Mighty Tells Critics Anti-Dumping Charges Not Substantiated

Mighty Corporation rebuke its detractors for participating in the investigation of the only Filipino-owned and controlled tobacco company for alleged anti-dumping without a clear view of the law.

Mighty Corporation vice president and spokesperson Oscar Barrientos reminded critics that “ignorance of the law excuses no one,” referring to the claim of Ilocos Sur-based Banayoyo Reforestation and Tobacco Growers Credit Cooperative.

Mighty Corp.'s Executive Vice President and Spokesperson Oscar P. Barrientos

He said the anti-dumping law says that “simple assertion, unsubstantiated by relevant evidence, cannot be considered to meet the requirements of the law,” adding it is not a recourse for trial by publicity.

Barrientos debunked the charges of Francisco Gamboa, president of the cooperative, who said that Mighty Corporation had been importing tobacco leaf on rates below the floor price mandated by the government, making it liable for violating Republic Act 8752, or the Anti-Dumping Act of 1999.

Barrientos said the law “declared the policy of the state to protect domestic enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.”

“Gamboa should understand that there are specific requirements for initiating an investigation for anti-dumping,” he said. 

“These are evidence of dumping, injury and causal link between the dumped imports and the alleged injury; and upon receipt of a properly documented application and before proceeding to initiate an investigation, the secretary [of Agriculture] shall notify the government of the exporting country about the impending anti-dumping investigation.” the retired trial judge added.

“Further, the law requires that domestic producers supporting the application must have at least 25% interest of the total production.” Barrientos said.

Barrientos said if the agriculture secretary, in special circumstances, decided to initiate an investigation “without having received a written application by or on behalf of a domestic industry for the initiation of such investigation,” he should “proceed only if he had sufficient evidence of dumping, injury and a causal link to justify the initiation of an investigation.”