kom (2019) 0158 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 37th Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities and the Use of trade defence instruments by Third Countries targeting the EU in 2018

Europaudvalget 2019
KOM (2019) 0158
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 27.3.2019

SWD(2019) 141 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND

THE COUNCIL

37th Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities and the Use of trade

defence instruments by Third Countries targeting the EU in 2018

{COM(2019) 158 final}

kom (2019) 0158 (forslag) - COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 37th Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities and the Use of trade defence instruments by Third Countries targeting the EU in 2018

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND

THE COUNCIL

37th Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament

on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities and the Use of trade

defence instruments by Third Countries targeting the EU in 2018

Table of Contents

1. Overview of the legislation ..................................................................................................................4

1.1.

1.1.1.

1.1.2.

1.2

1.2.1.

1.2.2.

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy.................................................................................................4

The international framework .....................................................................................................4

The EU legislation ....................................................................................................................4

Safeguards .................................................................................................................................5

The international framework .....................................................................................................5

The EU legislation ....................................................................................................................6

2. General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures ..............................6

2.1.

2.2.

2.3

Measures in place......................................................................................................................6

New investigations ....................................................................................................................7

Review investigations ...............................................................................................................8

3. Overview of activities in 2018 .............................................................................................................9

3.1.

3.1.1.

3.1.2.

3.1.3.

3.1.4.

3.1.5.

3.1.6.

3.2.

3.2.1.

3.2.2.

New investigations ....................................................................................................................9

Initiations ..................................................................................................................................9

Provisional measures ................................................................................................................9

Definitive measures ................................................................................................................10

Details on individual cases with application of new provisional or definitive duties .............10

Investigations terminated without measures ...........................................................................17

Details on some individual cases of termination without measures........................................18

Review investigations .............................................................................................................19

Expiry reviews ........................................................................................................................19

Interim reviews .......................................................................................................................23

3.2.3.

3.2.4.

3.2.5.

3.2.6.

3.3.

New exporter reviews .............................................................................................................30

Absorption investigations .......................................................................................................33

Anti-circumvention investigations ..........................................................................................33

“Other” reviews (reinvestigations)..........................................................................................

Safeguard investigations .........................................................................................................37

4. Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures.....................................................................40

4.1.

4.2.

4.3.

Follow-up of measures ............................................................................................................41

Monitoring of undertakings ....................................................................................................41

OLAF activity .........................................................................................................................41

5. Refunds...............................................................................................................................................42

6. TDI Modernisation .............................................................................................................................42

7. Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts .........................................................44

7.1.

7.2.

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) .........................................................................44

Bilateral contacts/information activities

–

EU economic operators including their key

stakeholder associations and third countries ...........................................................................45

8. Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice (CJ) and the General Court (GC) ..............45

8.1.

8.2.

8.3.

8.4.

8.5.

Overview of the judicial reviews in 2018 ...............................................................................45

Cases pending .........................................................................................................................45

New cases................................................................................................................................45

Judgments rendered by the General Court (a selection) .........................................................45

Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice (a selection) .......................................................50

9. Activities by third countries targeting the EU ....................................................................................55

10. Activities in the framework of the WTO..........................................................................................60

10.1.

10.2.

Dispute settlement in the field of trade defence ......................................................................60

Other WTO activities ..............................................................................................................62

11. Activity of the hearing officer ..........................................................................................................63

LIST OF ANNEXES ..............................................................................................................................65

ANNEX A ..............................................................................................................................................66

ANNEX B ..............................................................................................................................................67

ANNEX D ..............................................................................................................................................70

ANNEX E ..............................................................................................................................................71

ANNEX F ...............................................................................................................................................72

ANNEX G ..............................................................................................................................................74

ANNEX H ..............................................................................................................................................76

ANNEX I................................................................................................................................................77

ANNEX J ...............................................................................................................................................79

ANNEX K ..............................................................................................................................................80

ANNEX L ..............................................................................................................................................81

ANNEX M .............................................................................................................................................82

ANNEX N ..............................................................................................................................................83

ANNEX O ..............................................................................................................................................84

ANNEX P .............................................................................................................................................100

ANNEX Q ............................................................................................................................................102

ANNEX R ............................................................................................................................................103

ANNEX S .............................................................................................................................................106

ANNEX T ............................................................................................................................................109

ANNEX U ............................................................................................................................................110

1.1.

1.1.1.

VERVIEW OF THE LEGISLATION

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

The international framework

On an international level, unfair trading practices such as dumping and the granting of

subsidies were identified as a threat to open markets as early as 1947, when the first

GATT agreement was signed. The agreement contained specific provisions allowing

GATT members to take action against these practices if they caused material injury to

the domestic industry of a GATT member. Today's globalised trade environment is

characterized by quicker and cheaper communication and transportation, as well as the

coexistence of different models of economic governance. In such a world, trade defence

instruments are more relevant than ever. Indeed, trade distortions that underlie the

application of these instruments are widespread.

Since the beginning of the GATT in 1947, considerable efforts have been made to

harmonise the rules relating to trade defence instruments. During the last GATT round

(the « Uruguay Round »), which led to the creation of the WTO and the detailed Anti-

Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements, much of the attention was focused on the

procedural and material conditions to be fulfilled before measures can be adopted. The

EU played an active role in the negotiation of these agreements, which are reflected in

its own legislation. The EU applies its anti-dumping (AD) and anti-subsidy (AS)

legislation with rigour and consistency. Unfortunately, many WTO Members lack this

type of restraint, thereby affecting negatively also EU operators. The role that the EU

plays as a prudent user has therefore also an exemplary function at WTO level. Against

this backdrop, the EU also continues to play a leading active role in any efforts to

update the WTO rulebook.

1.1.2.

The EU legislation

The EU’s anti-dumping

and anti-subsidy legislation was first enacted in 1968 and has

since been modified several times. The current basic texts, which form the legal basis of

anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the EU, entered into force in March

1996 and October 1997 respectively. These are in line with the Anti-Dumping and Anti-

Subsidy Agreements adopted during the GATT/WTO negotiations. These texts were

codified in 2016 to reflect changes previously made. The basic texts are:

–

Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the

Council on protection against dumped imports from countries not

members of the European Union

–

Codified Version

Regulation (EU) 2016/1037 of the European Parliament and of the

Council on protection against subsidised imports from countries not

members of the European Union

–

Codified Version.

–

These regulations will overall be referred to as the "basic anti-dumping (AD)

Regulation" and the “basic anti-subsidy (AS) Regulation”. Both regulations were

OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p.21. Codified version as last amended by Regulation (EU) No 37/2014

(OJ L 18, 21.01.2014, p.1)

OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p.55. Codified Version as last amended by Regulation (EU) No 37/2014

(OJ L 18 21.01.2014, p.1)

recently modified by Regulation (EU) 2017/2321 of 12 December 2017

and Regulation

(EU) 2018/825 of 30 May 2018.

The EU's legislation contains a number of provisions aimed at ensuring a balanced

application of the EU’s anti-dumping

and anti-subsidy rules on all interested parties.

These

provisions include the “EU interest test” and the “lesser duty rule”, which go

beyond the Union's WTO obligations.

The EU interest test is a public interest clause and provides that measures cannot be

applied if it is established that they are contrary to the overall economic interest of the

EU. This requires an analysis of all the economic interests involved, including those of

the EU industry and its suppliers, downstream users, consumers and traders of the

product concerned.

The lesser duty rule requires the measures imposed by the EU to be lower than the

dumping or subsidy margin, if such lower duty rate is sufficient to remove the injury

suffered by the EU industry. Such a “no-injury” rate is usually determined by using the

cost of production of the EU industry and a reasonable profit margin (although, as a

result of the recent TDI modernisation, the latter rules have been further elaborated, as

explained below). In almost half of the cases, the anti-dumping measures for individual

exporting companies are set at the level of the injury margin instead of the higher

dumping margin. The EU is one of the few investigating authorities on a worldwide

level that applies the lesser duty rule in such a coherent and comprehensive way.

1.2.

1.2.1.

Safeguards

The international framework

The principle of liberalisation of imports was set under the GATT 1947 and

strengthened under the 1994 WTO Agreements. As safeguard measures consist of the

unilateral withdrawal or suspension of a tariff concession or of other trade liberalisation

obligations formerly agreed, they have to be considered as an exception to this

principle. Article XIX GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards do not only

impose strict conditions for the application of this "escape clause”, but also

put in place

a multilateral control mechanism under the WTO Committee on Safeguards.

Under WTO rules, safeguard action has to be viewed as a temporary defence measure

that applies to all imports of the product covered by a measure, irrespective of origin.

As regards non-WTO members, safeguard measures may be selective and apply to

products originating in a specific country. WTO Accession Protocols may also provide

for such selective safeguard mechanisms, as was the case in China's Protocol of

Accession, although the provision has now expired.

Definitive WTO safeguards should only be adopted after a comprehensive investigation

that provides evidence of the existence of a) unforeseen developments leading to b)

increased imports, c) the existence of a serious injury or a threat of injury for EU

producers and d) a causal link between the imports and the injury.

OJ L 338, 19.12.2017, p.1

OJ L 143, 07.06.2018, p.1

1.2.2.

The EU legislation

The above-mentioned principles are all reflected in the relevant EU regulations, except

for the “unforeseen development requirement” (which is not found explicitly in the EU

legislation nor in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards but has been confirmed as a self-

standing condition by WTO jurisprudence, as per Article XIX of GATT 1994).

Additionally, the adoption of measures in the EU requires an analysis of all interests

concerned, i.e. the impact of the measures on producers, users and consumers. In other

words, safeguard action can only be taken when it is in the EU’s interest to do so. The

current EU safeguard instruments are covered by the following regulations:

- Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (codification),

- Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of

29 April 2015 on common rules for imports from certain third countries

(recast),

- Regulation (EU) 2015/936 on common rules for imports of textile products

from certain third countries not covered by bilateral agreements, protocols or

other arrangements, or by other specific EU import rules (recast).

The first two regulations are referred to as the "basic safeguard Regulation(s)".

ENERAL OVERVIEW OF ANTI

DUMPING AND ANTI

SUBSIDY INVESTIGATIONS

AND MEASURES

The number of new investigations initiated in 2018 remained similar compared to the

previous year, with 10 initiations (compared to 11 in 2017). In addition, the

Commission reopened three cases to implement findings following court rulings (see

"Other reviews"). The number of measures imposed in 2018 somewhat decreased as

compared to 2017: four new definitive measures (as compared to 12) and two

provisional measures were imposed. At the same time, 8 investigations were terminated

without the imposition of measures, which brought the total number of investigations

concluded in 2018 to 12 (only slightly less than in 2017). Moreover, during 2018, as

many as 21 review investigations were initiated. Among the latter, there were 17

initiations of expiry reviews. Seven such expiry reviews have been concluded in 2018,

all with a confirmation of the duty. In other words, 2018 stood again as a busy year,

with significant new casework and reviewing activity. Below are details on new

investigations and review investigations.

2.1.

Measures in place

At the end of 2018, the EU had in force 93 definitive anti-dumping measures (which

were extended

in 27 cases) and 12 countervailing measures in force (which were

extended in one case).

The state of play does not take into account the process of adoption of the horizontal bilateral

safeguard regulation, which was ongoing at the moment of the preparation of this Report.

OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p.16

OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p.33

Measures have been extended to other third countries if circumvention in these countries had

been found.

The measures are counted per product and country concerned.

The anti-dumping measures covered 67 products and 16 countries (see Annex O); the

countervailing measures covered 12 products and four countries (see Annex P). The

large majority of measures was in the form of duties. In one case, undertakings were in

place.

Of all the 120 anti-dumping measures in force at the end of 2018, the countries affected

were China (85), Russia (9), USA (4), India and Korea (three each), Belarus, Indonesia,

Taiwan, Thailand and Ukraine (two each), Brazil, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, South Africa

and Turkey (one each).

Of the 12 anti-subsidy measures and one extension in place, half concerned imports

from China (6) whereas India was subject to four measures, USA to two measures and

Turkey to one measure.

2.2.

New investigations

In the five-year period from 2014 to 2018, 66 new investigations were initiated on

imports from 22 countries. The sectors concerned by the investigations were: 'iron and

steel'

–

32 investigations, 'chemical and allied industries'

–

19 investigations, 'other

metal products'

–

five investigations, the 'mechanical engineering' sector and the 'wood

and paper' sector

–

one investigation each, and finally 'other products'

–

investigations. A breakdown of the product sectors is available in Annex B(A).

The breakdown of the countries concerned by initiations during the period from 2014 to

2018 include China

–

24 investigations, Russia

–

seven, India and Turkey

–

five,

Brazil, Korea

–

three each, Taiwan, Ukraine and USA

–

two each, Argentina, Belarus,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Egypt, Georgia, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, North Macedonia,

Malaysia, Mexico, Serbia, Trinidad and Tobago

–

one each. A table showing all the

investigations initiated over the last five years broken down by country of export is

available at Annex B(B).

Table 1 below provides statistical information on the developments regarding new

investigations for the years 2014

–

2018.

TABLE 1

Evolution of new anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations

during the period 1 January 2014 - 31 December 2018

2014

Investigations in progress at the beginning of the

period

Investigations initiated during the period

Investigations in progress during the period

Investigations concluded :

2015

2016

2017

2018

imposition of definitive duty or acceptance

of undertakings

terminations

The simultaneous initiation of a case concerning several countries but the same product is

accounted as separate investigation/proceeding per country involved.

Total investigations concluded during the period

Investigations in progress at the end of period

Provisional measures imposed during the period

2.3.

Review investigations

Anti-dumping measures, including price undertakings, may be subject, under the basic

AD Regulation, to five different types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 11(2)),

interim reviews (Article 11(3)), newcomer investigations (Article 11(4)), absorption

investigations (Article 12) and anti-circumvention investigations (Article 13). The

Commission also carries out “other” reviews consisting in re-opening

of investigations

to implement court rulings.

Also anti-subsidy measures may be subject, under the basic AS Regulation, to five

different types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 18), interim reviews (Article 19),

absorption investigations (Article 19(3)), accelerated reviews (Article 20) and anti-

circumvention investigations (Article 23). In addition, here also, the Commission can

re-open investigations to implement court rulings.

Reviews continue to represent a major part of the work of the Commission's TDI

services. In the period from 2014 to 2018, 132 such review investigations were initiated.

Reviews represented two-thirds of all TDI investigations initiated.

In 2018, 24 reviews were initiated. These comprised 17 expiry reviews, three interim

reviews, one anti-absorption investigation and three re-openings.

An overview of the review investigations in 2018 can be found in Annexes F to K.

Table 2 below provides statistical information for the years 2014

–

2018.

TABLE 2

Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations

during the period 1 January 2014 - 31 December 2018

2014

Reviews in progress at the beginning of the period

Reviews initiated during the period

Reviews in progress during the period

Total reviews concluded during the period

Reviews in progress at the end of the period

2015

2016

2017

2018

Investigations might be terminated for reasons such as the withdrawal of the complaint,

minimis

dumping or injury, lack of causal link etc.

The simultaneous initiation of a case concerning several countries but the same product is

accounted as separate investigation/proceeding per country involved. The table has been updated

to take into proper account the reopening of investigations.

Investigations which were conducted and concluded under the specific provisions of the

regulation imposing the original measures are not counted as there was no publication of the

initiation.

3.1.

3.1.1.

VERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES IN

2018

New investigations

Initiations

In 2018, eight new anti-dumping and two new anti-subsidy investigations were initiated.

The anti-dumping investigations involved four different products from seven different

countries. No country stood out in terms of number of these initiations. Details of the

investigations are given in Annex A. The anti-subsidy investigations both concerned

biodiesel-producing countries. Notably also, in 2018, the EU initiated three safeguard

investigations.

The list of cases initiated in 2018 can be found below, together with the names of the

complainants. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications

to which reference is given in Annex A.

Product

(Type of investigation: AD or AS)

Biodiesel (AS)

Solar Glass (AD)

Hot-rolled sheet steel piles (AD)

Origin

Argentina

Malaysia

China

Russia

Complainant

European Biodiesel Board

EU ProSun Glass

EUROFER

Urea and ammonium nitrate (AD)

Trinidad and Tobago

USA

Russia

Fertilizers Europe

Hollow sections (AD)

North Macedonia

Turkey

Defence Committee of the

welded steel tubes Industry

of the European Union

European Biodiesel Board

Biodiesel (AS)

Indonesia

3.1.2.

Provisional measures

In 2018, provisional duties were imposed in two anti-dumping investigations. It has to

be noted that the latter run often in parallel to anti-dumping investigations, where the

provisional anti-dumping duty already provides some relief to the Union industry.

The list of cases where provisional measures were imposed during 2018 can be found

below, together with the measures imposed. More information can be obtained from the

Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex C.

Product

New and retreaded tyres for

buses or lorries

Electric bicycles

Origin

China

Type

and level of measure

AD: 52,85

–

82,17%

AD: 21,8

–

83,6%

3.1.3.

Definitive measures

During 2018, definitive duties were imposed in three anti-dumping investigations and in

one anti-subsidy investigation. The list of cases where definitive measures were

imposed during 2018 can be found below, together with the measure(s) imposed. More

information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in

Annex D.

Product

Cast iron articles

Corrosion resistant steels

New and retreaded tyres for

buses or lorries

Origin

China

Type

and level of measure

AD: 15,5

–

38,1%

AD: 17,2

–

27,9%

AD: 0,37

–

38,98 EUR

CVD: 3,75

–

57,28 EUR

3.1.4.

Details on individual cases with application of new provisional or definitive

duties

Electric bicycles from China

On 8 September 2017, the Commission received a complaint lodged by the European

Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) representing more than 25% of total Union

production of electric bicycles regarding imports of electric bikes from China. The

complaint contained evidence of dumping and of resulting material injury that was

sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.

On 20 October 2017, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation in the

matter and, on 21 December 2017, initiated a separate anti-subsidy investigation

(not

covered by this description).

The complainant also submitted a request for registration

AD; anti-dumping duty, CVD; countervailing duty; UT: undertaking.

See footnote 14.

Notice of initiation of an anti-subsidy proceeding concerning imports of electric bicycles

originating in the People's Republic of China (2017/C 440/11).

It is to be noted that the two recent amendments of the basic Regulations, i.e. modernisation and

the new calculation methodology, did not apply to these cases as the initiations took place before

the entry into force of the legislative amendments.

of imports. The Commission agreed to make the product subject to registration from 4

May 2018 onwards.

Product definition

During the anti-dumping investigation there were several claims regarding the scope of

the product given that it was not clear whether the product under investigation covered

all types of cycles or only bicycles. There were also claims on the different use and

consumer perception of electric bicycles compared to “speed” electric bicycles.

After examination of the different options and considering all comments, the

Commission stated that the product scope of the complaint covered “cycles” including

bicycles, tricycles and quadricycles and that the intended use and consumer perception

overlap to a significant extent, therefore not warranting a product exclusion.

Dumping

One exporting producer requested Market Economy Treatment. The Commission

decided to reject the request as it did not comply fully with the required criteria.

fact, the company failed to demonstrate that there was no significant State interference

in the company’s business decisions and that costs of major inputs substantially

reflected market values.

Normal value had to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a

market economy third country. The Commission tried to identify producers in several

third countries but, based on the information received, only Switzerland appeared as a

viable analogue country.

However, parties contested the choice. They argued that Switzerland’s overall

production scale is much smaller than China’s and that Swiss electric bicycles seemed

to be significantly different from Chinese ones. Swiss electric bicycles use a different

technology - they have a central motor whereas Chinese electric bicycles have

predominantly hub motors. Also, Swiss manufacturers produce under their own brands

and import their parts from the Union and Japan, whereas Chinese ones are mainly

original equipment manufacturers (‘OEM’) for the Union importers and source

domestically. Therefore, the Commission decided to construct the normal value on the

basis of the prices actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, due to the

inappropriateness of Switzerland. The normal value of each product type was based on

the actual sales price adjusted to include the target profit of the Union industry.

Normal value was then compared to the export price for differences affecting prices and

price comparability. The Commission adjusted the export prices using the data provided

by the sampled exporting producers in their questionnaire replies and during the

verification visits on bank charges, handling and loading charges in the exporting

country, credit costs, and profits for traders. This resulted in dumping margins ranging

from 34,6% to 106,4%.

For reference, Market Economy Treatment (MET) criteria are as follows:

—

business decisions are made in response to market conditions and without significant State

interference, and costs reflect market values,

—

firms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited, in line

with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes,

—

there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,

—

legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws, and

—

currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate.

Injury and causation

Confronted with an accelerating flow of dumped imports from China, the Union

Industry was not able to capitalize on the growth of the electric bicycle market. Prices

of dumped imports undercut the EU industry prices during the investigation period (1

October 2016 to 30 September 2017). The volume of imports from China more than

tripled and the pace of import growth accelerated between 2016 and the investigation

period. Moreover, the share of the Union market held by imports had increased from

17% in 2014 to 35% in the investigation period. In fact, between 2014 and the

investigation period, Chinese imports grew by 250%, while the consumption in the

Union increased at a much slower pace of 74%. All this had negative consequences on

the situation of the Union industry. Thus, the Commission concluded that the Union

industry had suffered material injury.

Further, the Commission also analysed the effects of other factors such as the imports

from countries other than China, investment and expansion of capacity, as well as the

export performance of the Union industry. It concluded that the causal link between the

Chinese dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry could not be

broken.

Union interest and provisional measures

The Commission concluded that the imposition of an anti-dumping duty would not be

against the interest of the Union industry and considered provisionally that the

imposition of measures would allow all producers to operate under conditions of fair

trade on the Union market. In the absence of measures, a further deterioration of the

Union industry's economic and financial situation was very likely to take place.

The Collective of European Importers of Electric Bicycles disagreed with the

imposition of anti-dumping measures. They argued that the imposition of duties was

likely to disrupt, at least temporarily, their supply chains and threaten their financial

position if they were not able to pass on the increased costs related to the duty to their

customers. However, import statistics showed that Vietnam and Taiwan provided

significant volumes of electric bicycles to European importers. It was also likely that

other countries, which are well positioned in the manufacturing of conventional

bicycles, could supply importers.

The Commission also considered that the imposition of duties on imports of

conventional bicycles from China did not have the effect of closing the Union market to

imports and, on the contrary, expanded the number of countries supplying conventional

bicycles.

Therefore, the Commission found no compelling reason that it was not in the Union

interest to impose provisional measures. To determine the level of the measures, the

Commission first established the amount of duty necessary to eliminate the injury

suffered by the Union industry. The Commission established that the injury would be

eliminated if the Union industry were able to cover the costs of production and to obtain

a profit before tax on sales that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions

of competition if there were no dumped imports. The target profit was provisionally set

at 4,3%, which is the highest average profit margin of the Union industry during the

period considered. The injury margins established ranged between 21,8% and 83,6%.

On this basis, the Commission decided to impose a provisional anti-dumping duty in

accordance with the lesser duty rule, ranging between 21,8% and 83,6%.

On 17 January 2019, the Commission adopted a Regulation imposing definitive

measures on electric bicycles. The injury margins were modified on the basis of data

provided by the interested parties. The adjustment took into account certain costs for

R&D and design incurred by the sampled Union producers. Subsequently, the injury

margins were established between 18,8% and 79,3%.

On 17 January 2019, the Commission also imposed countervailing duties on the same

product in the range of 3,9% - 17,2%, as a result of a parallel anti-subsidy investigation.

