. I still recall vividly, when writing the book, having to wade through stacks of Government Gazettes to prepare an alphabetical list of the products that had been subjected to antidumping and countervailing investigations since 1992. Why 1992? Prior to that year, the Board on Tariffs and Trade, Itac’s predecessor, did not distinguish between antidumping and countervailing (antisubsidy) investigations. But I digress.

Of the six products, frozen bone-in chicken portions have been subject to antidumping duties since in 1999 and the exporting country was the US. Garlic from China has also been subject to antidumping duties since 1999, while stainless-steel metal sinks had been subject to antidumping duties since 1998, imposed against South Korea, Malaysia and Chinese Taipei (Taiwan). And, since 1993, float and flat glass have been subject to antidumping duties where the country of origin is China, Hong Kong, Singapore and Thailand. That is 26 years; without wanting to emphasise the obvious, this is a very long time and begs several questions, the obviously being: Why do antidumping duties remain in force for such a long time after their initial five-year imposition? Why are the Ministers of Trade and Industry and Economic Development approving Itac’s recommendations in this respect? It just does not seem right.

Well, if you asked these questions, I believe you would be told that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 does not prohibit or set a maximum time for the re-imposition of antidumping duties. The WTO Agreement is better known as the WTO Antidumping Agreement.

Personally, I am concerned about the length of time that antidumping duties imposed on not only the four mentioned products but also many more have been in place. Perhaps extensive research is required here.

Having spent my working career monitoring Government Gazette notices, trade remedy notices remind me of what Yogi Berra, not Yogi Bear, used to say: “It’s déjà vu all over again.”

Without a shadow of a doubt, Sacu trade remedies have remained undiversified and seriously ‘old’. It’s the same products, companies and consultants; possibly also the same argumentation as well.

It’s time Itac was bold enough to place a limit on the duration of the successive imposition of trade remedy duties.