What Can We Learn from the First Retroactive Imposition of Anti-Dumping Duties Case in Taiwan?
During the investigative proceedings conducted by the Taiwan Ministry of Finance ("MOF") and the Ministry of Economic Affairs ("MOEA"), anti-dumping duties may be levied retroactively if importers engage in massive importations or stockpiling that causes material injury to the domestic industry. In practice, it is not common to see the Taiwan MOF impose anti-dumping duty retoractively on the imported products. Actually, Taiwan's anti-dumping investigation on malt beer in 2025 was the first and only case where anti-dumping duty was imposed retoractively. Following this decision, the Taiwan MOF found out that this retroactive imposition mechanism may harm some small importers so an exemption was enacted in February 2026. This article aims to quickly assess how the retroactive imposition mechanism is practically operating in Taiwan.
Taiwan's Retroactive Imposition Mechanism
According to Article 42 of Taiwan's Regulations Governing the Implementation of the Imposition of Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties, the retroactive anti-dumping duty may be imposed on the products imported not more than 90 days before the application of the provisional duty. This implies that the "retroactive imposition”in Taiwan may occur where a provisional anti-dumping duty has been found and imposed.
The MOF first invoked this retroactive mechanism during its anti-dumping investigation on malt beer imported from China. The anti-dumping duty rates for Chinese malt beer range from 19.13% to 51.94%, with a standard five-year imposition period commencing on 3 July 2025, where provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed. However, following petitions from domestic industries regarding massive stockpiling by certain importers during the investigation, the Taiwan MOF conducted a review and confirmed that such stockpiling had indeed occurred and caused injury to domestic producers. Subsequently, the MOEA issued its final injury determination on 29 October 2025, confirming the necessity for retroactive imposition. Within a month, on 27 November 2025, the MOF formally imposed the anti-dumping duty with retroactive effect. The retroactive period began 90 days prior to provisional anti-dumping duty's effective date of 3 July 2025, i.e., 4 April 2025.
Consequently, the duties for certain manufacturers were retroactively applied starting from 4 April 2025. This resulted in a total duty period of five years and three months, three months longer than the period applicable to other exporters.
New Exemption Enacted in 2026 for Small Importers
In February 2026, the Taiwan MOF amended the relevant regulations to incorporate a new "exemption" (de minimis rule), among others, for protecting small importes. Under this new rule, an importer may be granted an exemption if its import volume during the comparison period accounts for less than 0.01% (one ten-thousandth) of the total volume of the subject merchandise from the country under anti-dumping investigation.
That makes sense. Given their historically de minimis or intermittent import levels, these small importers are highly susceptible to statistical anomalies. A mere one-ton increase during the period of investigation would erroneously categorize their activities as massive importation, rendering them liable for retroactive duties despite the lack of a bad intent to stockpile.
Takeaway
In Taiwan's previous anti-dumping investigation cases, the retroactive imposition is rarely seen. However, just since 2025, the first retroactive imposition unexpectedly came out. Why would this even happen when we all knew an anti-dumping investigation was ongoing at that time and industries should act in a more discreet way for complying the laws? Probably both the malt beer industries in China and Taiwan importers failed to realize that they just could not take advantage of the investigation period for mass importation. As we always suggest foreign manufacturers/exporters should engage lawyers to provide professional guidance, maybe it would be fairer to suggest that foreign manufacturers/exporters should trust their legal team more, not just following their own business instincts without asking.