The definitive injury elimination level was reduced by the amount of the countervailing

duties, in order to avoid double-counting. On this basis, the final anti-dumping duties

were ultimately imposed in the range of 10,3% - 70,1%.

Corrosion resistant steels from China

On 7 February 2018, the Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on

imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in China.

This followed an

investigation that had been opened in December 2016, further to a complaint from the

European Steel Association (EUROFER) on behalf of producers representing more than

53% of total production. Provisional measures were imposed in August 2017.

Dumping

The Commission sampled exporting producers based on the largest volume of exports to

the EU. The Commission did not receive any comments on the selected sample even

though all parties and the authorities of the country concerned had been consulted.

Three groups of exporting producers asked for individual treatment. The companies

concerned argued that they were the only Chinese exporting producers supplying the

Union. However, the Commission decided that no individual treatment could be granted

as the number of entities to be additionally investigated and the number of different

locations to be visited for the verification would have prevented the investigation from

being completed on time.

In addition, two groups of non-sampled cooperating producers submitted Market

Economy Treatment (MET) claims

with their request for individual treatment. Given

that the claims for individual treatment were rejected, the MET requests were not

assessed.

Normal value

The normal value was determined on the basis of data obtained from a producer in a

market-economy

third country. Interested parties contested the Commission’s first

choice of Canada because of the alleged price difference of the like product and the

relationship between a possible cooperating producer and one of the complainants. The

Commission then selected Brazil as the analogue country.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/186 of 7 February 2018, OJ L 34, 8.2.2018,

p.16

It is to be noted that the two recent amendments of the basic Regulations, i.e. modernisation and

the new calculation methodology, did not apply to these cases as the initiations took place before

the entry into force of the legislative amendments.

See Article 17(3) of the basic AD Regulation

For reference, see footnote 18.

The choice was again contested by an exporting producer and the China Iron and Steel

Association (CISA), which argued that the normal value in the analogue country was

21% higher than the target price for the Union industry and that the average sale price of

the analogue country producer was higher than the (already high) prices in Brazil. It

also raised doubts about the calculation used by the Commission.

The Commission responded that in case exported products could not be directly

matched with Brazilian normal values, the normal value was adjusted to take account of

all physical differences. As for the quality of data and calculations, the data of the

analogue country producer were verified for accuracy and found reliable and all the

calculations were factually correct.

Injury and causation

The Union industry was in a vulnerable situation during the period considered. Even

though the Union consumption grew by around 27% during the period, the sales volume

of the Union industry on the Union market increased by only 5% and the Union industry

lost 17% of market share. By contrast, the market share of the imports from China

increased during the period by 93%.

Imports from China increased by 146% over the period of analysis. Their prices per ton

fell by 22%, exceeding the decrease in raw material prices of 20%. In addition, these

imports significantly undercut EU industry prices, by 17% to 28%.

Moreover, the industry suffered losses throughout the period considered (despite a

minor improvement over that period).

Consequently, the Commission concluded that the material injury to the Union industry

was caused by the dumped imports and that the other factors, such as imports from third

countries or export sales performance of EU producers, did not break the causal link

between the Union material injury and the dumped imports, even if its effects were to be

considered in a combined manner.

Registration

Imports of the products concerned were subject to registration from July to August

2017, when the provisional measures were imposed, with a view to possible collection

of duties. However, the Commission found that a retroactive duty recollection was not

necessary.

Union interest and definitive measures

It was concluded that the imposition of measures would contribute to the recovery of the

Union industry by allowing price increases that would enable the industry to return to a

profitable situation. Also, the investigation did not show that the potential impact on

other actors would outweigh the benefits to the EU industry. Thus, it was considered

that the measures would lead to a level playing field, still allowing for imports from the

country concerned, at fair prices. Given the findings, the Commission imposed a

definitive anti-dumping duty ranging between 17,2% and 27,9%, depending on the

exporting company.

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries from China

In August 2017, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation on imports of

certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, used for buses or lorries imported

from China. This followed a complaint lodged by a coalition against unfair tyre imports,

on behalf of producers representing more than 45% of the total EU production. On 7

May 2018, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of the

products concerned.

In October 2017, the Commission also initiated a separate anti-

subsidy investigation on the product.

Product definition

The tyre market is segmented in three tiers. Tier 1 tyres cover premium new tyres with

the flagship brand of main manufacturers. Brand recognition is a key factor for tyres in

this tier and justifies significantly higher prices for expected high performance as well

as particularly strong marketing investments. The quality of tier 1 tyres ensures a high

level of retreadability of the tyres, which are designed to be ‘multi-life’ tyres further

increasing the significantly higher mileage of the original product.

Tier 2 tyres cover most non-premium tyres, both new and retreaded tyres, with prices

ranging between approximately 65% and 80% of the price of tier 1 tyres. Retreaded

tyres can be classified under tier 2 or tier 3. While some Chinese tyres are retreadable,

there is very little retreading performed in China. Retreading is, however, quite

widespread in the Union and in other markets.

Following further product analysis and after consulting all interested parties, the

Commission determined that main EU producers focused on the so-called 'tier 1' and

'tier 2' tyres. These products are, however, often hard to distinguish from 'tier 3' tyres -

new and retreaded tyres with lower mileage performances and very limited

retreadability, which are also cheaper than 'tier 1' and 'tier 2' tyres.

Dumping

Market Economy Treatment (MET) claims were introduced by two exporting producers

out of the four that were sampled. However, the Commission found that none of the

exporters fulfilled the MET criteria,

and so the status could not be granted. More

specifically, both failed to demonstrate that they had one set of clear independently

audited accounts and that their operations were not subject to significant market

distortions. Additionally, one of them failed to demonstrate that its business decisions

were made without significant State interference and that costs of major inputs

substantially reflect market values.

The normal value of the exports was based on data obtained from a producer in a

market-economy third country. The Commission concluded that the most appropriate

analogue country in this case was Brazil, given that its volumes were substantially

representative, it had similar conditions of access to raw materials and both China and

Brazil were comparable in terms of economic development. Normal value was then

compared to the export price. All sampled exporting producers claimed that the method

for constructing the normal value, which the Commission applied at the provisional

stage resulted in extraordinarily high dumping margins and produced results that did not

appear to correspond to reality: the normal value was not inferior for tiers 2 and 3,

although in reality the former tyres are always cheaper. The exporting producers urged

the Commission to adjust the normal value, which the Commission accepted. The

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/683 of 4 May 2018, OJ L 116, 7.5.2018, p.8

It is to be noted that the two recent amendments to the basic Regulations, namely the

modernisation of trade defence instruments and the new calculation methodology, did not apply

to these cases as the initiations took place before the entry into force of the legislative

amendments.

For reference, see footnote 18.

Commission finally constructed the normal value for the non-matching product types

taking into account the differences identified in the costs of manufacturing between the

three tiers.

Injury and causation

The exporting producers sampled were mapped out according to tiers, which resulted in

several asking the Commission to move them from the ‘tier 3’ allocation to ‘tier 2’.

After analysis, the Commission agreed to two of those requests.

Prices of dumped imports from China significantly undercut EU industry prices during

the investigation period and injury indicators showed that the industry had been under

increasing pressure. In fact, it experienced a reduction of production capacity,

investment and employment, as well as a significant loss of market share (the import

volumes from China increased significantly resulting in an increase of the market share

of Chinese imports, in a growing market, from 17,1% to 21,3%). This was of particular

concern for 'tier 3' tyres, where Chinese imports were mainly focused, forcing many EU

producers in that tier, especially SMEs, to exit the market.

Thus, the Commission concluded that the material injury to the Union industry was

caused by the dumped imports and that the other factors, such as imports from third

countries or the interconnection between the new and retreaded tyres, did not break the

causal link between the Union material injury and the dumped imports.

Union interest

It was determined that the imposition of the anti-dumping measures on the EU

producers would be positive for the Union industry, especially for SMEs. They would

be able to benefit from the growing consumption in a market governed by fair

conditions. EU producers would be able to increase their sales and regain a part of the

market share lost. This would in turn increase the EU production and the capacity

utilisation rate.

In fair market conditions, the EU industry would be able to improve their financial

situation. Furthermore, the available capacity in the EU industry and imports from other

countries would provide alternative offers of supply.

Given the interconnection between the retreading business and the production of

retreadable tyres, the proposed measures would also improve the viability of the

retreading segment. This would bring relief in terms of employment, in particular since

the retreading segment of the tyre, located throughout the EU, is labour-intensive.

The situation of importers was also analysed. The Chinese imports of the product

concerned represented a significant share of their turnover in the investigation period.

Their business model is mainly based on contracts with Chinese exporting producers,

although they also have alternative sources (either domestically or from other third

countries). Therefore, the imposition of measures would have an impact on their

activity. In addition, another business model was found to rely on a ‘container-only

trading strategy’. In this case, importers have more flexibility to change

sources of

supply. This method was used by some non-sampled companies, which only

represented 2% of the total Chinese imports. However, their low level of cooperation

suggested that the imposition of measures would not have any significant impact on

their activity.

Moreover, it is a long-standing Union policy to reduce waste and to manage raw

materials in a sustainable way. Retreading is crucial for a sustainable circular economy.

In fact, several interested parties underlined that premium tyre manufacturers produce

new high quality tyres designed to have a long life cycle as they can be retreaded.

Without the retreading business, competition in the tyre industry will end up in a race to

the bottom, resulting in industrial depletion, loss of value through the supply chain

while minimising the quality of the offer in the Union. Accordingly, measures that also

protect high quality tyre producers in the Union, as opposed to single-use tyres, would

also foster policy coherence with the Union objectives on waste reduction and circular

economy, as they would support the continued existence of a viable retreading business

in the Union. Moreover, given that mostly SMEs are active in this sector, measures

would also be in line with the Commission's objective to support SMEs.

On this basis, the Commission concluded that measures would not be against EU

interest.

Registration

Imports of these products were subject to registration from February until May 2018,

when the provisional measures were imposed, with a view to possible collection of

duties from the imports taking place during those months. However, no significant rise

in imports was observed during that time if compared to the flow observed during the

investigated period. Therefore, the Commission concluded that duties would not be

collected retroactively.

Definitive measures

Given the findings, the Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping duties ranging

between 42,73 and 61,76 EUR per item.

Subsequently, definitive countervailing duties

were imposed on 9 November 2018.

In order to avoid any double counting with the

imposition of both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures, the anti-dumping measures

were adjusted by the regulation imposing the anti-subsidy measures,

with final anti-

dumping duties ranging ultimately from 0,37 to 38,98 EUR per item, depending on the

exporting company.

3.1.5.

Investigations terminated without measures

In accordance with the provisions of the respective basic Regulations, investigations

may be terminated without the imposition of measures if a complaint is withdrawn or if

measures are unnecessary (i.e. no dumping/no subsidies, no injury resulting from

dumped or subsidised imports, measures not in the interest of the Union). In 2018, eight

new proceedings (all were anti-dumping investigations) were terminated without

measures, as compared to two in 2017.

The list of cases which were terminated without the imposition of measures during 2018

can be found in the following table. More information can be obtained from the Official

Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex E.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1579 of 18 October 2018, OJ L 263,

22.10.2018, p.3

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1690 of 9 November 2018, OJ

L 283,

12.11.2018, p.1

Ibid.

Product

(Type of investigation: AD or AS)

Cast iron articles (AD)

Origin

Main reason for termination

India

Egypt

Ukraine

China

No dumping was established

Ferro-silicon (AD)

Withdrawal of the complaint

Low carbon ferrochrome

Russia

Turkey

Bosnia and

Herzegovina

Brazil

Withdrawal of the complaint

Silicon metal

Withdrawal of the complaint

3.1.6.

Details on some individual cases of termination without measures

Low-carbon ferrochrome from China, Russia and Turkey

On 23 June 2017, the European Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation

with regard to imports of low-carbon ferrochrome originating in China, Russia and

Turkey, following a complaint lodged by the Association of European Ferro-alloy

Producers

(“Euroalliages’’) on behalf of the sole Union producer of low-carbon

ferrochrome in the Union, Elektrowerk Weisweiler GmbH.

Dumping

The Commission verified all the information obtained by means of questionnaires and

carried out verification visits to the premises of the Union producer, the users and the

importer form a third country (Turkey).

Injury and Union interest

The Commission assessed the information provided for a determination of dumping,

resulting injury and Union interest.

After all the findings were duly processed and analysed, the Commission decided not to

impose provisional measures due to lack of clarity regarding the scope of the product

but also to continue the investigation.

Termination

On 22 May 2018, the complainant notified the Commission that it would like to

withdraw its request.

Since the complainant was the only Union producer, no

opposition was raised. The Commission also found that termination would not be

In accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, proceedings may be terminated where

the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest.

against the Union interest. Therefore, the Commission decided to terminate proceedings

without the imposition of measures.

3.2.

3.2.1.

Review investigations

Expiry reviews

Article 11(2) and Article 18 respectively of the basic Regulations provide for the expiry

of measures after five years, unless an expiry review demonstrates that they should be

maintained in their original form.

In 2018, two anti-dumping measures and two anti-subsidy measures expired

automatically. Two of these measures concern solar panels (see section 3.2.3).

The references for these measures are available in Annex N.

Since the expiry provision of the basic Regulations came into force in 1985, a total of

512 measures have expired automatically.

3.2.1.1. Initiations

During 2018, 15 expiry reviews of anti-dumping measures and two concerning anti-

subsidy measures were initiated. The list of the expiry reviews initiated in 2018 can be

found in the following table, together with the name of the complainant. It should be

noted that some expiry reviews may be carried out in parallel with interim reviews.

Where there are interim reviews and expiry reviews ongoing at the same time, these are

indicated by an asterisk in the table below. More information can be obtained from the

Official Journal to which reference is available in Annex F.

Product

(Type of investigation: AD or AS)

Origin

Turkey

Russia

Tube and pipe fittings (AD)

Rep. of

Korea

Malaysia

Bioethanol (AD)

USA

European Renewable Ethanol Association

(e-PURE)

ALEURO Converting Sp. z o.o.

CeDo Sp. z o.o.

Cuki Cofresco SpA

Aluminium Foil in small rolls (AD)

China

Fora Folienfabrik GmbH

ITS BV

Rul-Let A/S

SPHERE SA

Wrapex Ltd

Defence Committee of the Steel Butt-

Welding Fittings Industry

Complainant

Organic coated steel products (AD)

Organic coated steel products (AS)

China

EUROFER

ATUSA - Berg Montana Fittings A.D

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of

malleable cast iron (AD)

China

Thailand

Georg Fischer Fittings GmbH

Odlewnia Zeliwa S.A.

Livarna Titan d.o.o

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware

(AD)

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS)

Tungsten electrodes (AD)

Bicycles (AD)

China

FEPF

–

European Federation for Table-

and Ornamentalware

Committee of PET Manufacturers in

Europe (C.P.M.E. aisbl)

Two Union producers

European Bicycle Manufacturers

Association (‘EBMA’)

Colombo New Scal SpA

India

China

Ironing boards (AD)

China

Rörets Polska Sp. z o.o.

Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd

Sweetcorn in kernels (AD)

Thailand

Association Européenne des

Transformateurs de Maïs Doux (AETMD)

RheinPerChemie GmbH

United Initiators GmbH

Peroxosulphates (AD)

China

3.2.1.2. Expiry reviews concluded with confirmation of duties

During 2018, 7 expiry reviews were concluded with confirmation of the duties for a

further period of five years.

The list of the measures, which were renewed during 2018, together with the results of

the investigations, can be found below. More information can be obtained from the

Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex F.

Product

Steel ropes and cables

Origin

China

Type

and level of measure

Confirmation of duty (AD)

Duty rate: 60,4%

Confirmation of duty (AD)

Duty rates: 8,3%

–

34,9%

Tartaric acid

China

AD: anti-dumping duty; CVD: countervailing duty; UT: undertaking.

Confirmation of duty (AD)

Oxalic acid

China

India

Duty rates:

14,6%

–

52,2% (China)

22.8%

–

43.6% (India)

Confirmation of duty (AD)

Seamless pipes and tubes of

iron or steel

Russia

Ukraine

Duty rates:

24,1%

–

35,8% (Russia)

12,3%

–

25,7% (Ukraine)

Level arch mechanisms

China

Confirmation of duty (AD)

Duty rates: 27,1%

–

47,4%

3.2.1.3. Details on some individual cases concluded by confirmation of duty

Steel ropes and cables from China

On 6 November 2016, the Commission received a request for review on the grounds

that the expiry measures for steel ropes and cables from China would result in a likely

continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury. This request was lodged by the

Liaison Committee of EU Wire Rope Industries on behalf of producers representing

more than 25% of the total EU production of steel ropes and cables.

The measures at issue in the review request had been extended to imports of steel ropes

and cables consigned from Morocco and the Republic of Korea, whether declared as

originating in those countries or not following an anti-circumvention investigation.

The Commission decided to initiate an expiry review after establishing that there was

enough evidence in the request.

Analogue country selection

In the context of selecting an analogue country, two producers from market economy

third countries replied to the questionnaires, one located in Turkey and one in the US.

Even though Turkey had been preliminarily envisaged as an analogue country, the

Commission finally decided to select the US as the quality of the information provided

by the American producer was more comprehensive to establish a reliable normal value.

Sampling

The Commission received only one reply from an exporting producer out of 21

contacted in China. Dumping was established based on information provided by the sole

cooperating exporting producer. This producer accounted for 100% of the total exports

to the EU but only 1,3% of the total estimated production of China during the

investigating period.

The Commission also sampled six Union producers, which represented 50,5% of the

total Union industry’s

production during the review investigation period. The

Commission analysed the information provided and conducted verification visits to

companies premises so as to determine the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of

dumping and injury, as well as the Union interest.

Likely continuation of injury and recurrence of dumping

Following the application of the initial anti-dumping duties, the EU industry continued

to recover from the effects of dumping. If the measures were allowed to lapse and the

Chinese exporting producers maintained their export prices at a similar level, the

Commission established that the undercutting margin would amount to 36,3%. Despite

the effectiveness of the measures, the Chinese products remained present on the Union

market keeping a market share of 1,2% during the review investigation period.

The investigation also found that Chinese exporting producers achieved higher prices in

the Union market than in other third countries. Therefore, it was concluded that the

exporting producers in China have the potential and incentive to raise the volume of

exports to the EU at dumped prices, which would undercut the prices offered by the

Union industry in case the measures lapsed.

In addition, if the Union industry were to lower prices to compete with imports from

China, the industry’s profits would decline and many

companies would have gone out

of business, with a significant consequent impact on employment. Indeed, further

deterioration of the Union industry's situation might even cause the shutdown of whole

producing units. Thus, it was concluded that the already negative situation of the Union

industry would be likely to further deteriorate.

Despite its recovery, the Union industry had to face lower demand for bulk commodities

and reductions in the oil price, which led to reduced activity in the sectors of mining, oil

and gas. Thus, the demand for the products concerned reduced, which resulted in a

decrease in production and sales volume. Therefore, almost all the injury indicators

deteriorated. On that basis, it was concluded that the Union industry has suffered

material injury although it had benefitted from the original measures, as it continued to

recover from the effect of past injurious dumping for the first two years of the period

considered (2013-2014). However, the recovery process stalled due to the reasons

mentioned above.

Union interest and definitive measures

The Commission analysed all the interests at stake, including those of the Union

industry, importers and users. The investigation found that should the measures expire,

this would likely have a significant negative effect on the Union industry and that its

currently fragile financial situation would deteriorate further. As for the interest of

importers, no comments were received but a prior investigation had shown that the

impact of continuing the measures would not be significant. Users did not manifest

much interest and those that made themselves known stated that their use of the

concerned product was marginal.

The Commission therefore concluded that it was in the Union interest to maintain the

measures, which were extended for five years. The definitive anti-dumping duty

imposed in the case of China was also extended to imports of the same products

consigned from Morocco and the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in

those countries or not.

3.2.1.4. Reviews concluded by termination

In 2018, no expiry review was concluded by the termination of measures in force.

3.2.2.

Interim reviews

Article 11(3) and Article 19 of the basic Regulations provide for the review of measures

during their period of validity on the initiative of the Commission, at the request of a

Member State or, provided that at least one year has lapsed since the imposition of the

definitive measure, following a request containing sufficient evidence by an exporter, an

importer or by the EU producers. In carrying out the investigations, it will be examined,

inter alia,

whether the circumstances with regard to dumping/subsidization and injury

have changed significantly and whether these changes are of a lasting nature. Reviews

can be limited to dumping/subsidization or injury aspects.

During 2018, three interim reviews were initiated (two anti-dumping and one anti-

subsidy). Six interim reviews were concluded during the same period - four confirming

the duties unchanged and two amending the duties. The details of the cases can be found

below. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to

which reference is given in Annex G.

Product

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings,

of malleable cast iron

Origin

China

Thailand

Result of investigation

Withdrawal of the request

The changes presented by the

applicant could not be

considered of lasting nature

The changes presented by the

applicant could not be

considered of lasting nature

Amendment of duty

Rainbow trout

Turkey

Ammonium nitrate (dumping)

Russia

Ammonium nitrate (injury)

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

Russia

India

3.2.2.1. Details on individual cases

Ammonium nitrate from Russia

The Commission received a request for a partial interim review from eight European

farmers associations limited in scope to the examination of injury on anti-dumping

measures on ammonium nitrate originating in Russia. The applicants argued that they

were suffering from the anti-dumping measures that have been in place on the product

concerned for more than 20 years. On 17 August 2018, the Commission announced the

initiation of a partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of injury. That

same day, the Commission also announced the initiation of another partial interim

review of the measures applicable to the product concerned originating in Russia but

limited to the examination of dumping of Acron (the applicant of this second review).

Product scope

Originally, the product concerned was defined as ammonium nitrate but was

subsequently re-defined to solid fertilizers with specified ammonium nitrate content.

This clarification aimed to cover also ammonium nitrate to which phosphorus and/or

potassium nutrients (so-called

‘dirty’ or ‘stabilized’ ammonium nitrate) were added.

The main raw material used in its production is natural gas, representing over 60% of

the total cost of production.

Partial interim review limited to dumping

In that review, the Commission found that domestic gas prices in Russia are regulated

by the State via federal laws and do not reflect normal market conditions, where prices

are principally set by production costs and profit expectations. Therefore, the

Commission considered that the circumstances regarding the gas market in Russia had

not changed and, as a result, a modification of the measures was not warranted.

During the review request, Acron also argued, among others, that the last time the

dumping margins were set was in 2008

(before Russia’s accession to the World Trade

Organisation (WTO)). When Russia joined the WTO in 2012, it committed to ensure

that producers/distributors of natural gas would operate within the relevant regulatory

framework on the basis of normal commercial considerations, the result of which was a

regular gas price increase. In that respect, Acron argued that no WTO dispute settlement

cases have been launched putting into question the fulfillment of those commitments.

In response, the Commission stated that it was not taking any position with regard to

Russia’s WTO commitments since this was not within the scope of the investigation.

The objective was rather to determine whether there was a lasting change of

circumstances that would warrant the recalculation of the anti-dumping duty. In this

regard, the Commission found that Russian gas prices were still distorted, and that the

absence of cases against Russia concerning a breach of its WTO commitments or the

fact that Russian gas prices have been gradually increasing on the domestic market

cannot automatically lead to conclude there were no price distortions. Therefore, the

arguments presented by Acron were not considered as changes of a lasting nature.

The applicant submitted a duly signed voluntary undertaking offer. The Commission

analysed the undertaking offer and considered that its acceptance would be impractical.

