Can We Secure Consistency Between Rules of Origin and Measures to Prevent Circumvention of Anti-Dumping Measures Under the WTO Framework? -With Special Focus on the Recent Administrative and Judicial Trends in the U.S.-

Under the World Trade Organization (WTO) framework, international rules on anti- dumping (AD) measures, on the one hand, and those on rules of origin (ROO) - including the provisions aiming at developing a harmonized rule of origin (HRO) - on the other, have been considered as related but distinct areas. Sensitive issues such as how to set and apply ROOs in the course of the AD investigations, and whether or not to apply the HRO to the AD measures, have also been addressed individually within each field, respectively. However, in everyday trade administration practices, the two sets of rules, i.e., AD and ROO, are becoming increasingly cross-cutting and interdependent of each other, especially when discussing the legitimacy of “anti-circumvention” measures which counteract “circumvention” of the AD measures. Failing to address the issue of interrelationship between the two sets of rules may hinder effectiveness of international disciplines in both AD and ROO. Until now, however, little inclusive and extensive research examining this issue has been conducted. Thus, this paper clarifies the major causes of the problem, with special focus on regulatory and judicial trends in the US. It illustrates the US approach of using ROOs more aggressively and in an extended manner, to secure effectiveness of the AD measures. As a reflection, this paper sheds light on systemic problems that this US practice creates in contrast to the longstanding pursuit of international regulation of AD measures, and the importance of multifaceted and coordinated regulatory design across both fields of AD and ROO.