The role of business associations proved to be very important. A business association is a coordinator in all activities in relation to an antidumping case. Prior to the antidumping case, the business association is the watchdog of the industry and responsible for running the early warning mechanism. It is also responsible for organizing training for its members in order to respond to an antidumping investigation and developing a network of connections in the country of impending anti - dumping action.
Thus, each business association needs to set up a task force responsible for preparing for possible AD action. The main functions of this task force would be:
Evaluate the risk that their products may be subjected to AD actions abroad;
Study AD laws of the major export markets of the association;
Work with lawyers and economists who are experts in AD to study precedents of AD cases in "at risk" market to learn the tactics and strategy of domestic industry in attacking foreign products as well as the opinions of AD administrations;
49
Work with the association member enterprises to improve their accounting and recording standard to meet the requirements of AD investigation;
Draw a plan to coordinate the association member enterprises in case of being attacked by AD actions;
Need to prepare the financial resources: the preparation and defense in an antidumping action need money. Although respondents are the people who pay the expenses, it is necessary to centralize the management of financial resources. The business association is the most suitable agency for managing all financial resources because it is the coordinator in the preparation and defense.
Strengthen lobbying: Lobbying the executive branch has limited effect but is necessary because it could pressure the anti - dumping authority to use fair and reasonable procedures in the investigation. Nevertheless, lobbying activities need a strategy with specific goals and targets. Lobbying also needs the strong support of evidence rather than simply access to target groups with "common sense" arguments. Cooperation with the media, organizations having mutual benefits in the anti - dumping country, and non - governmental organizations are important in winning the support from the public.
50
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have generalized what is dumping, when a country applies anti - dumping measures. The article also specifically analyzed the process of a US antidumping lawsuit. We have also analyzed two typical US anti-sale price lawsuits against Vietnam that have not yet ended until now. Throgh these, we can see that the policy analysis of using US anti - dumping tools on imported goods and the effects of that policy on Vietnamese exports to this market will help Vietnamese businesses can be more proactive to deal with the US anti - dumping policy. Want to be like that, first of all, Vietnamese enterprises need to have an overview of dumping and WTO anti - dumping policy. Next, specify the target market of the business to learn the anti - dumping policy of the country that the business will export to. Through previous US anti - dumping lawsuits with Vietnam, especially the catfish and shrimp cases, we need to learn from and need to become more and more mature in international business. The anti - dumping case of the US with Vietnam on the current catfish products is still being subjected to unfavorable tariffs for enterprises, but the case of warm water shrimp, we have seen a very feasible view. It is the result of the solidarity and efforts of Vietnamese businesses and associations to resist. In order to integrate deeply into the large and attractive international economy, especially the US market which is full of risks, with different types of barriers, not only businesses but also the government and industry associations also should be willing to help domestic businesses to promote Vietnam to grow stronger on the path of international integration.
REFERENCE
1. Aggarwal, A. (2006). The anti - dumping agreement and developing countries:
An introduction. Oxford University Press.
2. Blonigen, B. A., & Prusa, T. J. (2008). Antidumping (pp. 173-177). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
3. Bown, C. P., & Crowley, M. A. (2006). Policy externalities: how US antidumping affects Japanese exports to the EU. European Journal of Political Economy, 22(3), 696-714.
4. Choi, N. (2017). Did Anti - dumping Duties Really Restrict Import?: Empirical Evidence from the US, the EU, China, and India.
5. Finger, J. M., & Murray, T. (1993). Antidumping and Countervailing Duty. Antidumping: How it Works and Who Gets Hurt, 241.
6. Kozyrin, A. N., & Yalbulganov, A. A. (2015). Anti - dumping Procedures in the EurAsEC Customs Union. Liverpool Law Review, 36(2), 183-194.
7. Kozyrin, A. N., & Yalbulganov, A. A. (2015). Anti - dumping Procedures in the EurAsEC Customs Union. Liverpool Law Review, 36(2), 183-194.
8. Luo, Y. (2010). Anti - dumping in the WTO, the EU, and China: The Rise of Legalization in the Trade Regime and Its Consequences (Vol. 69). Kluwer Law International BV.
9. Niels, G., & Ten Kate, A. (2004). Anti‐dumping Protection in a Liberalising Country: Mexico's Anti‐dumping Policy and Practice. World Economy, 27(7), 967-983.
10. Ostoni, L. (2004). Anti - dumping circumvention in the EU and the US: Is there a future for multilateral provisions under the WTO. Fordham J. Corp. & Fin.
L., 10, 407.
11. Raslan, R. A. A. (2009). Antidumping: a developing country perspective (Vol.
21). Kluwer Law International BV.
12. Sun, C. (2011). Price dynamics in the import wooden bed market of the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(6), 479 - 487.