The company had two related companies in two Member States and one of them sold

the like product to the Union market. The applicant also sold directly the Russian

product to Union customers. If both would sell the product concerned to the same

customers, the prices could be set in a way to compensate for the minimum import price

subject to the undertaking, which would be very difficult to monitor. Consequently, on

12 November 2018, the Commission terminated the partial interim review without

changing the dumping margin for Acron or accepting an undertaking from that

company.

Partial interim review limited to injury

In that review, the Commission proceeded again first to assess whether any changes

occurred in the circumstances which lead to the application of the current measures, and

if so, whether these changes were to last. The Commission notably analysed the

evolution of world markets and global changes for the concerned product.

The Commission noted that Russian consumption of ammonium nitrate had more than

tripled and the demand of third countries had also increased. Meanwhile, the Union’s

agricultural consumption had decreased slightly and was expected to remain stable in

the future. Thus, the EU market has become less attractive for Russian producers.

Further, the situation in the US gas market had also changed. US shale gas production

has increased steeply since 2000 and it was even expected to increase further in the

future. The shale gas boom has led and still leads to the development of capacities of

US producers' nitrogen fertilizers.

Changes had also been taking place in the Union industry in the recent years. The level

of concentration had increased through mergers and acquisitions and the applicant

argued that the Union industry was capable of competing with Russian imports due to

greater efficiencies gained from investments and restructuring. The situation was

different from that of previous reviews where many small and medium size companies

operated independently. However, despite the restructuring, there was still a healthy

competition on the Union market with 10 companies competing with each other, and

none of them had a market share of more than 20%.

The Commission concluded that these global changes and the Union industry’s

restructuring are of a lasting nature and can impact the injury situation, including the

likelihood of recurrence of injury.

Further, the Commission also assessed data on the economic situation of the Union

industry. It concluded that the economic situation overall was non-injurious, although a

number of injury indicators showed that the financial performance and economic state

of the industry followed a negative trend, related notably to the decrease in prices.

The Commission also used verified data from the cooperating companies and other

Russian exporters in order to assess capacity and spare capacity in Russia. It concluded

that significant volumes could still be exported and have a particularly strong effect on

some neighbouring regions. Besides, Fertilizers Europe argued that Russian capacity

might be extended in view of the Russian plan on fertilizers of March 2018.

In terms of market for the products concerned, the domestic market was the main

market for Russian producers. However, the Union market was found to also remain

attractive for the latter. Prices in certain third countries were less appealing than Union

prices, even though for some countries the opposite situation also applied. The

Commission thus concluded that some Russian volumes might be redirected from less

attractive third markets to the Union market if measures lapsed, given its size,

geographic proximity and prices, with subsequent injurious effects for the EU industry.

The Commission also made a prospective analysis of the evolution of Russian export

prices. It found that the product concerned would likely be sold on the Union market at

a price below the weighted average sales price of the Union producers charged to

unrelated customers on the Union market.

Based on the totality of evidence on the file, the Commission concluded that there was a

likelihood that Russian producers could use their available spare capacity to export to

the Union should the measures be terminated. It was also likely that some volumes that

were at the time exported to third countries would be re-directed to the EU, given the

relative attractiveness of the Union market and its proximity to Russia. As the Union

industry was in a less prosperous state compared to the last expiry review, such

increased volumes could cause injury to recur. The likely future evolution of Russian

export prices was also a clear indication that injury could recur quickly. Therefore, the

Commission concluded that there was a likelihood of recurrence of injury should the

measures be removed.

In response to the disclosure of the findings, COPA-COGECA, representing Union

farmers and cooperatives, sent submissions and called for the anti-dumping measures to

be terminated. COPA-COGECA claimed that the anti-dumping measures damaged the

competitiveness of Union agricultural exports and family farm incomes. COPA-

COGECA argued that by organizing themselves in cooperatives they would benefit

from increased competition from Russian exporting producers, lowering farmers’

production costs. However, the Commission noted, as in previous expiry reviews, that

farmers might not benefit from a potential price decrease following a potential

termination of the measures since farmers usually buy from distributors who may not

pass on any of the benefits. The Commission also noted that the cost of ammonium

nitrate for farmers in the entire Union was not disproportionally high. Therefore, the

Commission concluded that the termination of the measures was not justified on this

basis.

Amendment of the measures

After an assessment of the evidence and the submissions provided by the parties, the

Commission used an 8% profit margin for the injury calculation, which was in line with

previous investigations concerning ammonium nitrate. The Union industry submitted a

study that substantiated a 36% return on sales (ROS) target profit. Two Union producers

reiterated the same claim and submitted that the Union industry had in the past achieved

a two-digit profitability, which would justify a higher target. However, the Commission

noted that profitability had fluctuated when measures were in place, both above and

below the target profit. Thus, it concluded that the 8% target profit was still valid, and

has set the new duty levels accordingly, differentiating the latter by product types. The

amended anti-dumping measures were fixed between 28.78 and 32.71 EUR per ton.

These findings were published on 14 November 2018,

Rainbow trout from Turkey

On 26 February 2015, following an anti-subsidy investigation that related to the year

2013, the European Commission imposed definitive countervailing duties on imports of

certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey.

In July 2017, the Commission initiated a

partial interim review of these measures,

following a request from the Aegean

Exporters Association (‘the applicant’). The request was supported by evidence that a

change in the implementation of the direct production subsidies introduced in 2016

resulted in a substantial decrease of the level of subsidies to trout producers in Turkey.

The applicant also argued that the change in the subsidy schemes was of a lasting

nature. Therefore, the applicant claimed that the countervailing measures were no

longer necessary and that they should be reviewed.

Procedure

In view of the large number of exporting producers, the Commission selected a final

sample of six exporting producers/groups of exporting producers in Turkey that

accounted for approximately 71% of the volume of imports of the product under review.

The Commission considered that it was representative and would enable it to properly

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 of 26 February 2015, OJ L 56, 27.2.2015,

p.12

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to

imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey (OJ C 234, 20.7.2017, p.6).

analyse the effects of the changes on all companies in that sector. After completion of

verification visits, on 21 February 2018 the Commission disclosed the essential facts

and considerations of the investigation to all interested parties.

Subsidies countervailed in the original investigation

In the original investigation, the Commission examined a number of measures from

which the Turkish exporting producers of trout benefited or might have benefitted

during the original investigation period (the year 2013). The main subsidies from which

the Turkish producers of trout benefited during the original investigation period were

direct subsidies granted to all trout producers on a ‘per kg’ basis.

Under Decree No 2013/4463 on agricultural subsidies

(‘the decree’), which provided

for the subsidies in the original investigation period, subsidies were granted to all

producers of trout possessing a valid production licence relating to a fish farming unit

(sea, dam or inland site). A trout producer could have several production licences (fish

farming units) in the same site. According to the Commission’s

findings, the total

amount of subsidies for the original investigation period amounted to 62,992,720 TL.

Results of the review investigation

The Commission found that the decree was changed in 2016. As a consequence, the

volume of trout production eligible for direct subsidies decreased and thus resulted in a

significant decrease of subsidies received by trout producers.

However, the investigation showed that the actual impact of the legislative change of

2016 in terms of volume and value of the eligible production in comparison with the

previous system was difficult to determine, and depended on the production volumes

produced under each of the licences.

Moreover, the Commission observed that, in 2017, the actual amount of direct subsidies

to trout producers increased and that the decrees of 2016 and 2017 also introduced a

number of new subsidies from which trout producers could benefit.

Therefore, while the limitations introduced in 2016 might have led to a decrease in

subsidisation via the direct subsidies, Turkey had simultaneously introduced new

subsidies and/or amended existing subsidy measures.

Second, the Commission analysed the overall evolution of the amounts of subsidies

granted by Turkey since the original investigation. It reached the conclusion that

between 2013 and 2016, the subsidies to trout producers decreased by 37%. After 2016,

however, the level of subsidies to trout producers increased again, reaching a total

amount comprised between 43 and 48,5 million TL in 2017. The Commission thus

concluded that the decrease of existing subsidies after the legislative change in 2016

was temporary and that the amount of subsidies after 2016 was approaching the amount

before the legislative change.

The Commission observed that the system of implementation of direct subsidies was

characterised by constant changes in the legal basis, the eligibility criteria and the actual

amounts of subsidisation. As a matter of fact, not only the Commission found the

decrease in subsidisation of trout producers in 2016 to be temporary, but also

maintained that, since the conditions and amounts of subsidies were reviewed by

Turkey on an annual basis, the introduced changes could not be considered as long

Subsidies to trout production are regulated by a decree adopted by the Turkish Government on

an annual basis.

lasting. Further, the Commission estimated that the total subsidies to trout producers

might reach up to 56 million TL in 2018, i.e. around 6 million TL above the amount of

2015

–

the year before the legislative change.

Termination of the partial interim review

Having concluded that the decrease observed in 2016 could not be considered as having

a lasting nature, the Commission terminated the partial interim review investigation and

maintained the measures in force unchanged.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from India

In May 2013, the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain

polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India,

which was amended by the

Commission in 2015 by Regulation 2015/1350,

following two partial interim reviews

pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation.

September 2016, an Indian exporting producer, Dhunseri Petrochem Limited (‘DPL’)

requested the Commission to amend the Regulation imposing the measures in force

because of a reorganisation. The Commission considered that there was sufficient

evidence that the circumstances with regard to subsidisation of DPL and its related

companies had changed significantly and were of a lasting nature. Consequently, a

partial interim review investigation pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation was

initiated,

in order to establish the rate of subsidisation for the company's new structure.

Another Indian exporting producer, Reliance Industries Limited (‘Reliance’) lodged a

request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation. The

request was limited to the examination of the subsidisation of Reliance, which provided

sufficient evidence that the continued application of the measures at their current level

was no longer necessary to offset the countervailable subsidisation. The company

alleged in particular that the overall subsidy level was reduced due to the termination of

the Focus Product Scheme and the Focus Market Scheme and the reduction of amounts

availed by the applicant with regard to other schemes, like the Advanced Authorisation

Scheme and the Duty Drawback Scheme.

Having determined that the request contained sufficient evidence, the Commission

announced the initiation of a partial interim review limited in scope to the examination

of subsidisation for Reliance. The review investigation period covered the period from 1

April 2016 to 31 March 2017.

Results of the investigation

As far as the reorganisation of DPL and its related companies was concerned, the

investigation confirmed that DPL transferred its entire PET production facility to a new

company, IVDPIL in April 2016 and acquired 50% share of that company, thus ceasing

to be an exporting producer of the product under review with effect from that date. The

investigation also confirmed that DPL acquired 50% of stake in MPPL, an Indian

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 461/2013 of 21 May 2013, OJ L 137, 23.5.2013, p.1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1350 of 3 August 2015, OJ L 208, 5.8.2015,

p.10

Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to

imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India (2017/C 216/05)

manufacturer of PET which previously did not export the product under review to the

Union.

The purpose of the partial interim review was therefore to establish the rate of

subsidisation applicable to the new group of companies resulting from the re-

organisation undergone by DPL, IDIPL, and MPPL (the ‘Dhunseri group’).

With regard to subsidisation, the Commission calculated the subsidy rates applicable to

both the Dhunseri Group and Reliance. In order to establish the rates of subsidisation,

the Commission investigated various subsidy programs and found that the exporting

producers availed themselves of five of these programs during the review investigation

period, i.e. Duty Drawback Scheme (DDS), Export Promotion Capital Goods Scheme

(EPCGS), Merchandise Export from India Scheme (MEIS), Gujarat Electricity Duty

Exemption Scheme (GEDES), and Advance Authorisation Scheme (AAS).

As the benefit received by the exporting producers under the GEDES and AAS schemes

was found to be negligible, the Commission mainly focused on the DDS, EPCGS and

MEIS schemes.

The latter were all found to provide subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii)

and Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, since the payment by the

Government of India subsequent to exports made by exporters under these schemes was

contingent upon export performance, it was deemed to be specific and countervailable

under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation.

The Commission considered that DDS and EPCGS could both not be considered

permissible duty drawback systems within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic

Regulation. With particular regard to DDS, the Commission noted that the cash

payment to the exporter was not necessarily linked to actual payments of import duties

on raw materials, and was not a duty credit to offset import duties on past or future

imports of raw materials.

Amount of countervailable subsidies

Significantly, when calculating the DDS subsidy amount, the Commission rejected

Reliance’s claim that the benefit

calculated on the basis of DDS should be restricted to

the excess benefits as DDS should be considered as a duty drawback scheme

permissible under Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic Regulation. The claim was rejected

since the Commission concluded during the on-the-spot verification that Reliance had

benefited from the DDS even if it had not imported any of the two relevant raw

materials during the review investigation period and since the total amount granted to

Reliance represented the excess.

This conclusion was reached on the basis of the information available, as Reliance

failed to provide evidence that one of the two main raw material used to manufacture

PET was entirely imported and import duties were paid.

The Commission reached an opposite conclusion with regard to the Dhunseri group,

since the company provided sufficient evidence in this respect, and the Commission

showed the correctness of the evidence during a verification visit. Hence, the

Commission calculated the level of subsidisation on the excess remission with regard to

the Dhunseri group.

The Commission recalled that the amount of subsidisation established for DPL and

Reliance by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1350 were respectively 3,2% and

6,2%, which translated into countervailing duties of respectively 35,69 EUR/tonne and

69,39 EUR/tonne.

During the current partial interim reviews the Commission found the amount of

countervailing subsidies, expressed ad valorem, to be 2,3% for the Dhunseri group and

4% for Reliance. The Commission established the following specific countervailing

duties: 18,73 EUR/ton for Dhunseri group and 29,21 EUR/ton for Reliance.

Lasting nature of changed circumstances with regard to subsidisation

The Commission established that, during the review investigation period, the exporting

producers concerned continued to benefit from countervailable subsidisation by the

government, although at different rates.

As far as Reliance was concerned, the most important subsidies in terms of

subsidisation rates during the review investigation period were DDS and MEIS. The

subsidisation rate for DDS was reduced several times by the government over the last

seven years, reaching 1,5% of the FOB value during the review investigation period. As

far as MEIS was concerned the rate of 2% of the FOB value that became applicable to

PET in October 2015 remained unchanged since then. No significant change of

subsidisation rate for EPCGS was expected after the review investigation period.

As no evidence was adduced that the countervailed schemes would be discontinued or

that their subsidisation levels would be either increased or decreased in the future, the

Commission concluded that the circumstances that led to Reliance's new subsidisation

rate were of a lasting nature.

Hence, the level of the duties for Reliance was established on the basis of a 4% subsidy

margin.

With reference to the Dhunseri group, the investigation showed that the structure of the

group changed significantly. Most importantly the group owned two PET plants during

the review investigation period as compared to a single one during the previous interim

review. The re-organisation involved several legal steps over a period of almost two

years and reached its completion when it was sanctioned by the High Court of Kolkata

in December 2017. The Commission hence considered that the change of structure was

of a lasting nature and that the measures in force should be amended to reflect the new

situation also in view of the previous conclusions on the current (and lower) level of

subsidisation found in these reviews.

3.2.3.

New exporter reviews

As far as anti-dumping measures are concerned, Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation

allows for a review ("newcomer" review) to be carried out in order to determine

individual margins of dumping for new exporters located in the exporting country in

question which did not export the product during the investigation period.

Such parties have to show that they are genuine new exporters, i.e. that they are not

related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country, which are subject

to the anti-dumping measures, and that they have actually started to export to the EU

following the investigation period, or that they have entered into an irrevocable

contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the EU.

When a review for a new exporter is initiated, the duties are repealed with regard to that

exporter, though its imports are made subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the

basic Regulation in order to ensure that, should the review result in a determination of

dumping in respect of such an exporter, anti-dumping duties may be levied retroactively

to the date of the initiation of the review.

As far as anti-subsidy measures are concerned, Article 20 of the basic Regulation allows

for a review (accelerated review) to be carried out in order to promptly establish an

individual countervailing duty. Any exporter whose exports are subject to a definitive

countervailing duty but who was not individually investigated during the original

investigation for reasons other than a refusal to co-operate with the Commission can

request such review.

In 2018, no new exporter review was initiated. Since the Commission carried out the

first reviews of this type in 1990, a total of 77 such reviews were initiated so far. Two

new exporter reviews were concluded in 2018 by an exemption (see details below).

Bicycles from China (exemption review)

On 29 May 2013, the Council extended the already existing definitive anti-dumping

measures on imports of bicycles originating in China to those consigned from

Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia, following an anti-circumvention

investigation.

On 13 September 2016, the Commission received a request from Look Design System

SA, an exporting producer of bicycles based in Tunisia, for an exemption from the

measures applicable to Tunisia. As the request contained sufficient evidence, the

Commission initiated an investigation on 4 May 2017 to determine whether an

exemption was warranted.

Investigation

The Commission notified the Union industry as well as the applicant and the authorities

of the exporting country, which were given the opportunity to comment and make their

views known. The Commission assessed all the information at its disposal and

conducted a verification visit at the premises of the applicant in Tunisia.

The investigation confirmed that the company fulfilled the three conditions necessary to

be granted “new exporter” status:

it had not exported the product under review during

the original reporting period, it demonstrated that it did not have any links, direct or

indirect, with any of the Tunisian exporting producers subject to the extended measures

with regard to the product under review and the investigation showed that the applicant

had started to export the product to the Union only after the original reporting period.

The sources of raw materials and cost of production were also analysed. It was

concluded that the parts mainly originated in other countries and that the raw materials

originating in China represented less than 60% of the total value of the parts assembled.

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013, OJ L 153, 5.6.2013, p.1

Under Articles 11(4) and 13 (4) of the basic AD Regulation and Article 23(6) of the basic AS

Regulation, namely:

—

that it did not export the product under review to the Union during the investigation period

used in the investigation that led to the extended measures, i.e. from 1 April 2014 to 31 March

2015,

—

that it has not been engaging in circumvention practices, and

—

that it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to

the Union.

Moreover, there was no evidence of circumvention taking place through transshipments.

The Commission concluded that the applicant was a genuine producer of bicycles and

granted the producer an exemption from the measures applicable to Tunisia.

Solar panels from China

The Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping and countervailing measures on

imports of solar panels originating in China in 2013.

The measures consisted of an

valorem

duty ranging between 27,3% and 64,9%. In February 2016, following an anti-

circumvention investigation, the Commission extended those measures to imports of the

products consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, with the exception of imports produced

by certain companies specifically exempted from those measures.

Following expiry reviews investigations described in the Annual Report on year 2017,

these measures were extended for 18 months (instead of the normal five years period)

based on Union interest reasons.

Exemption investigation with regard to a Malaysian company

On 18 July 2018, the Commission initiated an investigation in order to assess whether it

should grant an exemption from the duties to a Malaysian exporting company of the

concerned product.

In the request, there seemed to be enough

prima facie

evidence

that the applicant fulfilled the criteria for an exemption.

The applicant was a wholly owned subsidiary of a Hong Kong-based company, which

was also a subsidiary of a Chinese company, the ultimate parent company. The parent

company was subject to both countervailing and anti-dumping duties.

However, after carrying out further examinations in order to determine the relationship

and possible circumvention of the existing measures, the Commission found that the

Malaysian applicant was a genuine producer and had not been involved in

circumvention activities. The Commission concluded that the Chinese ownership did

not constitute a reason to reject the application and that the applicant should be added to

the list of companies that are exempted from the existing countervailing

and anti-

dumping duties.

Expiry of measures

On 13 March 2018, the Commission gave notice that both the anti-dumping and

countervailing measures would expire on 3 September of the same year. The EU

industry lodged a request for an expiry review in order to extend the existing measures.

The Commission decided on 31 August 2018 to reject the requests. It noted that in a

previous expiry review, measures were extended for a limited period of 18 month and

the limitation was warranted because of Union interest grounds. The applicant did not

provide any information that put into question the Union interest grounds previously

established. The Commission also noted that the market situation had not changed

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013, OJ L 325, 5.12.2013,

p.1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1017 of 18 July 2018, OJ L 183, 19.7.2018,

p.1

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/184 of 11 February 2016, OJ L 37, 12.2.2016,

p.56

Ibid.

sufficiently to justify a further extension of the measures, as the level of the measures

had gradually decreased over time to allow the prices of the imports into the EU align

progressively with world market prices. In its assessment, the Commission also took

into account the new EU’s renewable

energy targets.

Therefore, on 3 September 2018, both the anti-dumping and countervailing measures on

solar panels expired.

3.2.4.

Absorption investigations

Where there is sufficient information showing that, after the original investigation

period and prior to or following the imposition of measures, export prices have

decreased or that there has been no or insufficient movement in the resale prices or

subsequent selling prices of the imported product in the EU, an absorption review may

be opened to examine whether the measure has had effects on the above-mentioned

prices. The duty may be increased to take account of such lower export prices. The

possibility of absorption reviews is included in Articles 12 and 19(3) of the basic

Regulations.

In 2018, one anti-absorption investigation was initiated and no such investigation was

concluded (Annex J).

3.2.5.

Anti-circumvention investigations

The possibility of investigations being re-opened in circumstances where evidence is

brought to show that measures are being circumvented was introduced by Article 13 and

Article 23 of the basic Regulations.

Circumvention is defined as a change in the pattern of trade between third countries and

the EU that stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due

cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty. The duties may be

extended to imports from third countries of like products, or parts thereof, if

circumvention is taking place. Duties may also be extended to imports of a slightly

modified like product from the country subject to current measures.

In 2018, No anti-circumvention investigations were initiated. Two anti-circumvention

investigations were terminated without the extension of duty. More information can be

obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex K.

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts from China (via Vietnam)

On 18 July 2005, the Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of

hand pallet trucks and their essential parts originating in China.

The measures

consisted of an

ad valorem

duty ranging between 7,6% and 46,7%. These measures

were prolonged twice as a result of expiry reviews. On 6 June 2017, the Commission

received a request to investigate a possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures

by imports coming from Vietnam. The request was lodged on behalf of Union producers

representing over 60% of EU production of the products concerned.

The request contained prima facie evidence showing that assembly operations taking

place in Vietnam constituted circumvention as Chinese parts seemed to constitute more

than 60% of the total value of the assembled product and the value added during the

Council Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 of 18 July 2005, OJ L 189, 21.7.2005, p.1

assembly operation was lower than 25% of the manufacturing costs. Complainants

argued that this practice was undermining the effectiveness of the anti-dumping

measures in place.

The Commission decided to initiate an investigation on this basis.

The Commission informed Chinese and Vietnamese authorities and followed the

procedure by sending out questionnaires and carrying out verification visits to two

companies in Vietnam.

For both companies it was found that the parts from China did not constitute 60% or

more of the total value of the parts of the assembled products. Consequently, the

assembly operations carried out by the cooperating Vietnamese companies could not be

considered as circumvention. In addition, as the two investigated companies represented

100% of the Vietnamese exports to the EU during the reporting period, it could not be

established that measures in force with regard to China were being circumvented by

such imports from Vietnam. The Commission terminated the investigation on 21

February 2018.

3.2.6.

“Other” reviews (reinvestigations)

These investigations fall outside Article 11(3) or Article 19 of the basic Regulations and

focus on the implementation of court rulings. In 2018, the Commission initiated three

such investigations. Two “other” reviews were concluded with a confirmation or re-

imposition of the duty. More details can be found below. Three "other" reviews were

terminated with a repeal of the measures. A list of the cases concerned is given in

Annex H. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to

which reference is given in that Annex.

