23 October 2024
Read More3 October 2024
Read More26 September 2024
Read MoreWe are a family of strong 800+ people including 470+ professionals working from 14 locations across India.
We have a rich heritage and enduring legacy which are pivotal in shaping trust, excellence, and unparalleled legal expertise, thus building a strong reputation and a trusted brand.
Read MoreWe started in 1985 in a single room set up by the two founders with no prior experience of working in a law firm. Both the founders had outstanding academic records and focused on their deep understanding of the law to form the foundation of the firm.
Integrity, Knowledge and Passion are the principles that resonate with every member of our LKS family and the work that we do. These values drive us to build a community of legally sound professionals and well-serviced clients.
Everything we have accomplished over the last four decades is a result of our unique way of thinking which is deeply influenced by our core values and principles that define us.
Read MoreWe and our professionals consistently garner appreciation for the quality of our services and the depth of our legal expertise. This consistent acknowledgment serves as a testament to our unwavering commitment to exceed expectations.
Article 2.2 of the WTO’s Anti-dumping Agreement allows the investigating authority of a country to reject domestic prices of the exporting country for the purposes of calculating normal value if the domestic sales of the like product do not permit a proper comparison based on certain factors. The article in this issue of International Trade Amicus discusses at length the recent Panel report of the DSB in the dispute involving imposition of anti-dumping duty by Australia on A4 copy paper from Indonesia. The author notes though Australia’s rejection of exporter’s cost has been considered as inconsistent with Article 2.2 and Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA but the critical issue regarding the use of ‘particular market situation’ provision, which formed the basis for the complaint by Indonesia, still lacks clarity. According to the author, interpretation of the term ‘Particular market situation’ by the Panel is overly broad and ignores relevant ‘context’ under Article 2.2 and conflicts with requirement in Article 2.2.1.1. as interpreted by the Appellate Body in EU-Biodiesel. The article also observes that the Panel has ignored the language of Article 2.2, which clearly states that ‘particular market situation’ should exist in relation to the ‘sale’ of the like product in the domestic market...
The article in this issue of International Trade Amicus briefly discusses the first anti-absorption investigation...
The article in this issue of International Trade Amicus discusses some of the relevant jurisprudence...
The article discusses the legal basis for these agreements and assesses their compatibility with the...
Get access to our latest newsletters, articles and events:
Scan the QR code to get in
touch with us