Anti-dumping measures are intended to prevent the im­port of products at prices lower than those at which they are sold within the exporting (home) country markets. It is a type of penalty against imports to protect the domestic in­dustry. All members of the WTO are obliged to set up their own anti-dumping authorities to prevent injury to domestic industry.
     The WTO agreement on anti-dumping measures stipu­lates a rigorous framework for dealing with the problem of dumping. The anti-dumping measures, as per the agree­ment, can be initiated only when (1) an existence of dump­ing is identified; (2) injury to industry is measured; and (3) causal link between dumping and injury to industry is estab­lished. All these steps require strong technical and analyti­cal support (Panchmukhi, 2001). Dumping is defined as the introduction of a product of one country into the commerce of another country at less than the normal value of the com­modity (Gupta, 1996). The principal criterion for determin­ing dumping is whether the price of the product exported from one country to another is less than the comparable price in the ordinary course of trade for the product, when destined for consumption in the exporting country. In the absence of the domestic price, the highest comparable price for the like product for export to any third country in the ordinary course of trade or the cost of production of the product in the country of origin plus a reasonable addition of selling cost and profit are relied on. No matter which standard is used, in each case, it is enjoined that due allow­ance shall be made for differences in conditions and terms of sale, difference in taxation and other differences affecting price comparability (Kaul, 1997).
     The conditions for imposition of anti-dumping duties to offset or prevent dumping are that:
1.    The anti-dumping duty shall not be greater than the margin of dumping. 2.    No anti-dumping duty shall be levied by reason of ex­emption from or refund of duties for taxes borne by a product when destined for domestic consumption in the exporting country. 3.    No anti-dumping duty shall be levied unless it is de­termined that the effect of dumping is such as to cause material injury to an established industry (Kaul, 1997).

Anti-dumping duties can be of several types i.e., ad valorem duty, specific duty and dumping margin duty. Besides anti­dumping duty, the other measures against dumping can be provisional measures or duties, price undertakings and vol­untary export restraints. Provisional measures are used to prevent injury being caused during the anti-dumping inves­tigation and can be in the form of provisional duty, security deposit or withholding of appraisement. These measures are normally limited to four months and expire with the conclu­sion of the proceedings. Provisional duties are refunded if no evidence of dumping and injury is found and the difference is reimbursed if the final duty is less than the provisional duty. Price and voluntary export restraint undertakings are voluntary undertakings given by any exporter to the effect that the exporter agrees to increase the prices or to cease/ reduce exports to the area in question at dumped prices in order to satisfy the authorities that the injurious effect of

dumping has been eliminated (Gupta, 1996). When peti­tions result in voluntary export restraints, exporters are al­located with export licenses based on firms' foreign market shares in the past. Thus, forward looking exporters have an incentive to enlarge their market shares by dumping more at present and thus securing larger profits under the export restraint (Zanardi, 2004).
     Until recently, most intensive use of anti-dumping ac­tions has been made by the US, Canada, the EU and Aus­tralia in that order. Canada was the first country to adopt an anti-dumping legislation in 1904 followed by Australia in 1906 and several others by 1920. After the passing of the anti-dumping code during the Tokyo round of GATT in the 1970s, many developing countries also started passing anti­dumping legislation with India doing it in 1985 (Zanardi, 2004). By the end of June 1997, 76 members (with EU countries counted as one) had submitted notification of their anti-dumping legislation or regulations to the WTO's com­mittee on anti-dumping practices and by the end of 2001, 94 countries (with EU countries counted individually) had their anti-dumping laws in place. By the end of 1996, the WTO member countries reported 900 anti-dumping mea­sures, including price undertakings, being in force which rose to 1119 by the end of 2000. The major sectors affected by these measures were base metals, mostly steel, chemicals, plastics, textiles, machinery and equipment and agriculture and food in that order (Ghate, 1998; Zanardi, 2004)). The "Big Four" i.e., the US, the EU, Canada and Australia still account for more than 40% of all anti-dumping investiga­tions (Bhattacharyya and Gupta, 2001).
     By 2001, more than 90% of worldwide imports were potentially subject to anti-dumping actions compared with only 71% in 1990 (Zanardi, 2004). And, the developing countries are the major targets of anti-dumping actions. They faced 38% all cases during 1990-94 which rose to 42% during 1995-99 (Bhattacharyya and Gupta, 2001). On the other hand, Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, India and South Africa emerged as major users of anti-dumping ac­tions accounting for 1/4th of all anti-dumping investigations since 1995 (Bhattacharyya and Gupta, 2001). The WTO Anti-Dumping Measures agreement excludes the use of AD in a retaliatory fashion in line with the non-discriminatory principle of the WTO (Zanardi, 2004).
     During 1980-2001, 4597 anti-dumping investigations were initiated and the largest four users (Australia, Can­ada, EU and the USA) each had a double digit share and altogether filed 64% of all anti-dumping petitions. But, in more recent times (1995-2001), only the seven largest uses together reach a share of more than 64% with new ones be­ing Argentina, India and South Africa who have even larger shares than Australia and Canada. India initiated a total of 192 anti-dumping investigations during 1980-2001 with most being after 1996 (Zanardi, 2004). India has been one of the major users as well as victims of the anti-dumping measures. India initiated 140 anti-dumping cases during 1995-1999 compared with only 15 during 1991-94 and 45 during 1993-1997 with definitive duties in 11 cases (Pana-gariya, 1999) and it was the highest among the developing countries, accounting for 15% of all cases in the developing world. India imposed its first ever provisional anti-dumping