Bicycles from China (via Sri Lanka)

On 11 April 2017, the Commission published a notice partially reopening the anti-

circumvention investigation concerning imports of bicycles consigned from Sri Lanka

following a General Court judgment annulling the original anti-circumvention

regulation on the concerned products to the extent it applied to Sri Lankan company

City Cycle Industries.

On the same day, imports of the product concerned from City Cycle Industries were

made subject to registration following a request by the European Bicycle Manufacturers

Association and EU producer Maxcom Ltd.

Dumping

The Commission reassessed all the data available and found that the evidence submitted

by the Sri Lankan company demonstrated that raw materials from China constituted

more than 60% of the total value of the parts of the assembled product.

In accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic Regulation, the following elements should be

analysed successively in order to assess possible circumvention:

—

whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between China and the Union,

—

if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due

cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in force,

—

if there is evidence of injury or the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in force

were being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the product under

investigation, and

—

whether there is evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established

for the product concerned.

In addition, because of the low investment required for assembly operations, and the

fact that the Sri Lankan company already had the necessary know-how and experience

for this type of activity, the applicants submitted that it was likely that City Cycle

Industries will go back very quickly to circumventing practices.

It was also found that the value added during the assembly operations was less than

25% of the manufacturing cost and therefore constituted circumvention.

Injury

The Court judgment is limited to the analysis of circumvention practices, which City

Cycle Industries may have been engaged in. As a result, the findings that were not

challenged, rejected or not examined by the General Court remain valid.

The applicants submitted that a real risk persisted that City Cycle Industries' exports to

the Union could resume in significant quantities given the ease of setting up assembly

circumvention practices for bicycles on a large scale in Sri Lanka. In addition, it had a

major customer in the Union for its products.

Definitive measures

On this basis, on 9 January 2018, the Commission re-extended the original measures to

the Sri Lankan exporter, as from the date of registration.

Biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia

On 19 November 2013, the Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on

imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia by means of Regulation

1194/2013

(‘the definitive Regulation’).

In September 2016, the General Court of the European Union (‘GC’) annulled Articles

1 and 2 of the definitive Regulation to the extent that they applied to the applicants.

The GC ruled that the institutions should not have taken the view that the price of the

raw materials was not reasonably reflected in the records of the Argentinian and

Indonesian exporting producers and should not have disregarded those records when

constructing a normal value for biodiesel produced in these countries. In particular, the

GC held that the institutions failed to establish to the requisite legal standard that there

was an appreciable distortion of the prices of the main raw materials used for the

production of biodiesel in Argentina and Indonesia because of different tax rates on raw

materials and on biodiesel.

The anti-dumping measures were also challenged by Argentina and Indonesia before the

WTO adjudicating bodies.

In both disputes, it was found, among other things, that the

legal justification relied upon by the Union to proceed with a cost adjustment was

incompatible with WTO law. Moreover, the Indonesia Panel Report found that the

Union had failed to establish a profit-cap pursuant to Article 2.2.2 of the WTO Anti-

Dumping Agreement when constructing the normal value. In addition, the Indonesia

Report also found that there had been some company-specific calculation

inconsistencies, as well as additional points on injury-related matters.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/28 of 9 January 2018, OJ L 5, 10.1.2018, p.27

Commission Regulation (EU) 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, OJ L 315, 26.11.2013, p.2

Judgments of the GC in cases T-80/14, T-111/14 to T-121/14 and T-139/14

(‘the judgments’)

The Indonesia Report was adopted in the European Union

–

Anti-Dumping Measures on

Biodiesel from Indonesia dispute (DS480)

In order to comply with its obligations under the GC’s judgments and the Reports

adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the Commission decided to resume the

anti-dumping proceeding at the very point at which the illegality occurred and thus to

re-examine the methodology used for constructing the normal value.

On 28 May 2018, a Notice was published re-opening the original investigations.

Determination of the normal value and calculation of the dumping margins

The Commission reassessed the findings of the original investigations on the issues

identified by the GC and the WTO adjudicating bodies, determining anew the duty rates

in respect of all Indonesian and Argentinian exporters.

In view of the high negative dumping margins for two of the four sampled Indonesian

companies, the Commission verified whether the weighted average countrywide

dumping margin taking account of the negative margins was above

de minimis

provided for in Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation. In this respect, it noticed that the

amount of dumping in the Indonesian sample was 1,6%

–

that is below the 2%

minimis

threshold.

In view of the countrywide

de minimis

dumping margin, the Commission decided to

terminate the investigation without measures as regards imports of biodiesel from

Indonesia.

Revised injury findings based on the Reports

As the investigation was terminated with regard to Indonesia, the Commission limited

its causation analysis to dumped imports of biodiesel from Argentina, in order to

determine the existence of a causal link between the dumped imports and the injury

suffered by the Union industry, and assessed imports from Indonesia separately, as

another factor that might also have caused injury.

During the investigation period, almost half of all imports into the Union came from

Indonesia at a price lower than Union prices as well as Argentinian prices. It was also

noted that the exponential increase on imports volumes from Indonesia as well as their

market share significantly contributed to the material injury suffered by the Union

industry.

The impact of the Indonesian exports added to other factors, among others overcapacity

of Union industry and self-inflicted injury: On this basis, the Commission concluded

that the effect of imports of biodiesel from Indonesia to the Union taken together with

the other factors contributed to the injury suffered by the Union industry to such an

extent that it could not be established that a genuine and substantial causal relationship

between the dumped imports from Argentina and the material injury suffered by the

Union industry actually existed.

Conclusion

On 18 October 2018, the Commission terminated the investigation, given that dumping

margins from Indonesia were found to be

de minimis

and a genuine and substantial

causal relationship between the dumped imports from Argentina and the material injury

suffered by the Union industry, as required under Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation,

could not be established. Anti-dumping measures were hence repealed.

3.3.

Safeguard investigations

Safeguard measures have always been and remain an instrument which the Commission

would only apply in truly exceptional circumstances. Indeed, they are only used where

it is clear that, applying the highest standards, such measures are necessary and justified

because, due to unforeseen circumstances, there has been a surge in imports and this has

caused or threatens to cause serious damage to the EU industry.

The Commission expects the EU’s commercial partners to follow a similarly strict

approach. However, more and more countries are adopting safeguard measures, often in

circumstances which do not appear to be entirely in line with Article XIX of the GATT

1994, the WTO Agreement on Safeguards and other WTO rules. Consequently, the

activities of the Commission in relation to safeguards is more and more driven towards

the defence of the export interests of EU producers, if necessary at WTO level.

Not all safeguard measures adopted by the EU constitute safeguards within the meaning

of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. Some of these measures are called ‘safeguards’

under particular regimes, such as the horizontal safeguards regulation or the safeguard

investigations under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP).

In April 2018, the Commission put forward a proposal for a horizontal bilateral

safeguard regulation that will allow the Commission to use the bilateral safeguard

clauses laid down in all future trade agreements. The objective of these safeguard

clauses is to temporarily suspend tariff preferences where preferential imports increase

to such an extent that they cause or threaten to cause serious injury to a particular EU

industry. This horizontal regulation provides standard rules for the implementation of

bilateral safeguard clauses, including the conditions and decision-making process. In the

past, the EU adopted separate regulations for each individual FTA, which will no longer

be necessary. The proposed Regulation has been politically approved by the co-

legislators in December 2018.

In terms of casework, in 2018, the EU initiated three safeguard investigations

–

one

erga omnes

on steel products and two bilateral ones against Cambodia and Myanmar on

Indica rice under the rules of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (Annex L).

3.3.1.

Details on individual safeguard cases

General safeguard measures on certain steel products

The investigation into 26 different steel product categories was initiated ex officio on 26

March 2018,

pursuant to Article 5 of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 and Article 3 of

Regulation (EU) 2015/755. On 28 June 2018, the Commission extended the product

scope of the safeguard investigation to two additional categories.

The investigation

covered the period from 2013 to 2017 (‘the period considered’). The most recent

developments have also been considered (i.e. the period between July 2017 and June

2018). Provisional measures were imposed in July 2018,

and on 31 January 2019 have

Notice of initiation of a safeguard investigation concerning imports of steel products (OJ C 111,

26.3.2018, p.29).

Notice amending the notice of initiation of a safeguard investigation concerning the imports of

steel products

(

OJ C 225, 28.6.2018, p.54).

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1013 of 17 July 2018, OJ L 181, 18.7.2018,

p.39

been replaced by definitive measures.

While the latter Regulation was not adopted in

2018, this section nevertheless describes the latest measures, due to their importance of

the case.

Product scope

The product concerned is certain steel products, encompassing 28 product categories.

The Commission decided to exclude two product categories for which imports

decreased overall between 2013 and June 2018. Therefore, definitive measures only

apply to 26 categories.

Legal requirements

i) Increase in imports

The investigation showed that over the period considered and the most recent period,

there had been a sudden, steep and significant increase in imports, in both absolute and

relative terms, for the products concerned (+71%). This finding was further confirmed

when analysing the level of imports at the level of the three product families (+64% for

flat products; +97% for long products and +60% for tubes).

ii) Unforeseen developments

The Commission established that the increase in imports of steel products in the Union

was the result of unforeseen developments that finds its source in a number of factors

establishing and aggravating imbalances in the international trade of the products

concerned.

These factors consisted of an unprecedented steelmaking overcapacity that persists,

despite the important number of measures adopted worldwide to reduce it. This was

aggravated by distortive subsidies and government support measures, which led to price

depression, the increased use of trade restrictive practices, TDIs and the US Section 232

measures adopted in March 2018.

iii) Threat of serious injury

The Commission concluded that the situation of the Union industry deteriorated

significantly in the period 2013-2016 and improved only partially in 2017. However, the

Commission considered that the Union industry, despite the temporary improvement,

was still in a fragile situation and under the threat of serious injury if the increasing

trend in imports continued with the ensuing price depression and profitability drop

below sustainable levels.

At provisional stage, a critical element in the determination of a threat of injury was that

the significant increase in imports observed since 2013 would not end but would further

rise and reach serious injurious levels in the absence of remedial action. This expected

trend was already confirmed by the most recent data analysed and is mostly caused by

trade diversion resulting from the US Section 232 measures on steel products.

Form of the measures

The definitive safeguard measure took the form of a tariff-rate quota in order to prevent

serious injury, but at the same time preserve as much as possible traditional trade flows.

This level of tariff-rate quota was set at the average level of imports over the last three

representative years. The Commission considered it necessary to modulate the tariff-rate

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019, OJ L 31, 1.2.2019,

p.27

quota level above the average import level for the last three years to take account of the

competing interests between users and importers, on the one hand, and the Union

industry, on the other hand. On this basis, the Commission considered that the

quantitative level of the tariff-rate quota should be based on the average imports in the

period 2015-2017 plus 5%. The Commission set an out-of-quota duty of 25% that

would apply if the tariff-rate quota in a given product category is exhausted.

In addition, the Commission concluded that a mixed approach to quota allocation

(country-specific quota and global quota) would be the most appropriate. First, a

country specific tariff-rate quota should be allocated to countries having a significant

supplying interest, based on their imports over the last three years. A global tariff-rate

quota (‘the residual quota’) based on the average of the remaining imports over the last

three years should be allocated to all other supplying countries. This residual tariff-rate

quota should be divided quarterly in order to ensure that imports are evenly distributed

over the year and prevent that significant imports of standard products are stockpiled at

the beginning of the period in order to avoid possible duties. Unused quarterly tariff-rate

quota allocations would also be automatically transferred to the next period.

A country specific tariff-rate quota was however not allocated to those countries whose

export level

–

for each product category concerned and overall for hot rolled coils

–

has

substantially diminished in the recent past because of anti-dumping/anti-subsidy

measures in place. These countries fall within the residual tariff-rate quota.

Review clause

The Commission considered that, based on the Union interest, it may have to adjust the

level or allocation of the tariff-rate quota in case of changes of circumstances during the

period of imposition of the measures. The Commission will carry out an assessment of

the situation on a regular basis, and consider a review at least at the end of each year of

imposition of measures. The Commission shall initiate the first review investigation no

later than on 1 July 2019.

Exclusions

Definitive measures apply to imports from all origins, with very few exceptions. First,

on account of the close integration of markets with EEA members, the Commission

considered that the products under assessment originating in Norway, Iceland, and

Liechtenstein should be excluded from the application of the Regulation. Furthermore,

in order to comply with bilateral obligations, certain countries with which the Union has

signed an Economic Partnership Agreement that is currently in force were excluded

from the application of the measures. WTO developing countries accounting for less

than 3% of EU imports are also excluded.

Duration

Measures shall be in place for a maximum period of 3 years, i.e. from February 2019

until July 2021.

Indica Rice from Cambodia and Myanmar

In March 2018, upon request of Italy, the Commission initiated a safeguard

investigation under the GSP Regulation, regarding imports of Indica rice from

Cambodia and Myanmar. The findings of the investigation confirmed that a significant

surge of rice imports from these two countries has caused economic damage to the rice

sector in the EU. Therefore, the legal conditions to impose measures were met.

According to Article 22(1) of the GSP Regulation, the Commission decided on 16

January, after consultation of the Member States, to reinstate the Common Customs

Tariff applied duties of 175 EUR/ton, with a progressive liberalisation (175 EUR/ton for

the first year, 150 EUR/ton for the second year and 125 EUR/ton for the third year).

3.4.

Verification activities

Based on Articles 16 and 26 of the respective basic AD and AS Regulations, in the

course of investigations, the Commission carries out visits to examine the records of

companies or associations with the aim to verify the information provided during the

proceedings. During 2018, EU TDI services made 167 such visits, which amounted to

1978 man/days of verification work. Circa 60% of the visits carried out aimed at

verifying EU companies’ data relating to injury and Union interest, while the rest

constituted verifications at companies in 19 third countries.

3.5.

Social and environmental standards in investigations

Since the entry into force of the new methodology of normal value calculation in

December 2017, when the Commission chooses an appropriate representative country to

construct the normal value of a product under that new methodology, it should base its

choice on an assessment of the adequate level of social and environmental protection in

the countries at stake when there is more than one such country. The Commission

would therefore look, in all such new investigations and expiry reviews initiated after 20

December 2017, in particular whether relevant international conventions have been

ratified.

A description of how social and environmental protection standards are considered and

taken into account in TDI investigations can only be referenced in future annual reports,

after investigations have reached provisional or final conclusions. However, none of the

ongoing investigations using the new methodology has reached this stage

–

results will

only be available in the next report.

Moreover, since the entry into force of modernized TDI rules, when the Commission

calculates the target price of a product, it also reflects actual or future costs of

production of EU companies, which result or would result from the application of

multilateral environmental agreements (and their protocols), as well as of certain

International Labour Organisation conventions. Since 8 June 2018 onwards, the

Commission has therefore started to apply the latter rule in its investigations. In this

case, too, none of the on-going investigations where this is an issue has reached the

provisional or final stage yet. The next annual report will consequently revert to such

cases.

Last but not least, the respect of principles and obligations set out in in multilateral

environmental agreements and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, and

of certain ILO conventions, can also play a role when it comes to deciding whether an

undertaking should be accepted.

NFORCEMENT OF ANTI

DUMPING

COUNTERVAILING MEASURES

Globalisation of trade led to greater possibilities for circumventing or otherwise

reducing the effectiveness of anti-dumping and countervailing measures. To address this

problem, throughout 2018 the TDI services continued their follow-up activities aimed at

ensuring that measures were effectively enforced. In the framework of an integrated

approach measures were considered in all their forms - duties and undertakings

–

and

synergy was sought between the TDI services and enforcement-oriented services

(OLAF, DG Taxud and customs authorities in Member States).

4.1.

Follow-up of measures

The follow-up activities concerning measures in force are centred on four main areas:

(1) to pre-empt fraud, by defining risk-related areas, alerting customs authorities and

assessing the feedback from customs and economic operators; (2) to monitor trade flows

and market developments; (3) to improve the effectiveness with the appropriate

instruments (new investigation, interim review, newcomer review, contact with national

administrations) and (4) to react to irregular practices by enhancing the co-operation

with enforcement-related services (OLAF and national customs) and by initiating anti-

absorption or anti-circumvention investigations.

4.2.

Monitoring of undertakings

Monitoring of undertakings forms part of the enforcement activities, given that

undertakings are a form of AD or AS measures. They are accepted by the Commission

if it is satisfied that they can effectively eliminate the injurious effects of dumping or

subsidisation.

At the beginning of 2018, there were three undertakings in force. No new undertaking

was accepted during the year. Therefore, the number of undertakings in force at the end

of 2018 remained at 3. More information is available in Annexes M and Q.

4.3.

OLAF activity

The Commission has developed a range of activities addressing prevention and

detection of fraud, and this includes a close cooperation with OLAF, through annual

meetings, day-to-day contacts, or exchange of case information, via a special OLAF

liaison officer within the Directorate–General for Trade.

In relation to that, by mutual agreement between the Commission and OLAF, the

Commission provides OLAF with any information and evidence relating to possible

cases of fraud, or any other illegal activity related to TDI. Circumvention of TDI

measures can occur in the form of: false declaration of product origin; misclassification

under product codes outside measures; assembly operations; channelling via companies

with no or low duty rates or undervaluation of imported products.

The Commission and OLAF have been reacting whenever they had indications pointing

to the possibility of the above situations, such as: 1/ when subsequent to the imposition

of measures, a significant decrease in imports from the country concerned into the EU

could be noted, which was entirely or partially offset by an increase in imports of:

products from another third country, or products classified under a product code outside

measures, or parts of the product which are not subject to measures; 2/ when subsequent

to the imposition of measures, imports from the country concerned into the EU were

coming from a company with a low or a zero duty at the expense of imports from a

company with a higher duty; or 3/ when a low amount of duties was collected by

Member States’ customs authorities.

Moreover, when the Commission received complaints from Union industry regarding

the circumvention of measures, it has each time informed OLAF thereof. The

Commission stayed also in regular contact on these matters with

Member States’

customs authorities.

Investigations by OLAF into the practices above are confidential. For that reason, it is

not possible to give further information or statistics on the latter.

Every year OLAF

publishes an Annual Report presenting its activities of the previous year, as well as

statistics of its investigative performance and examples of cases.

EFUNDS

Articles 11(8) and 21(1) of the basic Regulations allow importers to request the

reimbursement of the relevant collected duties where it is shown that the

dumping/subsidy margin, on the basis of which duties were paid, has been eliminated or

reduced to a level below that of the duty in force.

During 2018, 120 new refund requests were submitted. At the end of 2018, 6 refund

investigations were on-going, covering 99 requests. The Commission adopted in 2018

two Implementing Decisions granting partial refund or rejecting refund requests.

TDI M

ODERNISATION

In April 2013, the Commission adopted a proposal and a communication in order to

modernise the EU’s

trade defence instruments

(‘TDI’). The aim of the proposal was to

enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the EU’s TDI for the benefit of all

stakeholders, including producers, importers or users. Increasing transparency, finding

practical solutions to real problems and making the TDI more accessible, so that these

instruments would provide a more adequate response to the proliferating unfair trade

practices, was at the heart of the proposal.

After the Council and the European Parliament reached an agreement on the

Commission's proposal in December 2017, the modernisation legislation entered into

force on 8 June 2018. Together with the new anti-dumping calculation methodology

adopted in 2017, this is the first major overhaul of the EUs anti-dumping and anti-

subsidy instruments since 1995.

The new legislation strikes a balance between the interests of EU producers, users and

importers alike. The EU's trade defence instruments have become more effective,

transparent and more adapted to face the challenges of the global economy. At the same

time, the modernisation brought these instruments closer to the needs of small and

medium sized companies ('SME'). Finally, trade unions that represent workers whose

jobs are at stake due to unfair competition can also now fully participate in

investigations, including as co-complainants together with the Union industry.

The overhaul covers a broad range of aspects relating to the way the Commission

carries out trade defence investigations. The changes deliver concrete solutions to

practical problems raised by businesses. They benefit EU industry but also importers

and downstream users who depend on imports.

Amongst the most important changes to the modernised EU's anti-dumping and anti-

subsidy legislation are:



More transparency and predictability:

the Commission is now to issue an early

warning on the imposition of provisional anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures.

This includes a grace period of three weeks during which provisional duties are not

be applied. As a result, all companies will know in advance which exporters will be

subject to duties and at which rates. During this period the Commission will register

imports, where warranted, to avoid stockpiling. This will allow for the retroactive

collection of duties for that period, if necessary. Exporting producers and the EU

industry concerned will also be provided with their respective dumping, subsidy,/

injury calculations for provisional measures. The Commission will also notify

interested parties if provisional measures will not be imposed. Within two years, the

Commission will review the three weeks early warning system with the option to go

up to 4 weeks or down to 2 weeks of such pre-disclosure.



More efficient anti-dumping investigations:

provisional measures have now to be

imposed within 7 to 8 months, instead of 9 months. The investigative process has

been streamlined to maintain the high standards, in terms of data verification, respect

of procedural rights, deadlines, etc.



Additional support for EU SMEs:

an SME helpdesk, as well as streamlined

procedures make it easier for SMEs to participate in trade defence investigations.

The Commission has created a dedicated web page for SMEs which provides

relevant information to help navigate the system, including a guide to filing

complaints as well as standard questionnaires for Union producers, importers and

users.



An improved injury margin calculation method:

the new rules concerning the

non-injurious price for the EU industry are now better adapted to economic reality.

They allow reflecting the profitability needed to cover full costs and investments,

research as well as development and innovation. Moreover, the injury margin

includes future expenses related to social and environmental standards, for example

under the Emissions Trading System, if the Union industry presents sufficient

evidence to this effect.

Moreover, the non-injurious price now includes a minimum profit of 6%. However,

higher profit margins are always possible on a case-by-case basis. This ensures a

better recovery of the industry from unfair trade, if measures are based on injury.



Inclusion of social and environmental considerations:

as mentioned above, the

future higher costs of EU industry for complying with EU social and environmental

standards are now to be taken into account. Furthermore, the EU

needs

not accept

price undertakings

for -

among others -

reasons of general policy which comprise in

particular the principles and obligations set out in multilateral environmental

agreements (and their protocols) to which the Union is a party, and of certain

ILO Conventions.

From now on, social and environmental standards considerations

have also a dedicated part in the Commission's annual reports on TDI activity.



Better response to raw material distortions or subsidisation:

the EU's "lesser duty

rule" is now adapted so as to take into account the existence of serious distortions

regarding raw materials with the imposition of duties reflecting the full amount of

dumping in such cases. Distortions must concern one raw material, including energy,

which account individually for more than 17% of the cost of production. The price of

the distorted raw material needs to be significantly lower as compared to prices in the

representative international markets. The new rules provide a list of relevant raw

material distortions. These new disciplines are subject to a Union interest test.

Measures against unfair subsidies are also now based on the subsidy margin: anti-

subsidy measures will fully offset the subsidies that an exporter has received, unless

it is against the overall interest of the EU to do so.



Better response to threats of retaliation:

European industry can sometimes find

itself under pressure from foreign governments not to use TDI whenever it is

exposed to injurious dumping or subsidisation. Where there might be a risk of such

threats, the Commission can launch investigations on its own initiative, i.e. without a

complaint lodged by industry.



Participation of trade unions in investigations:

trade unions can now be interested

parties in investigations. They will have full access to the non-confidential file as

well as the right to comment. They can also jointly prepare, with the Union industry,

applications to launch trade defence investigations.



New rules in the EU continental shelf and exclusive economic zones:

trade

defence measures can now also be applied to dumped or subsidised products

imported and used on the Continental Shelf where the consumption of the product

concerned is significant, such as oil rigs or off-shore wind parks. Regulations

imposing anti-dumping and/or anti-subsidy measures will specify if these zones are

covered. A horizontal regulation setting out the relevant customs modalities is

currently being prepared.



