Petrochem group pushes changes to anti-dumping law

Petrochemical manufacturers have asked Congress to fasttrack the amendment of the new anti-dumping law which they said makes it even more difficult for a dumping protest to progress.

In a letter to House Speaker Manuel Villar, the Association of Petrochemical Manufacturers of the Philippines (APMP) noted that instead of being a safety net measure to protect industries from the adverse effects of trade liberalization, Republic Act 8752 or the Anti-Dumping Duty Act 'was full of holes and counter-productive of the safety net objective originally meant.'

The new anti-dumping law, introduced as House Bill no. 7612, was expected to liberalize the then existing rules to make a dumping protest easier to prosecute. Dumping occurs when an exporting country sells a product that it produces at a price lower than its home consumption value. However, prior to RA 8752, it was difficult if not impossible to prove dumping here.

APMP chairman Ricardo Guevarra noted that the new law, among others, provided for the filing of a surety bond by the petitioner-complainant, a requirement which he said was never imposed in previous anti-dumping laws nor required by the World Trade Organization (WTO).

"It adds a higher cost and greater burden to the complainant than what the already burdensome anti-dumping laws that it replaced imposed," Guevarra said in his letter to Villar, a copy of which was furnished Senate committee on ways and means chairman Juan Ponce Enrile.

Guevarra pointed out that it also becomes impossible for an anti-dumping complaint to be successfully prosecuted since the Tariff Commission is given the power to determine if the anti-dumping duty should be imposed or not 'in consideration, of the general welfare of consumers and related industries.' The Tariff Commission under the law, can exercise its discretion even if all the elements of dumping have been proven.

"Being in a highly politicized environment, the Tariff Commission, as it had been wont to be in the past, had been populist at the expense of industries," he added.

Guevarra explained that such provision is uncalled for since the welfare of the general public and even related industries have specific remedies under the Flexible Tariff Clause or Section 401 of the Tariff Code which gives authority to the President to adjust tariff rates when the general welfare is involved.

The recent tariff adjustments under WTO and the ASEAN Free Trade Area agreements, he noted, clearly were intended to benefit consumers and downstream related industries.

It was also pointed out that Section 301 of the Tariff Code addresses unfair trade practices, specifically dumping, with its provisions punitive in nature based on the assumption that importation had been made at prices lower than the domestic price in the exporting country.

The APMP also emphasized that the provision requiring a surety bond and the giving the Tariff Commission discretion were inserted during and in the privacy of the last bicameral conference committee deliberation.

"Said provisions were never discussed during previous committee hearings in both Houses. Even members of the conference committee who did not participate in the penultimate session were surprised at the insertions. This incident raises a constitutional question of due process since affected sectors nor the public were not given the proper notice and opportunity to participate in the deliberation," it said.

The association also called for the immediate approval of House Bill no. 8347 sponsored by Reps. Leonardo Montemator and Wigberto Tanada which seeks to address such infirmities in the law.