求一篇关于反倾销的英文文章求大神帮助现求一篇关于外国对华反倾销的成因与应对策略的英文文章.翻译成中文大概能有八百字的样子.希望大家帮忙找找这样的英文文章,最好是书上摘抄过

求一篇关于反倾销的英文文章求大神帮助现求一篇关于外国对华反倾销的成因与应对策略的英文文章.翻译成中文大概能有八百字的样子.希望大家帮忙找找这样的英文文章,最好是书上摘抄过
求一篇关于反倾销的英文文章求大神帮助
现求一篇关于外国对华反倾销的成因与应对策略的英文文章.翻译成中文大概能有八百字的样子.希望大家帮忙找找这样的英文文章,最好是书上摘抄过来的.如果没有网上找的也可以,我可以给100分的悬赏.

求一篇关于反倾销的英文文章求大神帮助现求一篇关于外国对华反倾销的成因与应对策略的英文文章.翻译成中文大概能有八百字的样子.希望大家帮忙找找这样的英文文章,最好是书上摘抄过
The People's Republic of China has been the number one target of antidumping actions filed by the U.S. Commerce Department on behalf of various domestic industries. One reason for this special status is because the PRC is one of the world's lowest cost producers. Because of the cost structure of its industries and economy, as well as the fact that it tends to manufacture products at the low end of the quality scale, it is able to sell a wide range of products for lower prices than most competitors. Furthermore, because it is classified as a nonmarket economy, special rules must be used to determine the cost of production. It is unlikely that the frequency of antidumping actions will decline in the near future. Indeed, because the antidumping laws are becoming more widespread as a result of their adoption by every country that became a member of the World Trade Organization, it is likely that the number of antidumping actions filed against the PRC will increase in the years to come. This paper begins with an overview and history of the antidumping laws and proceeds to examine five antidumping actions initiated by the U.S. Commerce Department against the People's Republic of China. The paper concludes with a brief commentary and recommendations. The antidumping laws are based on a number of faulty premises. For one thing, actual dumping rarely occurs, because if it did, the company that does the dumping would probably go out of business. There are instances where a company sells its products, either in foreign or domestic markets, at less than the cost of production. Where this practice does occur, it is usually for good business reasons -- the alternative to selling below cost may be to not sell at all. This is certainly the case for wilting flowers or aging tomatoes. Very seldom do companies sell at less than cost to drive out the competition with the intent of later capturing market share. The numerous studies that have been done on predatory pricing have either found that predatory pricing does not exist, or if it does exist, it benefits consumers. Another faulty premise is that dumping is bad for the economy. If a foreign producer does sell below cost, or for a lower price than in its home market (these are the two criteria for dumping), the practice benefits consumers -- the general public. Domestic producers are harmed, but domestic producers constitute a small minority, although a concentrated one. In practice, the antidumping laws have been used as protectionist clubs by these special interest groups -- domestic producers -- to batter the competition at the expense of the general public. Another flaw, a philosophical one, is the concept that one producer should be punished for harming another producer. There is a vast difference between being harmed and having your rights violated. For example, if a supermarket opens up across the street from a small, mom and pop grocery store, mom and pop will likely be harmed, but they will not have their rights violated. They have no right to sell products to consumers who do not want to buy from them. But the antidumping laws go a step further down this illogical road. They would punish foreign producers for doing business domestically if there is a mere threat of harm to a domestic industry. Thus, they are punished for something that they merely might do in the future. If such a theory were applied to criminal law in the United States, it would lead to the incarceration of anyone who fits a criminal profile whether they were actually guilty of breaking the law or not. Yet the antidumping laws regularly use such a yardstick to determine whether a foreign producer should be punished. A number of other flaws too numerous to mention here infect the antidumping laws. But these flaws have been pointed out elsewhere (McGee 1993; 1994). The main point is that antidumping laws have become much more important since the conclusion of the Uruguay Round and the founding of the World Trade Organization. Now, more than 120 countries have these laws at their disposal. The potential for abuse is great and growing. It is reasonable to expect that, as domestic producers in these countries become aware that they can use these laws to prevent foreign producers from offering their goods in domestic markets at low prices, they will make use of these laws, which benefit domestic producers at the expense of the general public. The antidumping laws will become the biggest weapon of protectionists as tariffs and quotas fade away. Reform is not the answer, since these laws are based on incorrect premises. The only solution is outright repeal, the sooner the better. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that the antidumping laws will be repealed by the WTO and its 120+ signatories in the near future. As a result, antidumping laws will have an increasingly important effect on world trade, especially in the case of China, since the PRC is the number one target of antidumping actions. Antidumping laws can become one of the major challenges to trade with China in the twenty-first century. The Uruguay Round diminished the effectiveness of tariffs and quotas as protectionist tools, but antidumping laws have become more important. Antidumping laws are likely to become the protectionist tool of choice, and will likely be used to keep Chinese goods out of foreign markets. Thus, a major challenge to trade with China will be how to find ways to conduct business with China without running afoul of the antidumping laws, or how to circumvent the antidumping laws when they are used to block trade. These laws will likely result in high antidumping duties in many cases. These duties will have exactly the same effect that tariffs had in the past -- they will increase prices to consumers and make Chinese goods less competitive in international markets. In some cases, Chinese goods will not be able to cross borders at all, and thus will have the same effect on international trade as did quotas in the past. The best solution to this impending problem is outright repeal, as was stated previously. However, until repeal can be accomplished, ways must be found to minimize the adverse effects that the implementation of antidumping laws will have on international trade.