Better rules on price undertakings:

the Commission will now only accept

undertakings commitments where the price rise eliminates the injurious effect of the

dumping or subsidisation. (See also above on social and environmental standards)



Fair reimbursement of duties:

where the Commission decides that a measure

should not be renewed, anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties collected while an expiry

review is ongoing will be repaid, through an application of the company to its

competent customs authorities.

7.1.

NFORMATION AND

OMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES

/ B

ILATERAL CONTACTS

Small and medium sized enterprises (SME)

During 2018, in the context of the modernisation of the trade defence instruments, the

EU launched an initiative to help SMEs affected by trade defence investigations, both

within the EU and in third countries. A dedicated webpage was set up which brought

together in one place advice for companies and sample questionnaires. Moreover, in

June 2018, the Commission published a comprehensive guide for SMEs, which

introduces TDI rules and describes how to manage the process of investigations in all

their stages. This is complementary to the SME Helpdesk, which continued to help

SMEs seeking information regarding the trade defence instruments. Queries to the

helpdesk during the year ranged from general information requests regarding the nature

of trade defence instruments to more targeted case-related queries.

In order to raise the SMEs awareness on how TDI work, the Commission has also

developed standard presentations it can give upon request at regional conferences

organized by chambers of commerce or other institutions that play a role in information

dissemination amongst economic operators.

7.2.

Bilateral contacts/information activities

–

EU economic operators

including their key stakeholder associations and third countries

Explaining the legislation and practice of the EU's trade defence activity and

exchanging views on third country practices continues to be an important part of the

work of the TDI services.

Similarly to previous years, in 2018, the Commission held bilateral meetings to

exchange best practices in the field of TDI with officials from China and Korea, and

participated in relevant seminars with other administrations (US, Japan, Australia)

notably regarding subsidies.

During 2018, the trade defence services continued to entertain contacts with practically

all key stakeholder organisations affected by trade defence. Various informative events

were organized with the latter organisations on the important topic of the TDI reform.

Special sessions of the Civil Society Dialogue took place in March and June 2018 on

the new calculation methodology and TDI modernisation.

UDICIAL REVIEW

ENERAL

OURT

DECISIONS GIVEN BY THE

OURT

USTICE

AND THE

8.1.

Overview of the judicial reviews in 2018

In 2018, the General Court (GC) and the Court of Justice (CJ) rendered 26 judgments in

the areas of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy. 10 judgments were handed down by the GC

and 12 concerned appeals of GC rulings, which were decided by the CJ. The CJ

rendered four preliminary rulings in the TDI field.

8.2.

Cases pending

At the end of 2018, 35 anti-dumping/anti-subsidy cases were pending before the GC and

13 before the CJ. A list of the cases is given in Annex S.

8.3.

New cases

In 2018, 15 new court cases were lodged in the field of trade defence (compared to 20 in

2017). Nine of these were lodged before the GC (all actions for annulment) and six

before the CJ (four appeals and two preliminary rulings).

8.4.

Judgments rendered by the General Court (a selection)

T-211/16

–

Caviro Distillerie and Others v European Commission

The General Court (‘GC’) dismissed the action brought by Caviro Distillerie Srl,

Distillerie Bonollo SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Industria Chimica Valenzana (ICV)

SpA, EU producers of tartaric acid representing more than 25% of the total production

of this

substance (“the applicants”). The applicants questioned the validity of the

Decision by which the Commission terminated the anti-dumping proceeding concerning

imports of tartaric acid from China produced by Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical

Engineering Co. In essence, the applicants questioned the representativeness of the

sample of EU producers selected by the Commission and contested the conclusion that

the Union industry had not suffered material injury as a result of the imports from

Hangzhou Bioking.

With reference to the representativeness of the sample, the applicants submitted that it

did not sufficiently represent the situation of small EU producers as it was skewed in

favour of the largest producer (Distillerie Mazzari SpA), with a production volume of

around 30% of the total EU production and having sales volumes accounting for 29% of

the total EU production.

The GC first noted that under Article 17(2) of the basic AD Regulation the final

selection of parties, types of products or transactions made under the sampling

provisions ultimately rests with the Commission. Furthermore, the GC stated that the

Commission carried out an objective examination of the facts (in particular, the

applicants had contested that the non-representativeness of the sample compromised the

reliability of several microeconomic indicators used by the Commission in the

investigation). Finally, the GC found that even if the Commission had used a larger

sample, there was no evidence showing that the conclusions related to profitability and

injury would have changed. For all these reasons, the GC held that the applicants had

failed to adduce sufficient evidence in order to establish that the Commission’s

assessment in selecting the sample of the Union industry was manifestly wrong.

With regard to the Commission's conclusion that the Union industry had not suffered

material injury, the applicants claimed that the Commission did not take sufficient

account of the factors displaying negative trends (magnitude of the dumping margin,

price undercutting margin, dumped volumes, impact of the imports on EU producers'

sales volumes and market shares, expansion of Hangzhou Bioking's production

volumes). Against the background of the Commission’s broad discretion when assessing

economic data, the

GC stated that the institution’s assessment was based on all the

relevant factors. The GC also considered that the Commission clearly explained the

reasons why it considered that the Union industry had not suffered any material injury.

As a consequence, the GC stated that the applicants had not put forward sufficient

evidence to challenge the Commission's conclusion.

T-462/15

–

Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v European Commission

In this judgment, the General Court ('GC') dismissed the action brought by Asia Leader

International

Co. Ltd, an exporting producer of bicycles from Cambodia (“the

applicant”) against the Commission Regulation extending the definitive anti-dumping

duty on imports of bicycles originating in China to imports of bicycles consigned from

Cambodia, Pakistan and the Philippines. Specifically, the applicant challenged the

Commission’s conclusions of that it circumvented the anti-dumping

measures via

transhipment and assembly operations.

In examining the case, the GC ruled in favour of the Commission on various important

points regarding the way it carries out circumvention investigations.

With regard to the findings on circumvention practices and the requests for exemption,

the GC recalled that while the EU institutions must assess that anti-dumping measures

are being circumvented in respect of the third country as a whole, it is for each

individual exporting producer to show that its particular situation justifies an exemption.

Coherently, the GC stated that if the applicant for exemption fails to prove that its

particular situation justifies the grant of that exemption, the Commission is fully entitled

to refuse it. The GC found that the applicant was not capable of demonstrating that it

was a genuine producer of bicycles. Consequently, the GC held that the Commission

was entitled to find that those bicycles were transhipped from China and to establish

that the applicant did not fulfil the conditions laid down in Article 13(4) of the basic

Regulation, thus rejecting its request for exemption.

In relation to the evaluation of the circumvention practices listed in Article 13(1) of the

basic regulation, the GC underlined the non-exhaustive character of this list and found

that it was sufficient to establish the existence of only one circumvention practice to

reject the applicant's request for exemption under Article 13(4).

T-675/15

–

Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v European Commission

The General Court (‘GC’) dismissed the action brought by Shanxi Taigang Stainless

Steel Co. Ltd, an

exporting producer from China (‘the applicant’) against the Regulation

imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of stainless steel cold-rolled flat

products originating in China and Taiwan (‘contested regulation’).

The applicant contested in particular the selection of the analogue country, the absence

of adjustment for differences in the production process and access to raw materials, and

the analysis carried out by the Commission in order to determine the causal link

between the dumped imports and the alleged injury.

The claims related to the selection of the analogue country and the absence of

adjustment for differences in the production process and access to raw materials were

made with reference to the construction of normal value for the determination of

dumping pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic AD Regulation. Under this provision,

in case of imports from non-market-economy countries, normal value must be

determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in a market-economy third

country, duly adjusted if necessary.

With regard to the selection of the analogue country for the construction of normal value

in order to determine dumping, the GC confirmed that the Commission's choice was in

accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, which prescribes the choice of a

market-economy third country which is subject to the same investigation as an analogue

country, where appropriate. In this case, Taiwan was subject to the same investigation

and the applicant claimed that it should have been selected as an appropriate analogue

country over the US, which was ultimately chosen by the Commission. The GC

confirmed that it is not mandatory to select the market-economy third country subject to

the same investigation, as long as the comparative analysis of the potential analogue

countries shows that the chosen analogue country is more appropriate.

In relation to the applicant’s claim that the Commission should have made the

adjustments for differences in the production process and access to raw materials, the

aim of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation being to prevent that account be taken of

prices and costs in non-market-economy countries which are not the normal result of

market forces, the GC confirmed that EU institutions cannot be required to make

adjustments in light of factors which are not directly or indirectly the result of normal

Reference is made to the text of the basic Regulation prior to the amendments introduced by

Regulation (EU) 2017/2321 of 12 December 2017.

market forces. Since China was not a market-economy at the time of the investigation

and the applicant did not claim Market Economy Treatment, there is nothing to indicate

that sourcing of nickel and the production process were not influenced by parameters

which are not the result of market forces.

Lastly, concerning the assessment of injury and causal link, the GC recalled its

established case law that it is not necessary for all relevant economic factors and indices

to show a negative trend in order to find injury. Moreover, contrary to the arguments put

forward by the applicant, the GC recalled that the EU institutions are under an

obligation to consider whether the injury on which they intend to base their conclusions

does in fact derive from dumped imports and must disregard any injury deriving from

other factors such as imports from third countries, the export performance and the

overcapacity

of the Union industry. Regarding the Union industry’s overcapacity, in the

present case the GC noticed that it was linked to the increased level of dumped imports

and that it was not a factor capable of undermining the relevance of the link between

those imports and the injury sustained by the Union industry.

Having dismissed all the applicant’s claims, the GC confirmed the validity of the

contested regulation. The judgment is under appeal.

T-431/12

–

Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council of the European Union

The General Court (‘GC’) upheld the action brought by Distillerie Bonollo SpA,

Industria Chimica Valenzana SpA, Distillerie Mazzari SpA, Caviro Distillerie Srl and

Comercial Quimica Sarasa SL, EU producers of tartaric acid (‘the applicants’)

against

the Council Regulation (‘contested regulation’) imposing a definitive anti-dumping

duty

on imports of tartaric acid originating in China.

The applicants contested the change in methodology for the calculation of the normal

value in order to determine dumping. In particular, the applicants criticised the

construction of the normal value for the two Chinese exporting producers on the basis of

the costs of production in Argentina rather than on actual domestic sale prices in

Argentina as had been done during the initial investigation. According to the Council,

the choice of methodology stemmed from the difference between the processes for

producing tartaric acid in Argentina and China, respectively the natural process and the

synthetic process.

The GC considered that the contested regulation infringed Article 11(9) of the basic AD

Regulation. This provision allows the institutions to apply a different method in review

investigations from the one used in the initial investigation insofar as circumstances

have changed, or the method initially used has been found contrary to Article 2 of the

basic Regulation.

First of all, the GC considered that the differences in the production process (natural v

synthetic) existed and were already known during the initial investigation stage.

Therefore, there was no change in circumstances to justify the Council approach and the

adjustment of the normal value taking into account the differences in the production

process.

The GC further clarified that the contested regulation did not state that the initial method

had been found contrary to Article 2 of the basic Regulation. Moreover, the GC noted

that the tartaric acid produced by chemical synthesis has the same characteristics and the

same basic uses as that produced from by-products of winemaking. As a consequence, a

comparison between the normal value calculated using the data relating to the natural

production process and the export prices based on data relating to the synthetic

production process was not considered by the GC as contrary to Article 2 of the basic

Regulation.

In light of these arguments, the GC annulled the contested regulation and maintained the

anti-dumping duty as regards one of the two Chinese exporting producers pending

implementation of the judgment.

T-654/16

–

Foshan Lihua Ceramic v European Commission

In this judgment, the General Court (‘GC’) dismissed the action brought by Foshan

Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd., an exporting producer of ceramic tiles from China (“the

applicant”). The applicant sought

the annulment of the Decision by which the

Commission refused its request to initiate an interim review limited to dumping aspects.

The decision clarifies the conditions under which an exporting producer who has not

cooperated in the investigation leading to the imposition of anti-dumping measures, and

who has not been included in the samples usually used by the Commission in a large-

scale investigation of this type, can request a partial interim review of those measures

under Article 11(3) of the basic AD Regulation. In essence, the GC stated that a non-

cooperating and non-sampled exporting producer cannot solely prove that its own

circumstances with regard to dumping and injury have changed significantly in order to

sustain its request for a partial interim review. Precisely because the applicant is a non-

cooperating exporting producer and the setting of the anti-dumping rate is based on

sampling, it must prove - as stated by the Commission

–

either that the factors forming

the basis for the setting of the dumping margin used to establish the anti-dumping duties

that apply to the sampled companies have changed significantly and for a long period of

time, or that such changes have effected all exporting producers of the exporting

country.

Importantly, the GC further explained that a non-cooperating and non-sampled

exporting producer may not request individual examination to get an individual anti-

dumping duty rate via an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the anti-dumping

Regulation. In order to support its request, the applicant had relied on Article 17(3) of

the Regulation, which provides the possibility of calculating an individual dumping

margin for a non-sampled exporting producer in the case of an investigation based on

sampling, and Article 11(5), which extends the rules regulating investigations to review

procedures. The GC took a different stand, acknowledging that the application of

Article 11(5) must take into account the specific characteristics and purposes of the

review procedures. The purpose of the partial interim review in question is the

assessment of a possible change of circumstances of a more general nature than the ones

concerning only the non-cooperating and non-sampled exporting producer. As a

consequence, the application of Article 11(5) in order to obtain an individual

examination via an interim review would run counter the purpose of the interim review

procedure.

T-364/16

–

ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava and Others v European

Commission

The General Court (‘GC’)

annulled

the decision (‘contested decision’) by which the

Commission amended the EU-wide TARIC database in a way that obliged national

customs authorities to stop collecting anti-dumping duties with respect to goods

produced by the Chinese exporting producer of steel pipes and tubes Hubei Xinyegang

Steel Co. Ltd (‘Hubei’),

following an action brought by

ArcelorMittal, a Czech

producer.

In 2009,

definitive anti-dumping measures were imposed on imports of

steel pipes and

tubes from China.

Hubei successfully challenged those measures in Court, which were

thus annulled as far as Hubei was concerned (‘the Hubei judgments’). However, in the

meantime,

the Commission had re-imposed anti-dumping measures on the same

products following an expiry review. The question was whether the annulment of

Regulation 926/2009 automatically meant that there was no more legal basis to collect

duties on imports from Hubei justifying the adoption of the contested decision to amend

the TARIC database in relation to Hubei.

The judgment affirmed two important principles.

First, the GC affirmed that an annulling judgment cannot entail annulment of an act that

was not challenged before the EU Courts, even if it suffers from the same illegality of

the annulled act.

In this context, Regulation 2015/2272, which replaced Regulation 926/2009, is the legal

basis for imposing anti-dumping duties on the goods at issue originating in China,

including those produced by Hubei. As a consequence, the GC concluded that the latter

regulation, absent any judgment to the contrary, was still to be considered lawful.

Secondly, the GC stated that, although the Commission was obliged to draw the

consequences from the Hubei judgments and take the necessary actions to stop

collecting anti-dumping duties on imports from Hubei,

such actions had to respect the

legal principle of

equivalence of form. As a consequence,

the non-collection of anti-

dumping duties laid down by a regulation which had not been annulled or declared

invalid must be brought about by means of a regulation.

8.5.

Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice (a selection)

C-301/16 P

–

European Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) (appeal in T-

586/14)

The CJ upheld the appeal by which the Commission sought to set aside the judgment of

the GC of 16 March 2016,

Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd v. European

Commission

(T-586/14). In this judgment the GC had annulled Article 1 of Regulation

(EU) No 470/2014

of 13 May 2014 (“regulation at issue”) by which the Commission

had imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty and collected definitively the provisional

duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in China.

Among other grounds of appeal, the Commission submitted that the GC erred in law in

interpreting the concept of “former non-market economy system”, as established in

Article 2(7)(c) of Regulation No 1225/2009, as referring to an economic system of a

state-trading country.

As China’s economic system

is normally regarded as being in transition to a market

economy but still considered as a non-market economy system, the CJ stated that the

Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain steel pipes and tubes from China, including

those produced by Hubei, had been imposed by the Commission pursuant to Implementing

Regulation (EU) No 2015/2272.

Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009, OJ

L 262, 6.10.2009, p.19

expression “former non-market economy system” does not refer specifically to the

historic economic system of a state-trading country, but more in general to a non-market

economy system which has already experienced some reform.

Finally, the CJ agreed with the Commission that measures aimed at implementing a

five-year plan are always presumed as having been carried over from the former non-

market economy system. By taking this view, the Court diverged from the GC’s more

formalistic reading of the words “carried over from the former non-market

economy

system” and embraced a conceptual interpretation of the expression.

In particular,

coherently with the

ratio legis

of the provisions on Market Economy Treatment, the

Court considered the fact that the distortions had stemmed from such as system to be

sufficient to assume that they had been carried over from it. Specifically, the CJ rejected

the position taken by the GC view that the continued existence of those plans did not

necessarily imply that they were carried over from the former non-market economy in

China. Instead, the CJ considered that, even assuming that the Chinese five-year plans

no longer provide defined production objectives for all sectors of the economy, as was

the case when China was still a state-trading country, those plans still play a

fundamental role in the organisation of that economy, in so far as they contain, for a

great number of sectors, precise objectives which are binding on all levels of

government. Hence, the Court stated that the fact that the specific preferential tax

schemes at issue implement a five-year plan is deemed sufficient to conclude that these

measures constitute significant distortions “carried over from the former non-market

economy system”, within the meaning of that provision.

Having upheld the first ground of appeal, the CJ set aside the judgment and referred the

case back to the GC.

C-256/16 P

–

Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (preliminary ruling)

The CJ ruled on a request for preliminary ruling concerning the validity of Commission

Implementing Regulation (EU) No 223/2016 of 17

February 2016 (“regulation at

issue”)

establishing a procedure for assessing certain Market Economy Treatment and

individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and

implementing the judgment of the Court in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14. These

judgments had declared the invalidity of Regulation (EC) No 1472/2006, imposing a

definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on

imports of certain footwear with uppers of leather originating in China and Vietnam

(“the definitive Regulation”) and of Regulation (EU) No 1294/2009, imposing a

definitive anti-dumping duty on the same imports, and also to the imports consigned

from the Macao SAR (“the prolonging regulation”).

The request was made in proceedings between Deichmann SE and the Hauptzollamt

Duisburg, the Principal Customs Office in Duisburg, concerning an application for the

repayment of anti-dumping duties paid on imports of footwear with uppers of leather

into the European Union. The facts of the dispute in the main proceedings and the

regulation at issue took place in a time when the adoption of anti-dumping measures

within the EU had successively been governed by two successive anti-dumping

regulations, namely Regulation (EC) No 384/96 (“Regulation No 384/96”) and

Regulation

(EC) No 1225/2009 (“Regulation No 1225/2009”).

The Court of Justice gave blessing to the manner in which the Commission

implemented the judgments of the Court in cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, namely by re-

imposing the anti-dumping duties.

The CJ relied on Article 14(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 as a legal basis to empower

the Commission to take preparatory measures for the re-imposition of anti-dumping

duties and to adopt directions suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by

national custom authorities.

First of all, the CJ held that, by providing that anti-dumping duties should be imposed

by regulation and collected by Member States according to the criteria laid down in the

regulation which establishes them, Article 14(1) does not contain an exhaustive list of

criteria relating to the collection of anti-dumping duties that the Commission may set

out. Accordingly, as the directions set out in Article 1 of the regulation at issue aim to

safeguard the collection of anti-dumping duties imposed by the regulation by obliging

national custom authorities to wait until the Commission has determined the rates at

which such duties should have been fixed, and these directions relate to the collection of

the relevant anti-dumping duties by Member States, Article 14(1) of Regulation

1225/2009 empowers the Commission to adopt them.

In the second place, the CJ recognized the possibility for the Commission to adopt

directions suspending the repayment of anti-dumping duties by national custom

authorities as not contrary to Article 236 of the Customs Code. As a matter of fact, the

Court stated that - according to settled case law - the exact scope of a declaration of

invalidity contained in one of its judgments, and of the obligations stemming from it,

must be determined taking into account the grounds that constitute its essential basis. In

particular, the Court noticed that its assessment in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14

did not reveal factors which affected the validity of the definitive Regulation and the

prolonging regulation, but only reflected the fact that the Commission and the Council

adopted them without assessing the Market Economy Treatment claimed by certain

exporting producers involved in the investigation, and omitted to assess the individual

treatment claims from the same exporting producers.

As a consequence, the CJ held that the Commission was entitled to carry out the

assessment of the claims submitted by the concerned exporting producers in order to

determine whether the anti-dumping duties that applied to them should have been set at

rates below those laid down by the two regulations. Accordingly, the only amount that

had to be repaid to the concerned parties since it had been wrongly imposed, was the

one corresponding to the difference between the rate at which the two regulations had

set those anti-dumping duties and the rate at which they should have been set if the

illegalities found by the Court in its judgments C-659/13 C-34/14 had not been

committed. Article 236 of the Customs Code not being interpreted as prohibiting the

Commission from directing that a ruling be made on the applications for repayment of

those anti-dumping duties following a procedure with the specific aim of allowing it to

calculate such a difference, the directions set out in Article 1 of the regulation at issue

were not deemed contrary to Article 236(1) of the Customs Code. Consequently, the

Commission was empowered to adopt them on the basis of the first sentence of

Article 14(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009.

The Court confirmed the validity of the regulation at issue.

C-363/17 P

–

Equipolymers and Others v Council of the European Union (appeal in

T-422/13)

The Court of Justice (‘CJ’) dismissed the appeal by which

Equipolymers Srl, M&G

Polimeri Italia SpA, and Novapet (‘the appellants’), European producers of

polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’),

sought to set aside the judgment of the General

Court (‘GC’) of 5 April 2017. In this judgment the GC had dismissed their claims for

compensation of damages allegedly suffered as a consequence of the illegality of the

Council Decision rejecting the proposal for an anti-dumping regulation, in so far as the

proposal would have imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of PET

originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (‘the decision at issue’).

In the proceedings before the GC the appellants had argued that, following the decision

at issue, they had been forced to maintain their EU sales prices at loss-making levels, in

order to compete with dumped imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand. That loss was

due, according to them, to the difference between their earnings before interest, taxes

and amortisation (‘EBITA’) during the period between April 2012 and March 2013 and

the EBITA estimated for the period from June 2013 to May 2014. On its part, the GC

had dismissed the claim for damages on the ground that the information provided by the

appellants did not make it possible to establish a direct and sufficient causal link

between the adoption of the decision at issue and the alleged losses.

By their single ground of appeal, the appellants disputed the

GC’s conclusion.

First of all, they submitted that the GC erred in characterizing the facts when it held that

the appellants failed to establish the existence of a direct and sufficient causal link. In

particular, while accepting that the factors relied on by the GC in its decision were

capable of influencing their EBITA, the appellants alleged that the GC failed to take

into account certain adjustments and explanations provided by them, the purpose of

which was to make a distinction between the part of the reduction of their EBITA

caused by the increase in imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand following the

adoption of the decision at issue, and that resulting from other factors. On its side, the

CJ found that it was for the appellants to adduce conclusive proof as to the existence of

a sufficiently direct causal link. Accordingly, it was not for the GC to attempt to deduce

its existence by referring to calculations which, at least expressly, did not take into

account all the relevant factors.

