Investment promotion and unfair practices: can the public interest limit the application of antidumping measures?

Originally published in Mercojuris July 19, 2026. Reproduced on the MJE Foreign Trade website with the author's permission.

Resolution No. 218/2026, issued by the Secretariat of Industry, Commerce and Small and Medium Enterprises on July 15, 2026, declared it appropriate to open an investigation for alleged dumping on exports to the Argentine Republic of industrial steel wind turbine towers originating from the People's Republic of China.

The National Foreign Trade Commission preliminarily concluded that there is sufficient evidence to consider the following proven:

• The existence of dumping.
• The threat of significant damage to the domestic production sector.
• The causal relationship between the two.
• A weighted average dumping margin of 46.39 %.

So far, it might seem like a procedure antidumping usual. However, an aspect incorporated by the Commission introduces a new question: it announced that during the investigation it will deepen the analysis on the impact of other regimes, including the Incentive Regime for Large Investments (RIGI).

Two regimes with different objectives

The RIGI, created by Law 27,742 and regulated by Decree 749/24, aims to promote large investment projects through tax, customs and exchange stability for thirty years, in addition to granting important incentives to sectors considered strategic for the development of the country.

On the other hand, the antidumping regime—incorporated into the Argentine legal system by Law 24,425 and currently regulated by Decree 33/25—operates according to a different logic. Its objective is to correct unfair trade practices when three requirements are met simultaneously:

1. The existence of dumping.
2. The existence of significant damage or threat of damage to the domestic industry.
3. The causal relationship between the two.

Both regimes pursue legitimate objectives, but they serve clearly different purposes.

The RIGI's silence regarding antidumping measures

Although Title VII of Law 27.742 extensively regulates the benefits applicable to the RIGI, it does not contain a specific provision on antidumping duties.

The rule does not expressly state that these rights are exempt, but neither does it stipulate that they must be applied without exception to projects adhering to the regime.

There are indirect references that suggest the legislator considered the issue, although none of them definitively resolves the interpretative conflict.

Consequently, both those who argue that customs stability could prevent the application of antidumping measures and those who understand that trade defense remains completely unrelated to the regime find reasonable legal arguments.

The public interest as a meeting point

However, the real debate should probably not focus on the scope of RIGI.

Decree 33/25 expressly incorporated the analysis of public interest within the antidumping procedure.

The National Foreign Trade Commission must consider the circumstances of general foreign trade policy and the public interest when issuing its final recommendation.

Furthermore, the regime refers to Article 9.1 of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Antidumping Agreement, which recognizes that, even if dumping, injury and a causal relationship are verified, the decision to apply or not an antidumping duty remains a power of the competent authority.

From this perspective, the RIGI would not enter the file as a rule that automatically excludes the application of antidumping measures, but as a circumstance that could be weighed within the analysis of the public interest.

The case of the wind turbines

The tension is particularly evident in this investigation.

Wind turbines are strategic assets for the development of electricity generation projects, precisely one of the sectors included within the RIGI.

At the same time, these same products are manufactured by the domestic industry, which seeks to protect itself against a possible dumping practice.

Thus, two public policies converge, pursuing equally relevant objectives:

• Promote large-scale investments.
• Protecting domestic industry against unfair trade practices.

Current regulations do not establish a rule that determines which of the two should prevail, leaving that assessment in the hands of the administrative authority.

A question that transcends this case

The issue goes far beyond the wind turbine tower market.

The real question is whether the existence of an investment promotion regime can, as a matter of public interest, influence the decision not to apply an antidumping measure even when all the legal requirements for its imposition are met.

Decree 33/25 allows for this assessment. What it does not yet define is the extent to which this assessment can be applied.

Conclusion

The investigation has only just begun. Still pending are the report of essential facts, the parties' arguments, and the final recommendation from the National Foreign Trade Commission, which must include an analysis of the public interest as stipulated by current regulations.

It will then be possible to determine whether the reference made to the RIGI constitutes simply a formal observation or the beginning of a new line of interpretation in matters of trade defense.

---

Dr. Andrea Zavatto

Lawyer – Specialist in Customs Law, Foreign Exchange and Legal Metrology Director – MJE Comercio Exterior SRL Consulting Partner – MJE Global (USA) General Management – Dumping Experts