‘No complaints filed’ after trade remedy law
‘No complaints filed’ after trade remedy law
The Ministry of Commerce official in charge of the Kingdom’s new trade remedy law said that no complaints had been filed by Cambodian businesses since the anti-dumping measure was put in place nearly one year ago.
Tan Yuvaroath, the ministry’s deputy director of trade promotion, told reporters at a seminar in Phnom Penh that lack of awareness about the law could be keeping businesses from utilising it.
He also cited a steep legal fee and the challenge of collecting the evidence needed to convince local authorities to investigate.
The trade remedy law was approved by the National Assembly last October. It was meant to protect domestic and foreign businesses by introducing anti-dumping measures that prevent the “dishonest” import of goods and produce from neighbouring countries.
“If we found that a complaint is corrected and there is a dumping price that can negatively affect local production, we can increase custom taxes on goods that are dumped into the market up to levels set by the World Trade Organisation,” said Yuvaroath, who was a member of the team that drafted the law. He added that so far not a single complaint had been registered
Some Cambodian business owners who spoke to the Post remained doubtful about the law. Leaders in the domestic pork industry have complained bitterly that unfair imports have slashed prices for producers.
Srun Peu, director of the Cambodia Livestock Raisers Association, said on Tuesday that pork suppliers suffered huge losses from the price dumping of pig imports from Vietnam in 2017. He added that many pig farmers gave up the business.
“If the law [on trade remedies] is implemented properly, we will dare to spend on legal fees even though it is high, because when we seriously suffered and we lost a lot of money,” Srun said.
He added that implementing the law is complicated by the need to provide strong evidence and to find local authorities willing to help. “We now have the law, but whether how efficiency the law is, it is still a question.”