Additionally, the appellants submitted that the GC did not set out the reasons for which

the evidence provided on their part was insufficient to establish a direct and sufficient

causal link. In that regard, the CJ recalled established case-law to affirm that the

obligation to state reasons does not require to provide an exhaustive account which

follows one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case. As a matter

of fact, the CJ noticed that the reasoning may be implicit on condition that it enables the

persons concerned to know why the GC has not upheld their arguments and provides the

CJ with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review. In the present case, the

GC listed factors which were likely to cause or lead to a reduction in the

appellants’

EBITA, and stated that the appellants had not made a distinction, in that reduction,

between the part entailed by the unlawful adoption of that decision and that attributable

to those factors. Hence, the CJ found that the GC had implicitly but necessarily fulfilled

its obligation to state reasons.

Having rejected as unfounded the appellants’ single ground of appeal, the CJ dismissed

the appeal in its entirety.

C-100/17 P

–

Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council of the European Union (appeal in

T-199/04)

The Court of Justice (‘CJ’) dismissed the appeal by which

Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd

(‘the appellant’), a Pakistani exporting producer of bed linen,

sought to have set aside

the judgment of the General Court (‘GC’) of 15 December 2016, by which

the GC

rejected its action for annulment of the Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping

duty on imports of cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan, in so far as it

concerned it.

By its first ground of appeal, the appellant challenged the findings of the GC that the

second and third pleas of the application concerning the calculation of the normal value

and the fair comparison between normal value and export price were no longer

admissible. The GC had concluded for the inadmissibility of these pleas as it considered

that the appellant had not shown the continuing existence of its interest in bringing

proceedings with respect to them.

In particular, the appellant alleged the GC’s failure

to fulfil its obligation to state

reasons in this respect, as well as an error in law.

The CJ confirmed that the interest in having a contested act annulled must continue until

the end of the proceeding and that the matter of a continuing interest in the proceeding

can be raised at any point in time, either by the GC itself or by a party who relies on

sufficiently serious evidence. However, when examining the continuing interest in

bringing the proceeding, the GC must respect the rights of defence of the other side, in

particular by inviting the applicant to express its views and submit evidence showing

this interest.

The CJ concluded that this was appropriately done by the GC when, following the

hearing at which the issue of lack of continuing interest was raised by the Commission,

the appellant was invited to express its views on that question and was afforded the

opportunity of submitting any evidence which might contradict the institutions’ claims.

Therefore, the GC had not disregarded its burden of proof nor failed to fulfil its

obligation to state reasons. As a consequence, the CJ rejected the first ground of appeal.

In its second plea in law the appellant claimed that the GC committed an error in law

and distorted facts when reviewing the assessment of the causal link between the

alleged dumping and the alleged material injury of the EU industry. In particular the

appellant claimed that the causal link was broken by the EU industry's shifting of

production to the high-value segment of the EU bed-linen market and by the increasing

EU imports of bed linen from Turkish producers related. The CJ dismissed the

appellant’s arguments and confirmed the GC's conclusions with regard to the

institution's causation assessment.

For these reasons, the CJ dismissed the appeal.

C-145/17 P

–

Internacional de Productos Metálicos v European Commission (appeal

in T-217/16)

The Court of Justice (‘CJ’) dismissed the appeal by which

Internacional de Productos

Metálicos SA, a Spanish importer of iron or steel fasteners (‘the appellant’),

sought to

have set aside the judgment of the General Court (‘GC’) of

25 January 2017

(T‑ 217/16). By this judgment, the GC had dismissed the action seeking the annulment

of Article 2 of the Regulation by which the Commission repealed the definitive anti-

dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China

(‘the regulation at issue’).

This case essentially concerned the right for importers to challenge antidumping

regulations directly before the EU Courts in cases where they are not individually

concerned by the regulations and there are implementing measures which have to be

challenged at national level. In essence, the appellant requested the annulment of the

provision according to which the repeal of the anti-dumping duties took effect from the

date of the entry into force of the regulation, and did not serve as a basis for the

repayment of the duties collected prior

to that date. The CJ rejected the appellant’s

request on the basis that the regulation at issue was not of individual concern to the

applicant and that it entailed implementing measures.

First of all, the CJ

recalled that where a measure affects a group of persons who were

identified or identifiable when that measure was adopted by reason of criteria specific to

the members of the group, those persons may nevertheless be individually concerned by

that measure if they form part of a limited class of economic operators. The CJ held that

this takes place particularly when the decision alters rights acquired by the individual

prior to its adoption. In the present case, however, the CJ

found that the regulation

issue affected the appellant only in its objective capacity as an importer, without taking

into account its individual situation. Moreover, the CJ stated that being subject to anti-

dumping measures, such as those which were repealed by the regulation at issue, could

not validly be regarded as constituting

an “acquired right”, since there was no right

acquired by the importer at the time the entries took place.

Secondly, the CJ noticed that Article 2 of that regulation, in so far as it provided for the

expiry of the duties from the date of its entry into force and excluded any retroactive

effect, could be implemented, as regards the appellant, only through measures taken by

the national authorities for the purpose of collecting the anti-dumping duties in question

before that date. Consequently, the CJ found that the regulation at issue entailed

implementing measures although the repeal of the anti-dumping duties did not depend,

as such, on the adoption of measures of this type.

For these reasons, the CJ rejected the appeal in its entirety.

CTIVITIES BY THIRD COUNTRIES TARGETING THE

This section describes the main developments and trends in the area of third country

actions in 2018 (see also the Annual Report, which this document is accompanying, as

well as annex U (A

–

F) below for detailed figures).

In 2018, the main users of the trade defence instruments against EU exports were the

US with 33 measures in force, India with 21, China with 18, Brazil with 16, Turkey

with 14, and Australia with 10 measures in force. Besides these main users, other

important cases in countries that use the instruments less frequently are also described

below.

United States (US)

Overall trends

In 2018, the US initiated three new AD investigations affecting EU exports, 7 less than

in 2017. Furthermore, it initiated three AD expiry reviews and one AS expiry review

investigation. It also initiated the Article 232 safeguard investigation regarding steel and

aluminium. One AD investigation was terminated without measures. In one of the AD

investigations provisional measures were imposed, which are still in force.

Definitive measures were imposed in 10 investigations out of which nine (five AD, two

AS, two safeguards) had been initiated in 2017 and one AD in 2018.

At the end of 2018, the US had 33 measures in force affecting EU imports.

Main cases

Regarding product types, the investigations initiated in 2018 concerned imports of steel

(two investigations) and chemical substances (one investigation), whereas measures

were imposed on five steel products, one processed agricultural product (AD and AS

measures), one chemical substance and two other consumer and industrial goods.

Spanish ripe olives AD/AS investigations

The most important investigations were the AD and AS investigations concerning

imports of Spanish ripe olives, which were finalised with the imposition of the AD

and AS measures in August 2018. The AS investigation was of a particular concern

since it targeted, among others, several EU subsidy schemes available under the EU

Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is considered non-trade distorting, non-

product specific and thus non-countervailable under the rules of the WTO. Despite

the numerous Commission interventions, the US nevertheless decided to countervail

some of these schemes using questionable reasoning relating, for example, to the

issue of

specificity

and so called a

pass-through test.

On 28 January 2018, the EU

requested to hold consultations with the US under the WTO Dispute Settlement

Understanding to solve the matter.

India

Overall trends

The total number of 21 measures in force in 2018 has remained the same as in 2017,

confirming that India remains amongst the main users of the instruments. However, on a

more positive note, it reduced its use of safeguards over the last four years (two in force

in 2018) and did not initiate any new safeguard investigation last year.

Overall, India initiated four new AD investigations (Coated paper, Dimethylformamide

(DMF), High speed steel, Epoxy resin). It imposed definitive AD duties in two cases

(Nylon Filament Yarn, Wooden flooring) and extended AD duties following one expiry

review investigation (Methylene Chloride). It imposed definitive ad-valorem safeguard

duties on imports of Solar Cells (the investigation was mentioned in the previous

Annual Report on third countries’ activity).

In the course of 2018, India streamlined its internal procedures in trade remedies and

amended its anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules, making them stricter and more in line

with WTO and EU rules. At the request of the Indian authority, the Commission

provided comments on the draft and welcomed the proposed amendments.

Main cases

In addition to the successful interventions in the AD investigation concerning coated

paper, which was terminated without measures (see also the Annual Report, which this

document is accompanying), India terminated five other investigations (three new ones

and two expiry reviews) without imposing or further extending the duties.

Acrylic Fibre

The investigation was initiated in April 2017 (EU economic interest of around 7

million EUR). In April 2018, the Indian authorities concluded that there was no price

undercutting and no price suppression caused by imports, therefore the imposition of

AD measures was not warranted. The Commission followed the case in close contact

with the industry and gave support to the affected EU companies. It made two

written interventions and two oral interventions during public hearings.

Melamine

–

expiry review

In March 2018, the Indian authorities concluded that the domestic industry was in a

stable and healthy situation and there was no injury due to imports, resulting in the

expiry of the duty without further extension (EU economic interest 4,6 million EUR).

The Commission made two written interventions, claiming inter alia that AD duties

must not be used as a means to protect the domestic industry’s plan to build

additional capacity.

Sodium Nitrite

–

AD mid-term review

The review was initiated in December 2017, at the request of the domestic industry,

who claimed that the duty in force was no longer sufficient to remedy the injury, and

asked to raise the duty level. At the end of July 2018, after examination of the facts,

the Indian authorities concluded that the increase of the injury margin was not caused

by imports, but was due to the capacity expansion of the domestic industry, who

otherwise was in a healthy and profitable situation. Thus, there was no need to raise

the level of the AD duty in force. The Commission made two written interventions.

China

Overall trends

In 2018, China's Trade defence activity was of lower intensity than in previous years. In

2018, China initiated two new AD cases, two expiry reviews and one interim review. In

2018, China imposed one AD measure, concluded one AD interim review with an

increase in duty, extended one existing AD measure, and let expire two AD and one AS

measure(s).

The total number of measures in force against the EU at the end of 2018 was 18, as

compared to 20 in 2017.

Main cases

Polysilicon

–

AD/AS measures

On 31 October 2018, MOFCOM issued a notice terminating anti-dumping and anti-

subsidy measures in place against EU exports of Polysilicon, a key raw material in

the production of Solar Panels. These measures were in place since 2014, covering a

volume of exports worth around 650 million EUR, and targeted particularly German

Polysilicon producer Wacker. In the context of EU measures on Solar Panels from

China, China retaliated by imposing measures on EU exports of Polysilicon and

carefully mirrored every single move by the EU in the Solar Panels case. On 31

August 2018, the EU decided not to extend its anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

measures on solar panels from China. The termination of these measures by

MOFCOM brings to a close a long-running process that has been the subject of much

discussion.

Brazil

Brazil kept a moderate activity in 2018. As in 2017, the country initiated one new AD

investigation regarding silicon electrical steel from Germany. As in 2017, Brazil also

imposed one new AD measure in 2018 (nitrile rubber from France). However, the total

number of measures in force remains high with 16 measures at the end of 2018. At the

end of 2018, there were also a number of measures under review: milk powder from the

EU, laminated steel from Germany and Finland and ethanolamine from Germany.

Turkey

Overall trends

In 2018, Turkey was very active in terms of trade defence. Turkey initiated two new

safeguard investigations and reviewed two safeguard measures in force. In addition,

Turkey launched one new AD investigation on synthetic filament tow and initiated a

review of measures concerning water heaters. Turkey also initiated three new anti-

circumvention investigations concerning imports of hinges, chains and woven fabrics.

There were 14 Turkish measures in force against the EU at the end of 2018.

As regards the investigations initiated before 2018, Turkey imposed AD measures on

imports of sodium percarbonate from Germany, extended AD measures on imports of

pipefittings from Bulgaria and imposed AD measures on imports of kraft liner paper

from Finland and Poland. Finally, Turkey also imposed safeguard measures on imports

of toothbrushes.

Main cases

Iron and steel products

–

safeguard investigation

In April 2018, Turkey initiated a safeguard investigation concerning imports of iron

and steel products. This is an important case for the EU industry as it exports over €3

billion of steel to Turkey annually. The initiation followed the imposition of

measures in the US under Section 232. In October 2018, Turkey adopted provisional

safeguard measures in the form of a tariff rate quota (“TRQ”) for 200 days. Both in

form (free of duty quota corresponding to the average imports in the last 3 years), as

well as in out-of-quota duty (25%), the measures resemble the EU safeguard

measures on steel. The scope of the measures is slightly larger than the scope of the

EU measures. The Commission has intervened and highlighted that the criteria of an

increase of imports in terms of the WTO Safeguards agreement does not appear to be

met in this case.

Wallpaper - safeguard investigation

In 2015, Turkey imposed safeguard measures on imports of wallpaper (export value

around 13 million EUR (in 2014)). In close coordination with the EU industry, the

Commission negotiated a TRQ for wallpaper with a CIF value above 5 USD/kg

(which allows for the continuation of imports of the more expensive wallpaper from

the EU). After a review concluded in August 2018, the safeguard measure was

extended, however that extension did not include the TRQ. After the intervention of

the Commission and the EU industry last year, Turkey has now, in early January

2019, also extended the TRQ. The TRQ will apply for three years.

Australia

Australia increased the use of trade defence in 2018 and is becoming an important user

of trade defence against the EU. As compared to 1 new case in 2017, Australia initiated

three new AD investigations in 2018: A4 copy paper from Austria, Slovakia and

Finland, railway wheels from France and ammonium nitrate from Sweden. The number

of measures imposed increased from one in 2017 to four in 2018, totalling 10 measures

in force at the end of 2018.

The Commission is closely following and intervening in all the three new investigations

and also in the on-going

expiry review of the AD measures against “all other” Italian

exporters of canned tomatoes imposed in 2014.

Other important cases

Canada

–

safeguard investigation concerning imports of certain steel products

As a response to the US 232 investigation, Canada initiated a safeguard investigation

and imposed provisional measures in October 2018. The scope of the investigation

covers seven steel products (EU export value around 150 million €). Provisional

measures were imposed for 200 days and are in the form of a tariff-rate quota (based

on the average of the last three years) with a 25% out-of-quota duty. The

investigation is now approaching its final phase. The Commission already intervened

in the context of this investigation with a view to highlight potential flaws mainly

relating to the non-disclosure

of critical information, which affects the Commission’s

right of defence guaranteed by the WTO Safeguard Agreement. The imposition of

the final safeguard measures, if any, is scheduled for April 2019.

Colombia

–

AD investigation concerning imports of frozen fries

On 9 November 2018, Colombia concluded the anti-dumping investigation on

imports of frozen fries from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands with the

imposition of measures. Colombia imposed duties for one company in each Member

State concerned (from 3,21% to 8,01%) and for all other Dutch exporters (44,52%).

The Commission, together with the three Member States, raised the different

deficiencies of this investigation with the Colombian authorities from the very

beginning. Political interventions also took place at a high level. The main

weaknesses of the case concern the calculation of the dumping margin, a non-

objective injury and causality analysis, weak standards of initiation and other

procedural issues mainly concerning confidentiality. The industry is very concerned

because Colombia is the third country imposing measures on frozen fries after South

Africa in 2014 and Brazil in 2017 (EU export value 21 million EUR for South

Africa, 96 million EUR for Brazil and 23 million EUR for Colombia). The

Commission raised its strong concerns during the annual meeting of the EU-

Colombia Trade Committee (highest implementation body under the Trade

Agreement) and a meeting took place in Bogota at the end of January 2019, where

EU and Colombian experts discussed calculations. Bilaterally, the Commission is

considering to request an administrative review. In parallel, the Commission

continues its analysis in view of a possible action in the WTO.

South Africa

–

bilateral safeguard investigation concerning imports of frozen

chicken under the EPA (European Partnership Agreement)

In 2016, South Africa initiated a bilateral safeguard investigation concerning imports

of poultry from the EU under the Trade and Development Cooperation Agreement

and continued the investigation under the EU-SADC EPA, when provisional

application of the EPA started in October 2016. At the end of 2017, South Africa

announced that the investigation had shown that the relevant conditions were met

and imposed definitive safeguard measures in September 2018. The definitive duties

apply until March 2021. The initial duties have been set at 35.3%

ad valorem

and

will be liberalised over time to 25% during the last year. The Commission has

conveyed the message to the SACU countries that it does not agree with the

measures and has held several formal exchanges with the SACU countries to find a

mutually acceptable solution. The SACU countries have not accepted any of the

proposed solutions. The Commission is considering next steps.

10.

10.1.

CTIVITIES IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE

WTO

Dispute settlement in the field of trade defence

The WTO provides for a rigorous procedure for the settlement of disputes between

WTO Members concerning the application of the WTO agreements. The procedure is

divided into two main stages. The first stage, at the level of the WTO Members

concerned, consists of a bilateral consultation. Upon failure of the consultation to settle

the dispute, the second stage can be opened by requesting the WTO Dispute Settlement

Body to establish a panel. WTO Members, other than the complaining and defending

party, with an interest in a given case, can intervene as 'third parties' before the panel.

The panel issues a report, which can be appealed before the Appellate Body ('AB') (each

appeal being heard by three members of a permanent seven-member body set up by the

Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU)). Both the panel report and the report by the

Appellate Body are adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body ('DSB') unless the latter

rejects the report by unanimity.

The findings of a panel or Appellate Body report have to be implemented by the WTO

Member whose measures have been found to be inconsistent with the relevant WTO

Agreements. If the complaining WTO Member is not satisfied with the way the reports

are implemented, it can ask for the establishment of a so-called 'implementation panel'.

Here too, an appeal against the findings of the panel is possible.

It should be noted that the anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards measures are

among the most common subject matters in WTO dispute settlement.

In 2018, the EU participated actively in a number of WTO dispute settlement

proceedings as a third party.

Regarding the dispute settlement cases against the EU, the main developments in 2018

were the following:

European Union

–

Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Indonesia (DS480)

On 10 June 2014, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union regarding

the application of anti-dumping duties on imports of biodiesel originating, inter alia, in

Indonesia.

A panel in the case was further composed on 4 November 2015. After a

suspension in the Panel’s proceedings in 2016 (at the request of Indonesia), the Panel

issued its report on 25 January 2018, which was adopted by the DSB on 28 February

2018. The Panel found, among others, that in line with the findings in

–

Biodiesel

from Argentina

the EU should have calculated the normal value using the cost of

production of biodiesel in Indonesia, based on the records kept by the

producers/exporter under investigation. The Panel also stated that the EU failed to

determine the profit normally realized by other exporters or producers on sales of

products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin.

Moreover, with respect to the injury, the Panel established that the EU failed to establish

the existence of significant price undercutting. Consequently, on 18 October 2018, the

EU implemented

the DSB’s recommendations through Implementing Regulation (EU)

2018/1570, which terminated the proceedings concerning imports of biodiesel

originating in Argentina and Indonesia and repealed Implementing Regulation (EU) No

1194/2013 (see above).

European Union

–

Countervailing Measures on imports of PET from Pakistan

(DS486)

The Appellate Body (“AB”) report was circulated on 28 May 2018, following the filing

of an appeal by the EU on 30 August 2017 and a cross-appeal by Pakistan on 4

September 2017. The AB

upheld the Panel’s report which found that the EU had acted

inconsistently with certain provisions of the Agreement on Subsidies and

Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”).

The EU argued that the measure at issue had expired during the Panel proceedings, and

requested that the AB reverse the entirety of the Panel Report and declare moot its

findings. The AB rejected this argument, stating that the Panels have a margin of

discretion in exercising their jurisdiction and the expiry of the measure did not mean

that the matter before the Panel had been fully resolved.

Furthermore, the AB sided with the Panel and found that the EU wrongly countervailed

the entire amount of duty drawback. The AB considered that, in the context of genuine

duty drawback schemes, the financial contribution element of the subsidy is limited

only to the excess remission or drawback of import charges on inputs and does not

encompass the entire amount of the remission or drawback of import charges..

The AB also rejected the EU’s claim

that there was silence as to the legal consequences

when the subsidising country lacks a verification procedure in the context of the

investigating authority's inquiry on whether the excess remission or drawback occurred.

In particular, the AB referred to Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement as an essential tool

in order to fill the gaps of missing information with "facts available" on the records of

the investigating authority. As a consequence, the simple fact that the exporting

Member does not have a proper verification system or failed to carry out an additional

investigation in the case of duty drawback schemes is not, as such, a sufficient reason to

countervail the entire amount of import duties payable.

Commission Regulation (EU) 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, OJ L 315, 26.11.2013, p.2

The Commission will take due account of the judgment in cases involving duty

drawback schemes.

European Union

–

Measures related to Price Comparison Methodologies (DS516)

Following the original composition of a panel in July 2017 and a first substantive

meeting with the parties in December 2017, a second meeting took place in May 2018.

Subsequently the parties submitted responses to the questions posed by the Panel.

As the procedure among the parties is complete, the Panel must now issue the final

report. In November 2018, the Panel informed that it would deliver its report during the

second quarter of 2019, as the legal matters at issue are particularly complex.

European Union

–

Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain Anti-Dumping

Measures on Imports from Russia (DS494)

On 7 May 2015, the Russian Federation requested consultations with the European

Union regarding “cost adjustment” methodologies used by the European Union for the

calculation of dumping margins in anti-dumping investigations and reviews.

In its request, Russia challenged several provisions of the basic AD Regulation.

Specifically, Russia argued that Article 2(3) thereof is inconsistent with Article 2.2 of

the Anti-dumping

Agreement (‘ADA’) because it requires that only "representative"

prices are applied to the two alternative methods of determination of normal value of the

like product (based on cost of production or on export prices to an appropriate third

country).

Russia also claimed that Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation is inconsistent with

Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2 of the ADA insofar as it authorises the investigating authority to

use costs other than the cost of production in the country of origin for the construction

of normal value, without requiring any adjustments to represent the cost of production

in the country of

origin. In particular, Russia challenged the “cost adjustment

methodology”, which concerns the adjustments to the cost of gas paid by the Russian

exporters. Under this methodology, the Commission considers that the records of the

Russian exporters do not reasonably reflect the cost of gas as Russia has a dual pricing

policy with different regulated prices for domestic and export sales. As a consequence,

the cost for gas is adjusted on the basis of the average price of Russian gas when sold

for export at the German/Czech border. Russia considered this methodology to be

inconsistent with Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA, since the EU rejected the records of the

Russian exporters that are supposed to reasonably reflect their costs. Furthermore,

Russia claimed that this methodology infringes Article 2.2 of the ADA because the EU

uses costs other than the "cost of production in the country of origin".

The Dispute Settlement Body established a panel to rule on the dispute on 16 December

2016. After some time, upon request by the Russian authorities, the Panel was

composed on 17 December 2018.

10.2. Other WTO activities

The EU remained fully committed and active in pushing a subsidies-related agenda in

the WTO. In the course of 2018, intensive negotiations on fisheries subsidies continued

in Geneva. While only limited progress was made, an ambitious work programme for

2019 was adopted at the end of the year that should allow WTO Members to conclude

the negotiations by the end of 2019, which is a deadline set by the 11

WTO Ministerial

conference in Buenos Aires. In October 2018, the EU also organised, along with the US

and Japan, an event in the context of the WTO Public Forum on subsidies called "Make

the Playing Field Level Again".

In 2018, the EU participated in the work of the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing,

Anti-dumping and Safeguards Committees which are held twice yearly in April and

October. In the Anti-dumping Committee, the EU responded to many questions on the

changes to the

EU’s anti-dumping

legislation arising from the introduction of the new

calculation methodology as well as the modernisation of TDI. In addition, the EU

responded to questions posed by other WTO members on its anti-dumping

investigations, while also using the opportunity to raise issues of concern in

investigations taken by third countries against the EU or Member States.

