[tooltalk]

dumping doesn't depend on profit or loss. Also the legal definition of dumping is less-than-the-"normal value." (see Article VI ANTI-DUMPING AND COUNTERVAILING DUTIES of GATT 1994).

But then China is a non-market-economy, so none of these rules apply in a hypothetical anti-dumping case -- ie, China's local price, or "normal value" doesn't matter.

[bryanlarsen]

A normal value for a highly competitive commodity part like a battery is about 3% above cost. CATL charges over 20% above cost. So you might have an argument that CATL has monopoly pricing power and is gouging its customers.

IOW that they're illegally charging too much, not that they are illegally charging too little.

[tooltalk]

Sure, that's not what a normal value is.

As explained, the price level or the cost of manufacture in China, the exporting country, is completely irrelevant as their local price/cost of manufacturer is artificially propped up by illegal state subsidies or other anti-market tactics to cripple foreign competition past 15 years. Again, China is a non-market-economy.

In those cases, trade regulators can use "undistorted" prices without gov't interference or use a market price in a similarly situated 3rd country as benchmark.

[bryanlarsen]

If that's your definition of a non-market economy, then no Western economy is either.

[tooltalk]

It's really just China and these countries:

  Republic of Armenia,
  Republic of Azerbaijan
  Republic of Belarus
  Georgia
  Kyrgyz Republic
  Republic of Moldova
  Russian Federation
  Republic of Tajikistan
  Turkmenistan
  Republic of Uzbekistan
  Socialist Republic of Vietnam

The term NME is a specific legal designation for anti-dumping cases. The list isn't static -- unlike China, Vietnam has made a lot of reforms and many speculate they will be removed before 2030.

No need to pretend that Chinese EV/battery companies can compete on their own without the gov't protection or "illegal" subsidies.