A new version of China's anti-dumping legislation will take effect on June 1 after a 12-point revision was released earlier this month.

The revision has not only updated the anti-dumping regulation to the latest changes in the organization chart of the central government, but clarified the roles of specific government branches in anti-dumping investigations and lawsuits.

However, the revision is more like a signal indicating the direction of further development of this legislation than a substantial change in anti-dumping investigation procedures.

The anti-dumping regulation came into effect on January 1, 2002, when China had been formally accepted as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Framing domestic legislation to match WTO rules is one of the duties of member countries.

Before this independent anti-dumping regulation, China had a regulation governing dumping and subsidies, which was drafted in line with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

The anti-dumping regulation could be regarded as part of China's rule-making efforts to fulfil its obligations as a WTO member.

But more importantly, it is also strong protection for the interests of the nation and industry in global trade, especially after the country was accepted by the world trade body.

China has been subject to frequent anti-dumping investigations and lawsuits in recent years, and for several years in a row China has been the WTO member with the most anti-dumping cases raised by other members.

In 2003, there were 45 anti-dumping cases against Chinese exports. The figure was 53 and 51 in 2001 and 2002 respectively.

Some attributed the decrease to China's anti-dumping policies.

It may be true. The Ministry of Commerce raised 22 anti-dumping cases against different imported commodities in 2003, and anti-dumping taxes were imposed on several foreign products.

But many experts in law, trade and international affairs have expressed concern about the regulation's effectiveness in dealing with the problem.

The regulation is thought to be not detailed enough concerning technical nuances such as deciding the normal value of investigated products and the rates of anti-dumping charges thereafter.

These ambiguities could lead to successful anti-dumping suits.

Experts have also pointed out that the division of the portfolio of different government agencies involved in the process remains ambiguous.

With an overlap of functions or lack of adequate regular communication, investigations and lawsuits can stagnate.

The most important and most pressing problem about the anti-dumping regulation is that it is only an administrative decree issued by the State Council instead of a code made by the National People's Congress.

Given its current position in the legal framework, it is impossible for it to outline a jurisdiction from the court if the sued party does not accept the final decision of the administrative bodies.

Such jurisdiction is a widely accepted step in anti-dumping laws in other nations because it ensures the fairness of anti-dumping lawsuit judgments.

These three problems, among many others, have been brought forward several times since the regulation was issued.

The latest revision is a small step forward in eliminating the vagueness in the responsibilities of different departments, but it is far from being an impressive advance in dealing with the urgent problems that need to be solved.

It may be unrealistic to wish the current anti-dumping law can solve all the problems once and for all.

When coping with these problems, future legislators should take into consideration the country's trade, establishment of a market economy and the perfection of a legal system.