In the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention in April and October, India and Canada

shared their experiences respectively in tackling circumvention of measures and the EU

posed questions on their particular regimes.

The EU also participated in both sessions of the Anti-dumping Working Group on

Implementation (WGI). In April 2018, the topics discussed were: the calculation of

dumping margins,

the treatment of expenses for ‘research and development’, of start-up

costs, of ‘selling,

general and administrative’ (SG&A)

expenses, as well as of the

reasonable profit level in the normal value and export price determinations. In October

2018, methodologies to determine the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of

dumping and injury in expiry reviews, as well as the institutional structures of the

investigating authorities were discussed.

In the Special Committee of the Subsidies and Countervailing

Committee, the EU’s

2017 subsidy notification was reviewed. In the regular Subsidies and Countervailing

Committee, in addition, discussions continued on the role of subsidies as a contributor

to excess capacity in various sectors of economic activity. This important agenda item is

co-sponsored by the EU along with several other WTO members including US, Canada

and Japan. The EU also repeatedly called for improved transparency by other members

urging them to notify their subsidies to the WTO, as required under the Agreement on

Subsidies and Countervailing measures. In this context, the EU participated in a seminar

hosted by the WTO for Asian countries to explain how the EU prepares its subsidy

notification, highlighting the difficulties and proposing solutions.

In the Committee on Safeguards, the EU raised a series of concerns relating to other

WTO Members’ safeguard investigations (e.g. Chile –

Powdered milk and Gouda

cheese, US

–

Solar panels, or Turkey

–

Wall paper). In addition, the EU responded to

questions asked by other WTO members concerning the initiation of its own safeguard

investigation concerning imports of certain steel products and the imposition of

provisional safeguard measures in July.

11.

CTIVITIES OF THE HEARING OFFICER

In 2018, the Hearing Officer received altogether 27 intervention requests and held eight

hearings. In a number of cases, the request for an intervention was submitted

simultaneously with a request for a hearing with the services responsible for the

investigation. The Hearing Officer took the view that the interested party first shall

address their concerns to the services and only when a solution could not be reached, the

Hearing Officer would intervene. This approach led to the result whereby the interested

parties seeking an intervention were able to find a solution directly with the

investigation teams in most of the cases.

This year only few investigations led to intervention requests. These were either

requests from several interested parties or a number of intervention requests from the

same party. The interested parties mostly challenged the determinations, facts and

conclusions of the investigation and in all cases an agreement with the services to

provide clarifications or additional disclosures could be reached. In a noteworthy case,

the interested party challenged the Commission’s policy of protection of personal data

within the framework of the investigation

–

the case had to be referred further to

European Data Protection Office. During all interventions in 2018, the Hearing Officer

found that the procedural rights of the interested parties had been respected. The

Hearing Officer was not requested to exercise her decision-making powers foreseen in

the Terms of Reference

As a result of the TDI legislative reforms

of 2017 and 2018, the Hearing Officer’s role

is now firmly embedded in the basic Regulations. In this context, the Hearing Officer

also contributed to the procedures to be applied in the modernisation implementation, in

order to increase transparency and guarantee the procedural rights of the parties.

OJ L 107, 19.04.2012, p.5

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEXES

ANNEX A

ANNEX B

ANNEX C

ANNEX D

ANNEX E

ANNEX F

ANNEX G

ANNEX H

ANNEX I

ANNEX J

ANNEX K

ANNEX L

ANNEX M

ANNEX N

ANNEX O

ANNEX P

ANNEX Q

ANNEX R

ANNEX S

ANNEX T

ANNEX U

SUMMARY

New investigations, including re-openings, initiated during the period 1 January

–

31 December 2018

New investigations initiated

Imposition of provisional duties in the course of new investigations during the

period 1 January

–

31 December 2018

New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties during the

period 1 January

–

31 December 2018

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures during the period

1 January

–

31 December 2018

Expiry reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January

–

December 2018

Interim reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January

–

December 2018

Other reviews concluded during the period 1 January

–

31 December 2018

New exporter reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January

–

December 2018

Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January

–

31 December 2018

Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1

January

–

31 December 2018

Safeguard investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January

–

December 2018

Undertakings accepted or repealed during the period 1 January

–

31 December

2018

Measures which expired during the period 1 January

–

31 December 2018

Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2018

Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2018

Undertakings in force on 31 December 2018

Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2018

(including cases were provisional measures were imposed)

Court cases pending on 31 December 2018

Safeguard measures in force on 31 December 2018

Third

countries’ measures targeting the EU

ANNEX A

New investigations initiated

during the period 1 January

–

31 December 2018

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Product

Country of origin

OJ Reference

Solar glass

Malaysia

C 174; 23.05.2018, p.8

Hot-rolled sheet steel piles

P.R. China

C 177; 24.05.2018, p.6

Russia

Urea and ammonium nitrate

Trinidad and Tobago

U.S.A

North Macedonia

Hollow sections

Russia

Turkey

C 284; 13.08.2018, p.9

C 347; 28.09.2018, p.6

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Product

Country of origin

Argentina

OJ Reference

C 34; 31.01.2018, p.37

Corr:

C 37; 01.02.2018, p.31

Biodiesel

Indonesia

C 439; 06.12.2018, p.16

Reopenings (chronological by date of publication)

Product

Country of origin

Argentina

Indonesia

C 181; 28.05.2018, p.5

(AD)

OJ Reference

Biodiesel

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

India

C 171; 18.05.2018, p.10

(AD)

ANNEX B

New investigations initiated by product sector during the period 2014

–

2018

(excluding the reopenings)

Product sector

Chemical and allied

Textiles and allied

Wood and paper

Electronics

Other mechanical engineering

Iron and Steel

Other metals

Other

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Total

Of which

anti-dumping

anti-subsidy

New investigations initiated by country of export during the period 2014

–

2018 (excluding reinvestigations)

Country of

origin

Argentina

Belarus

Bosnia Herzegovina

Brazil

P.R. China

Egypt

India

Indonesia

Iran

Georgia

Japan

Kazakhstan

Korea (Rep. of)

North Macedonia

Malaysia

Mexico

Oman

Russia

Serbia

Taiwan

Thailand

Trinidad and Tobago

Turkey

Ukraine

U.S.A.

Vietnam

Total

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

ANNEX C

Imposition of provisional duties in the course of new investigations

during the period 1 January

–

31 December 2018

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Product

New and retreaded tyres

for buses or lorries

Country of origin

Regulation N°

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/683

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1012

OJ Reference

P.R. China

L 116; 07.05.2018, p.8

L 181; 18.07.2018, p.7

Electric bicycles

P. R. China

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Product

Country of origin

Regulation N°

OJ Reference

None

ANNEX D

New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties

during the period 1 January

–

31 December 2018

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Product

Country of

origin

P.R. China

Regulation N°

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/140

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/186

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1579

OJ Reference

L 25; 30.01.2018, p.6

Corr.

L 32; 06.02.2018,

p.65

(SL)

Cast iron articles

Corrosion resistant steels

P.R. China

L 34; 08.02.2018, p.16

New and retreaded tyres for

buses or lorries

P.R. China

L 263; 22.10.2018, p.3

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Product

Country of

origin

P.R. China

Regulation N°

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1690

OJ Reference

New and retreaded tyres for

buses or lorries

L 283; 12.11.2018, p.1

ANNEX E

New investigations terminated without the imposition of measures

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Product

Country of origin

Regulation /

Decision N°

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/140

COMMISSION

DECISION (EU)

2018/824

OJ Reference

L 25; 30.01.2018, p.6

Corr.

L 32; 06.02.2018,

p.65

(SL)

Cast iron articles

India

Ferro-silicon

Egypt

Ukraine

P.R. China

L 139; 05.06.2018, p.25

Low carbon ferro-chrome

Russian Federation

Turkey

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Brazil

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1037

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1193

L 185; 23.07.2018, p.48

Silicon metal

L 211; 22.08.2018, p.5

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Product

Country of origin

Decision N°

OJ Reference

None

ANNEX F

Expiry reviews initiated or concluded

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

(chronological by date of publication)

Initiated

Country of origin

Turkey

Tube and pipe fittings

Russia

Rep. Of Korea

Malaysia

Bioethanol

Aluminium Foil in small rolls

Organic coated steel products

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of

malleable cast iron

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

Tungsten electrodes

Bicycles

Ironing boards

USA

P.R. China

Thailand

P.R. China

India

P.R. China

C 64; 20.02.2018, p.7

C 95; 13.03.2018, p.8

C 96; 14.03.2018, p.8

C 96; 14.03.2018, p.21

C 31; 27.01.2018, p.16

Product

OJ Reference

C 162; 08.05.2018, p.11

C 167; 15.05.2018, p.6

C 173; 22.05.2018, p.9

C 186; 31.05.2018, p. 13

C 189; 04.06.2018, p.18

C 253; 19.07.2018, p.30

Sweetcorn in kernels

Peroxosulphates

Thailand

P.R. China

C 322; 12.09.2018, p.4

C 454; 17.12.2018, p.7

Product

Concluded: confirmation of duty

Country of

Regulation/

origin

Decision N°

P.R. China

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/607

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/921

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/931

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/ /1469

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/ /1684

OJ Reference

steel ropes and cables

L 101; 20.04.2018, p.40

Tartaric acid

P.R. China

L 164; 29.06.2018, p.14

Oxalic acid

P.R. China

India

Russia

Ukraine

L 165; 02.07.2018, p.13

Seamless tubes and pipes

L 246; 02.10.2018, p.20

Lever arch mechanisms

China

L 279; 09.11.2018, p.17

Concluded: termination and repeal of the measures

Country

Regulation/Decision

OJ Reference

Product

of origin

N°

None

ANNEX G

Interim reviews initiated or concluded

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

(chronological by date of publication)

Initiated

Product

Country of origin

(consigned from)

India

OJ Reference

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron

C157; 04.05.2018, p.3

Seamless pipes and tubes

Ukraine

C 159; 07.05.2018, p.18

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron

India

C 437; 04.12.2018, p.32

Concluded: amendment of duty

Country of

origin

(consigned

from)

Regulation/

Decision N°

Product

OJ Reference

Ammonium nitrate

Russia

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1722

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1468

L 287; 15.11.2018, p.3

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

India

L 246; 02.10.2018, p.3

Concluded: termination without amendment of duty

Product

Country of

origin

(consigned

from)

P.R. China

Thailand

Regulation/

Decision N°

OJ Reference

Threaded tube or pipe cast

fittings, of malleable cast

iron

COMMISSION

DECISION (EU)

2018/52

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/823

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1703

L 7; 12.01.2018, p.39

Rainbow trout

Turkey

L 139; 05.06.2018, p.14

Ammonium nitrate

Russia

L 285; 13.11.2018, p.97

Concluded: termination and repeal of measures

Country of Regulation/Decision

Product

origin

N°

None

Reference

ANNEX H

Other reviews initiated or concluded

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

(chronological by date of publication)

Product

Biodiesel

Initiated

Country of origin

Argentina

Indonesia

OJ Reference

C 181; 28.05.2018, p.5

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

India

C 171; 18.05.2018, p.10

Concluded: confirmation / amendment of duty

Country of Regulation/Decision

Product

origin

N°

Bicycles

Sri Lanka

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/28

COMMISSION DECISION

(EU) 2018/928

Reference

L 5;

10.01.2018,

p.27

L 164;

29.06.2018,

p.51

Seamless pipes and tubes

P.R. China

Product

Concluded: repeal of measures

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

India

COMMISSION DECISION

(EU) 2018/1306

Stainless steel wires

Reference

L 244;

28.09.2018,

p.111

L 262;

19.10.2018,

p.40

L 262;

19.10.2018,

p.40

Argentina

Biodiesel

COMMISSION DECISION

(EU) 2018/1570

Indonesia

Biodiesel

COMMISSION DECISION

(EU) 2018/1570

ANNEX I

New exporter reviews initiated or concluded

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

(chronological by date of publication)

Anti-dumping investigations

Initiated

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

(consigned

from)

OJ Reference

Product

Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

Product

(consigned

from)

Bicycles

Tunisia

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/49

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1017

Reference

L 7;

12.01.2018,

p.31

L 183;

19.07.2018,

p.1

Solar panels (crystalline silicon

photovoltaic modules and key

components)

P.R.China

Product

Concluded: termination

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

(consigned

from)

Reference

None

Anti-subsidy investigations ("accelerated" investigations)

Initiated

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

(consigned

from)

Product

None

Reference

Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

Product

(consigned

from)

None

Reference

Product

Concluded: termination

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

(consigned

from)

Reference

None

ANNEX J

Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

(chronological by date of publication)

Product

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron

Initiated

Country of

origin

India

OJ Reference

C 151; 30.04.2018, p.57

Product

None

Concluded with increase of duty

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

Reference

Concluded without increase of duty / termination

Country of Regulation/Decision

Product

origin

N°

None

Reference

ANNEX K

Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

(chronological by date of publication)

Product

Initiated

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

(consigned

from)

OJ Reference

None

Product

Concluded with extension of duty

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

(consigned

from)

OJ Reference

None

Concluded without extension of duty / termination

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

Product

(consigned

from)

Hand pallet trucks and their ess.

parts

Vietnam

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/260

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1236

OJ Reference

L 49; 22.02.2018,

p.16

Citric Acid

Cambodia

L 231; 14.09.2018,

p.20

Product

Exemptions granted and/or rejected

Country of Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

(consigned

from)

OJ Reference

None

ANNEX L

Safeguard investigations initiated and concluded

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

(chronological by date of publication)

New investigations initiated (erga omnes)

OJ Reference

Product

Steel products

C 111; 26.03.2018, p.29

New investigations initiated (bilateral)

Country of origin

Product

Indica rice

Cambodia

Myanmar

OJ Reference

C 100; 16.03.2018, p.30

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures (erga omnes)

Country of origin

Regulation/

Product

Decision N°

Reference

None

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures (bilateral)

Country of origin

Regulation/

Product

Decision N°

Reference

None

Product

None

Issue of licences

Country of origin

Regulation/

Decision N°

Reference

Product

None

Measures in force (erga omnes)

Country of origin

Date of expiry

Product

None

Measures in force (bilateral)

Country of origin

Date of expiry

ANNEX M

Undertakings accepted or repealed

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

(chronological by date of publication)

Undertakings accepted

Product

None

Undertakings withdrawn or repealed

Product

None

Undertakings which expired/lapsed

Product

None

Country of

origin

Original measure (s)

Reference

Country of

origin

Decision N°

Reference

Country of

origin

Decision N°

Reference

Undertakings rejected/terminated

Product

Country of

origin

Brazil

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-

alloy or other alloy steel

Iran

Russia

Ukraine

Decision N°

OJ Reference

Rejection

COMMISSION

DECISION (EU)

2018/351

L 67; 09.03.2018, p.46

(AD)

ANNEX N

Measures which expired / lapsed

during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018

(chronological by date of publication)

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Product

Solar panels (crystalline silicon

photovoltaic modules and key

components)

Country of

origin

Original measure

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2017/367

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1835

OJ Reference

P.R. China

NoE C310;

03.09.2018, p.4

Stainless steel

India

NoE C 402;

08.11.2018, p.6

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication)

Country of

origin

Product

Solar panels (crystalline silicon

photovoltaic modules and key

components)

Original measure

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2017/366

COMMISSION

REGULATION (EU)

2017/1482

OJ Reference

P. R. China

NoE C310;

03.09.2018, p.5

Stainless steel wires

India

NoE C 315;

07.09.2018, p.22

ANNEX O

Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2018

a. Ranked by product (alphabetical)

Case

Acesulfame potassium

Aluminium foil

Aluminium foil (rolls of less than 10 kg)

Aluminium radiators

Aluminium road wheels

Ammonium nitrate

Aspartame

Barium carbonate

Country

P.R. China

Russia

P.R. China

Russia

P.R. China

Extension

Bicycles

P.R. China

Bicycles

P.R. China

Indonesia

Malaysia

Sri Lanka

Tunisia

Cambodia

Pakistan

Philippines

Regulation

L 125, 21.05.2015, p. 15

L 287, 31.10.2015, p. 52

L332;18.12.2015, p.63

Extension (circum.)

L 40; 17.02.2017, p.51

L 175, 04.07.2015, p. 14

L 332; 18.12.2015, p 91

L 251, 18.09.2012, p. 29

L 69, 13.03.2013, p. 11

L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 17

L 310, 09.11.2012, p. 1

L 18; 24.01.2017, p.1

L 280, 24.09.2014, p. 19

L41; 18.02.2016, p.13

L 50; 26.02.2016, p.4

L 204; 29.07.2016, p.92

L 27; 28.01.2005, p.4

L189; 18.07.2005. p.15

L 250; 28.09.2017, p.34

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 17

Amendment

L 47; 24.02.2017, p.13

Extension (circum.)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1

Extension (circum.)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1

Extension (circum.)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1

Extension (circum.)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1

Extension (circum.)

L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4

Extension (circum.)

L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4

Extension (circum.)

L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4

Bicycles (parts)

P.R. China

China

(bicycle

parts)

Biodiesel

Bioethanol

Cast iron articles

USA

P.R. China

Canada

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware

P.R. China

Ceramic tiles

P.R. China

Certain corrosion resistant steels

Chamois leather

Citric acid

Citrus fruits

P.R. China

Malaysia

Coated fine paper

Cold-rolled flat steel products

Ferro-silicon

Filament glass fibre products

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-

electrical steel

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-

electrical steel

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-

electrical steel

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-

electrical steel

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-

electrical steel

P.R. China

Russia

P.R. China

USA

Russia

Korea (Rep.

of)

Japan

P.R. China

C 299, 05.09.2014, p. 7

L 132, 29.05.2015, p. 32

Amendment

L 331, 17.12.2015, p.30

L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 69

Amendment

L 116; 30.04.2016, p.31

L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1

L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 10

L 211; 17.08.2017, p.14

L 25; 30.01.2018, p.6

L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 28

L 131, 15.05.2013, p. 1

Amendment

L 314; 30.11.2017, p.31

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 67, 12.03.2015, p. 23

L 307; 23.11.2017, p.25

L 207; 10.08.2017, p.1

L 34; 08.02.2018, p.16

L 334, 06.12.2012, p. 31

L 10; 15.01.2016, p.3

L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 15

Reopening

L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 29

L 354, 11.12.2014, p. 17

L 299; 16.11.2010, p.7

L 128; 06.05.2011, p.1

L 171; 04.07.2017, p.168

L 37; 12.02.2016, p.1

L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1

L 37; 12.02.2016, p.1

L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1

L 107, 10.04.2014, p. 13

L 243; 16.09.2010, p.40

L 67; 15.03.2011, p.1

L 107; 25.04.2017, p.4

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

Graphite electrode systems

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts

India

P.R. China

Thailand

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts

P.R. China

Heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel

High fatigue performance steel concrete

reinforcement bars

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or

other alloy steel

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or

other alloy steel

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or

other alloy steel

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or

other alloy steel

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or

other alloy steel

Ironing boards

Lever arch mechanisms

Manganese Dioxides

Melamine

Molybdenum wires

P.R. China

Ukraine

Russia

Iran

Brazil

P.R. China

South Africa

P.R. China

Malaysia

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.46

L 151; 11.06.2009, p.1

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 112, 24.04.2013, p. 1

Amendment (newcomer)

L 265, 05.09.2014, p. 7

Extension (circum.)

L 214; 09.08.2016, p.1

L 50; 28.02.2017, p.18

L 23; 29.01.2016, p.16

L 204; 29.07.2016, p.70

L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24

L 272; 07.10.2016, p.33

L 92; 06.04.2017, p.68

L 338; 20.12.2010, p.22

Reopening

L 297, 26.10.2012, p. 5

L 198, 23.07.2013, p. 1

L 238, 04.09.2012, p.5

L 279; 09.11.2018, p.17

L 59, 28.02.2014, p. 7

L 298; 15.11.2010, p.10

L 124; 10.05.2011, p.2

L 170; 01.07.2017, p.62

Extension (circum.)

L8, 12.01.2012, p. 22

Extension (circum.)

L 243, 12.09.2013, P. 2

Extension (circum.)

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 100

L 170; 19.06.2016, p.19

L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 31

L 246, 21.08.2014, p. 1

L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 54

L 116; 07.05.2018, p.8

L 263; 22.10.2018, p.3

L 181; 17.05.2004, p.5

L 336; 02.11.2004, p.4

L 92; 06.04.2017, p.48

Molybdenum wires

P.R. China

Monosodium glutamate

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries

Okoumé plywood

P.R. China

Indonesia

P.R. China

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

Organic coated steel

Oxalic acid

Peroxosulphates

Polyester high tenacity filament yarn

PSC wires and strands

P.R. China

India

P.R. China

India

Indonesia

Thailand

Taiwan

Malaysia

Rebars

Ringbinder mechanisms

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel

Belarus

P.R. China

Ukraine

Laos

Vietnam

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel

Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel

Seamless pipes, of iron or steel, external

diameter exceeding 406.4 mm

Silicon metal (silicon)

Russia

P.R. China

Taiwan

Korea

(Rep. of)

Extension (circum.)

L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20

Extension (circum.)

L 236, 10.09.2015, p. 1

L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20

Extension (circum.)

L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1

Extension (circum.)

L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1

Extension (circum.)

L 196, 24.07.2012, p. 1

L 204; 09.08.2011, p.1

Expiry review

L 288; 07.11.2017, p.4

L 252, 19.09.2012, p. 33

L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 1

L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1

L 321; 29.11.2016, p.48

L 165; 02.07.2018, p.13

L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1

L 165; 02.07.2018, p.13

L 338, 17.12.2013, p. 11

L 49; 25.02.2017, p.6

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 297, 26.10.2012, p.1

L 139, 05.06.2015, p. 12

L 345; 20.12.2016; p.4

L 155; 17.06.2017, p.6

L 7; 12.01.2006, p.1

L 232; 28.06.2004, p.1

L 122; 12.05.2016, p.1

L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 238, 04.09.2012, p. 1

L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5

L 357, 28.12.2012, p. 1

L 322, 08.12.2015, p. 21

L 169; 27.06.2011, p.1

L 336; 14.12.2011, p.6

L 63, 06.03.2018, p. 15

L 305; 12.11.2016, p.1

L 121; 12.05.2017, p.3

Extension (circum.)

L 95, 05.04.2013, p. 1

L 13; 15.01.2007, p.1

L 179; 05.07.2016, p.1

Sodium cyclamate

Sodium gluconate

P.R. China

Indonesia

P.R. China

Solar glass

P.R. China

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding

fittings

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding

fittings

Taiwan

P.R. China

Taiwan

P.R. China

L 192; 16.07.2016, p.23

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 1

L 192; 16.07.2016, p.49

L 16; 20.01.2017, p.3

L 316, 27.11.2013, p. 8

L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 1

Amendment

L 98, 15.04.2015, p. 6

Amendment (absorption

reinvestigation)

L 215, 14.08.2015, p. 42

L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23

L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10

L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23

L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14

L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1

Amendment (newcomer)

L 138, 13.05.2014, p. 80

Amendment

L 139, 14.05.2014, p.7

L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1

L 101; 20.04.2018, p.40

L 363, 18.02.2014, p. 82

L 244, 13.09.2013, p. 1

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 91, 27.03.2014, p. 1

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 108, 20.04.2012, p. 1

L 110, 24.04.2012, p. 3

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 182, 13.07.2012, p. 1

L 164; 29.06.2018, p.14

L 310; 17.11.2016, p.1

L 114; 03.05.2017, p.3

L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10

L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1

L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10

L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1

Steel ropes and cables

P.R. China

Korea

(Rep. of)

Morocco

Steel ropes and cables

Sulphanilic acid

Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in kernels)

P.R. China

Thailand

Tartaric Acid

P.R. China

Thermal paper

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of

malleable cast iron

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of

malleable cast iron

Korea (Rep.

of)

Thailand

P.R. China

Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA)

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel

P.R. China

Turkey

Russia

P.R. China

Malaysia

Philippines

Sri Lanka

Indonesia

Taiwan

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel

Korea (Rep.

of)

India

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron

Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide

P.R. China

Tungsten electrodes

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy

steel

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy

steel

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy

steel

Wire rod

P.R. China

Russia

P.R. China

Belarus

P.R. China

Amendment (newcomer)

L 157, 27.05.2014, p. 80

L 319; 05.12.2017, p.10

L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37

L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1

L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37

L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1

L 116; 27.04.2006, p.1

L 355; 22.11.2004, p.9

L 335; 22.11.2004, p.4

L 94; 14.04.2000, p.1

L 282, 28.10.2015, p. 14

L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L58; 04.03.2016, p.38

L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L58; 04.03.2016, p.38

L 244, 19.09.2015, p. 25

L 73; 18.03.2016, p.53

Initiation

C 322; 15.12.1988, p.7

L 395; 31.12.2004, p.56

L 78; 24.03.2011, p.1

L 142; 02.06.2017, p.53

L 150, 04.06.2013, p. 1

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6

L 268, 15.10.2015, p. 9

Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2018

b. Ranked by country (alphabetical)

Country

Belarus

Cases

Extension

Regulation

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel

Belarus

Rebars

L 345; 20.12.2016; p.4

L 155; 17.06.2017, p.6

Brazil

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy

steel

Oxalic acid

L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24

L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1

L 165; 02.07.2018, p.13

India

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron

L 244, 19.09.2015, p. 25

L 73; 18.03.2016, p.53

India

Graphite electrode systems

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.46

Indonesia

Sodium cyclamate

L 192; 16.07.2016, p.49

Indonesia

Monosodium glutamate

L 246, 21.08.2014, p. 1

L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 54

Iran

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy

steel

L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24

Japan

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

Korea (Rep.

of)

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel

L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L58; 04.03.2016, p.38

Korea (Rep.

of)

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

Korea (Rep.

of)

Thermal paper

L 310; 17.11.2016, p.1

L 114; 03.05.2017, p.3

Malaysia

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel

L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L58; 04.03.2016, p.38

P.R. China

Acesulfame potassium

L 125, 21.05.2015, p. 15

L 287, 31.10.2015, p. 52

P.R. China

Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide

Initiation

C 322; 15.12.1988, p.7

L 395; 31.12.2004, p.56

L 78; 24.03.2011, p.1

L 142; 02.06.2017, p.53

P.R. China

Aspartame

L 50; 26.02.2016, p.4

L 204; 29.07.2016, p.92

P.R. China

Barium carbonate

L 27; 28.01.2005, p.4

L189; 18.07.2005. p.15

L 250; 28.09.2017, p.34

P.R. China

Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA)

Amendment (newcomer)

L 157, 27.05.2014, p. 80

L 319; 05.12.2017, p.10

P.R. China

Tartaric Acid

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 108, 20.04.2012, p. 1

L 110, 24.04.2012, p. 3

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 182, 13.07.2012, p. 1

L 164; 29.06.2018, p.14

P.R. China

Sulphanilic acid

Sodium gluconate

Sodium cyclamate

L 363, 18.02.2014, p. 82

L 16; 20.01.2017, p.3

L 192; 16.07.2016, p.23

P.R. China

Sodium cyclamate

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 1

L 192; 16.07.2016, p.49

P.R. China

Oxalic acid

L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1

L 321; 29.11.2016, p.48

L 165; 02.07.2018, p.13

P.R. China

Monosodium glutamate

Citric acid

Malaysia

L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 31

L 10; 15.01.2016, p.3

L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 15

P.R. China

Melamine

L 298; 15.11.2010, p.10

L 124; 10.05.2011, p.2

L 170; 01.07.2017, p.62

L 268, 15.10.2015, p. 9

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6

L 116; 27.04.2006, p.1

L 355; 22.11.2004, p.9

L 335; 22.11.2004, p.4

L 94; 14.04.2000, p.1

L 282, 28.10.2015, p. 14

L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10

L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Wire rod

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel

Philippines

Sri Lanka

Indonesia

Taiwan

P.R. China

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron

P.R. China

Steel ropes and cables

Korea (Rep.

of)

L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1

Amendment (newcomer)

L 138, 13.05.2014, p. 80

Amendment

L 139, 14.05.2014, p.7

P.R. China

Steel ropes and cables

Morocco

L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1

P.R. China

Steel ropes and cables

L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1

L 101; 20.04.2018, p.40

P.R. China

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14

P.R. China

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products

L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23

L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10

P.R. China

Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel

L 169; 27.06.2011, p.1

L 336; 14.12.2011, p.6

L 63, 06.03.2018, p. 15

P.R. China

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel

L 322, 08.12.2015, p. 21

P.R. China

Seamless pipes, of iron or steel, external diameter

exceeding 406.4 mm

L 305; 12.11.2016, p.1

L 121; 12.05.2017, p.3

P.R. China

PSC wires and strands

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 297, 26.10.2012, p.1

L 139, 05.06.2015, p. 12

P.R. China

Peroxosulphates

L 338, 17.12.2013, p. 11

P.R. China

Cast iron articles

L 211; 17.08.2017, p.14

L 25; 30.01.2018, p.6

P.R. China

Organic coated steel

L 252, 19.09.2012, p. 33

L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Cold-rolled flat steel products

L 37; 12.02.2016, p.1

L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1

P.R. China

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy

steel

L 272; 07.10.2016, p.33

L 92; 06.04.2017, p.68

P.R. China

High fatigue performance steel concrete reinforcement

bars

L 23; 29.01.2016, p.16

L 204; 29.07.2016, p.70

P.R. China

Heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel

L 50; 28.02.2017, p.18

P.R. China

Certain corrosion resistant steels

L 207; 10.08.2017, p.1

L 34; 08.02.2018, p.16

P.R. China

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

P.R. China

Solar glass

L 316, 27.11.2013, p. 8

L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 1

Amendment

L 98, 15.04.2015, p. 6

Amendment (absorption

reinvestigation)

L 215, 14.08.2015, p. 42

P.R. China

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

India

Extension (circum.)

L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20

Extension (circum.)

L 236, 10.09.2015, p. 1

P.R. China

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

Indonesia

L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20

P.R. China

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

Thailand

Extension (circum.)

L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

Taiwan

Extension (circum.)

L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

Malaysia

Extension (circum.)

L 196, 24.07.2012, p. 1

P.R. China

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

L 204; 09.08.2011, p.1

Expiry review

L 288; 07.11.2017, p.4

P.R. China

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries

L 116; 07.05.2018, p.8

L 263; 22.10.2018, p.3

P.R. China

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware

L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 28

L 131, 15.05.2013, p. 1

Amendment

L 314; 30.11.2017, p.31

P.R. China

Ceramic tiles

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 67, 12.03.2015, p. 23

L 307; 23.11.2017, p.25

P.R. China

Chamois leather

L 334, 06.12.2012, p. 31

P.R. China

Citrus fruits

Reopening

L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 29

L 354, 11.12.2014, p. 17

P.R. China

Ironing boards

L 338; 20.12.2010, p.22

P.R. China

Ironing boards

Reopening

L 297, 26.10.2012, p. 5

L 198, 23.07.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Filament glass fibre products

L 243; 16.09.2010, p.40

L 67; 15.03.2011, p.1

L 107; 25.04.2017, p.4

P.R. China

Aluminium radiators

L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 17

L 310, 09.11.2012, p. 1

P.R. China

Aluminium road wheels

L 18; 24.01.2017, p.1

P.R. China

Bicycles

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 17

Amendment

L 47; 24.02.2017, p.13

P.R. China

Bicycles

Indonesia

Extension (circum.)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Bicycles

Malaysia

Extension (circum.)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Bicycles

Sri Lanka

Extension (circum.)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Bicycles

Tunisia

Extension (circum.)

L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Bicycles

Cambodia

Extension (circum.)

L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4

P.R. China

Bicycles

Pakistan

Extension (circum.)

L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4

P.R. China

Bicycles

Philippines

Extension (circum.)

L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4

P.R. China

Bicycles (parts)

China

(bicycle

parts)

C 299, 05.09.2014, p. 7

L 132, 29.05.2015, p. 32

Amendment

L 331, 17.12.2015, p.30

P.R. China

Ringbinder mechanisms

Laos

Vietnam

L 7; 12.01.2006, p.1

L 232; 28.06.2004, p.1

L 122; 12.05.2016, p.1

P.R. China

Lever arch mechanisms

L 238, 04.09.2012, p.5

L 279; 09.11.2018, p.17

P.R. China

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts

Thailand

L 151; 11.06.2009, p.1

P.R. China

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 112, 24.04.2013, p. 1

Amendment (newcomer)

L 265, 05.09.2014, p. 7

Extension (circum.)

L 214; 09.08.2016, p.1

P.R. China

Aluminium foil

L332;18.12.2015, p.63

Extension (circum.)

L 40; 17.02.2017, p.51

P.R. China

Tungsten electrodes

L 150, 04.06.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Aluminium foil (rolls of less than 10 kg)

L 251, 18.09.2012, p. 29

L 69, 13.03.2013, p. 11

P.R. China

Silicon metal (silicon)

Taiwan

Extension (circum.)

L 95, 05.04.2013, p. 1

P.R. China

Silicon metal (silicon)

Korea (Rep.

of)

L 13; 15.01.2007, p.1

P.R. China

Silicon metal (silicon)

L 179; 05.07.2016, p.1

P.R. China

Molybdenum wires

Malaysia

Extension (circum.)

L8, 12.01.2012, p. 22

P.R. China

Molybdenum wires

Extension (circum.)

L 243, 12.09.2013, P. 2

Extension (circum.)

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 100

L 170; 19.06.2016, p.19

P.R. China

Ferro-silicon

L 107, 10.04.2014, p. 13

P.R. China

Polyester high tenacity filament yarn

L 49; 25.02.2017, p.6

P.R. China

Okoumé plywood

L 181; 17.05.2004, p.5

L 336; 02.11.2004, p.4

L 92; 06.04.2017, p.48

P.R. China

Coated fine paper

L 299; 16.11.2010, p.7

L 128; 06.05.2011, p.1

L 171; 04.07.2017, p.168

Russia

Ammonium nitrate

L 280, 24.09.2014, p. 19

L41; 18.02.2016, p.13

Russia

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6

Russia

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel

L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37

L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1

Russia

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel

L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5

L 357, 28.12.2012, p. 1

Russia

Cold-rolled flat steel products

L 37; 12.02.2016, p.1

L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1

Russia

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy

steel

L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24

Russia

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

Russia

Aluminium foil

L 175, 04.07.2015, p. 14

L 332; 18.12.2015, p 91

L 107, 10.04.2014, p. 13

L 59, 28.02.2014, p. 7

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14

Russia

South Africa

Taiwan

Ferro-silicon

Manganese Dioxides

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings

Taiwan

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products

L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23

L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10

Thailand

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron

L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10

L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1

Thailand

Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in kernels)

L 244, 13.09.2013, p. 1

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 91, 27.03.2014, p. 1

Turkey

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel

L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37

L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1

Ukraine

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel

L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 238, 04.09.2012, p. 1

Ukraine

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy

steel

L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24

USA

Biodiesel

L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 69

Amendment

L 116; 30.04.2016, p.31

USA

Biodiesel

Canada

L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1

USA

Bioethanol

L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 10

USA

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10

L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109

ANNEX P

Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2018

A. Ranked by product (alphabetical)

Case

Biodiesel

Country

USA

Extension

Canada

Regulation

L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1

L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 99

Amendment

L 116; 30.04.2016, p.27

L 128; 06.05.2011, p.18

L 171; 04.07.2017,

p.134

L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 22

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.10

L 146; 09.06.2017, p.17

L 283; 12.11.2018, p.1

L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 16

L 208, 05.08.2015, p. 10

L 319, 06.11.2014, p. 1

L 56, 27.02.2015, p. 12

L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 23

Amendment ((partial)

interim review)

L 202, 27.07.2013, p. 2

L 165; 28.06.2017, p.2

L 73; 18.03.2016, p.1

Biodiesel

USA

Coated fine paper

Filament glass fibre products

Graphite electrode systems

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries

Organic coated steel

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

Rainbow trout

Solar glass

P.R. China

India

P.R. China

India

Turkey

P.R. China

Stainless steel bars

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron

India

100

B. Ranked by country (alphabetical)

Country

India

Cases

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

Graphite electrode systems

Extension

Regulation

L 208, 05.08.2015, p. 10

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.10

Amendment ((partial) interim

review)

L 202, 27.07.2013, p. 2

L 165; 28.06.2017, p.2

L 73; 18.03.2016, p.1

L 128; 06.05.2011, p.18

L 171; 04.07.2017, p.134

L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 22

L 146; 09.06.2017, p.17

L 283; 12.11.2018, p.1

L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 16

L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 23

L 319, 06.11.2014, p. 1

L 56, 27.02.2015, p. 12

Canada

L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1

L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 99

Amendment

L 116; 30.04.2016, p.27

India

Stainless steel bars

India

P.R. China

Turkey

USA

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron

Coated fine paper

Filament glass fibre products

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or

other alloy steel

New and retreaded tyres for buses or

lorries

Organic coated steel

Solar glass

Rainbow trout

Biodiesel

101

ANNEX Q

Undertakings in force on 31 December 2018

A. Ranked by product (alphabetical)

Product

Origin

Measure

Decision N°

Commission Implementing

Decision (EU) 2015/87

OJ Reference

L 15

22.01.2015, p. 75

L 122; 12.05.2016,

p.19

(amendment)

Citric acid

P.R. China

Undertakings

B. Ranked by country (alphabetical)

Origin

Product

Measure

Decision N°

OJ Reference

L 15

22.01.2015, p. 75

L 122; 12.05.2016,

p.19

(amendment)

P.R. China

Citric acid

Undertakings

Commission Implementing

Decision (EU) 2015/87

102

ANNEX R

Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2018

(including cases where provisional measures were imposed)

A. New investigations (ranked by product

–

in alphabetical order)

Case

Biodiesel

E-bicycles

Hollow sections

Hot rolled sheet steel piles

Solar glass

Urea ammonium nitrate solutions

Indica Rice

Steel products

Case No

AS650

AS644

AD643

AS646

AD651

AD647

AD648

AD649

SAFE008

SAFE009

AD/AS/SFG Country

SFG

Indonesia

Argentina

P.R. China

Russia

Turkey

North Macedonia

P.R. China

Malaysia

USA

Trinidad and Tobago

Russia

Myanmar

Cambodia

erga omnes

Regulation

C 439; 06.12.2018, p.16

C 34; 31.01.2018, p.37

C 353; 20.10.2017, p.19

C 440; 21.12.2017, p.22

C 347; 28.09.2018, p.6

C 177; 24.05.2018, p.6

C 174; 23.05.2018, p.8

C 284; 13.08.2018, p.9

C 100; 16.03.2018, p.30

C 111; 26.03.2018, p.29

103

B. Review investigations (ranked by product - in alphabetical order)

Case

Aluminium foil (rolls of less than 10 kg)

Aluminium radiators

Bicycles

Bioethanol

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware

Chamois leather

Ironing boards

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

Organic coated steel

Peroxosulphates (persulphates)

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel

Solar panels and key components

Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in

kernels)

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of

malleable cast iron

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of

malleable cast iron

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron

Tungsten electrodes

Case No AD/AS Country

R684

R676

R688

R681

R687

R678

R693

R660

R683

R686

R697

R664

R694

R663

R689

R677

R695

R692

R682

R690

R691

R696

R685

P.R. China

USA

P.R. China

India

P.R. China

India

Ukraine

Malaysia

Thailand

P.R. China

Malaysia

Korea (Rep. of)

Russia

Turkey

India

P.R. China

Regulation

C 95; 13.03.2018, p.8

C 377; 09.11.2017, p.11

C 189; 04.06.2018, p.18

C 64; 20.02.2018, p.7

C 167; 15.05.2018, p.6

C 416; 06.12.2017, p.15

C 253; 19.07.2018, p.30

L 226; 01.09.2017, p.1

C 96; 14.03.2018, p.8

C 96; 14.03.2018, p.21

C 454; 17.12.2018, p.7

C 216; 06.07.2017, p.30

C 173; 22.05.2018, p.9

C 216; 06.07.2017, p.26

C 159; 07.05.2018, p.18

L 288; 07.11.2017, p.30

C 322; 12.09.2018, p.4

C 162; 08.05.2018, p.11

C 31; 27.01.2018, p.16

C157; 04.05.2018, p.3

C 151; 30.04.2018, p.57

C 437; 04.12.2018, p.32

C 186; 31.05.2018, p. 13

104

C. Reinvestigations (ranked by product - in alphabetical order)

Case

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres

Tartaric Acid

Case No

R605b

R529a

AD/AS

Country

India

P.R. China

Regulation

C 171; 18.05.2018, p.10

C 296; 07.09.2017, p.16

105

ANNEX S

Court cases

Court cases pending before the Court of Justice and the General Court on 31

December 2018

Court of Justice

C-465/16 P

C-466/16 P

C-612/16

C-236/17 P

C-237/17 P

C-644/17

C-709/17 P

C-144/18

C-345/18P

C-436/18P

C-461/18P

C-251/18

C-226/18

Council v Growth Energy and Renewable fuels association (appeal T-276/13)

Council v Marquis Energy LLC (appeal T-277/13)

C&J Clark International (preliminary ruling)

Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council (appeal T-162/14)

Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council (appeal T-163/14)

Eurobolt (preliminary ruling)

Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (appeal T-435/15)

River Kwai International Food Industry v AETMD (appeal T-460/14)

CaviroDistillerie and Others v European Commission (appeal against T-211/16)

Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission (appeal against T-675/15)

Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Distillerie Bonollo and Others et Conseil

(appeal against T-431/12)

Trace Sport (preliminary ruling)

Krohn & Schröder (preliminary ruling)

General Court

T-607/15

T-300/16

T-301/16

T-310/16

T-631/16

T-741/16

T-749/16

T-752/16

T-753/16

T-781/16

T-782/16

T-861/16

T-790/16

T-154/17

Yieh United Steel (Yusco) v Commission

Jindal v Commission

Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd v Commission

Remag Metallhandel GmbH and Werner Jaschinsky v Commission

Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd

Stemcor v Commission

NLMK v Commission

Severstal v Commission

Puma v Commission

Timberland v Commission

C & J Clark International Ltd v Commission

Deichmann v Commission

106

T-155/17

T-204/17

T-228/17

T-110/17

T-347/17

T-383/17

T-500/17

T-650/17

T-469/07 DEP

T-835/17

T-254/18

T-307/18

T-426/18

T-586/14 RENV

T-425/13 DEP

T-24/18

T-124/18

T-126/18

T-127/18

T-157/18

T-541/18

Van Haren Schoenen v Commission

Alfa Laval v Commission

Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission

Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission

FLA Europe v Commission

Hansol paper v Commission

Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission

Jinan Meide v Commission

Philips Lighting Poland and Philips Lighting v Council

The European Steel Association (Eurofer) v European Commission

China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic

Products and Others v Commission

Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals v Commission

Bizbike and Hartmobile v Commission

Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) v Commission

Giant (China) v Council

Adidas International Trading and Others v Commission

Wendel and Others v Commission

van Haren Schoenen v Commission

Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission

Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission

Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission

107

Judgments, orders or other decisions rendered in 2018

Court of Justice

C-61/16P

C-602/16 P

C-603/16 P

C-604/16 P

C-605/16 P

C-606/16 P

C-607/16 P

C-608/16P

C-609/16 P

C-301/16 P

C-256/16

C-363/17 P

C-631/16

C-100/17 P

C-145/17 P

C-207/17

C-592/17

European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) v Giant (China) Co. Ltd

Council v Unitec Bio SÁ, Commission and European

Biodiesel Board (appeal T-111/14)

Council v PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia

(appeal T-139/14)

Council v PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri (appeal T-121/14)

Council v PT Ciliandra Perkasa (appeal T-120/14)

Council v PT Musim Mas (appeal T-80/14)

Council v Molino Rio de la Plata SA e.a., Commission and European Biodiesel

Board (appeals T-112/14 to T-116/14 and T-119/14)

Council v Cargill S.A.C.I., Commission and European Biodiesel Board (appeal T-

117/14)

Council v LDC Argentina SA, Commission and European Biodiesel Board (appeal

T-118/14)

Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (appeal in T-586/14)

Deichmann (preliminary ruling)

Equipolymers and Others v Council (appeal T-422/13)

X BV (preliminary ruling)

Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council (appeal T-199/04 REN)

International de Productos Metalicos v Commission (appeal T-217/16)

Rotho Blaas (preliminary ruling)

Baby Dan (preliminary ruling)

General Court

T-211/16

T-442/16

T-462/15

T-675/15

T-431/12

T-654/16

T-230/16

T-364/16

T-487/14

T-113/15

Caviro Distillerie and others v Commission (appeal case before the Court of

Justice C-345/18 P)

Šroubárna �½dánice v EU (claim for damages)

Asia Leader v Commission

Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission (appeal case before the Court of

Justice C-436/18 P)

Distillerie Bonollo SpA v Council (appeal case before the Court of Justice C-

461/18 P)

Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd v Commission

C&J Clarks v Commission

ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Commission

CHEMK v Commission

RFA International v Commission

108

ANNEX T

Safeguard measures in force on 31 December 2018

A. Safeguard measures

List of safeguard measures in force

Country of

Regulation/Decision

origin

N°

Erga omnes

COMMISSION

IMPLEMENTING

REGULATION (EU)

2018/1013

Product

Steel products

Reference

L 181;

18.07.2018;

p.39

109

ANNEX U

Third countries’ measures targeting the EU

A. New investigations initiated by third countries in 2018

Country

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Canada

Chile

China

Costa Rica

Eurasian Economic

Union

Gulf Cooperation

Council

Gulf Cooperation

Council

Product

Boilers for central heating with capacity

equals to or lower than 200.000 kcal/h

Electric disconnectors

Radiators

Ammonium nitrate

A4 Copy paper

Railway wheels

Silicon electrical steel

Nitisinone capsules

Certain steel products

Milk powder and cheese

Phenol

Stainless Steel Billet and Hot-rolled Stainless

Steel Plate (Coil)

Steel bars

Instrument

Initiation

Date

25-09-2018

14-06-2018

29-06-2018

25-06-2018

19-03-2018

18-04-2018

10-05-2018

21-09-2018

11-10-2018

08-03-2018

26-03-2018

23-07-2018

29-03-2018

Spain,

Netherlands

Exporting MS

Italy, Slovakia

Italy

Spain, Italy

Sweden

Austria,

Slovakia,

Finland

France

Germany

Sweden

Germany,

France,

Netherlands

Certain rolled steel

07-08-2018

Chemical plasticizer (prepared additives for

cement, mortars or concretes

ceramic flags and paving, hearth, floor or wall

tiles, finishing ceramics

20-06-2018

05-11-2018

Belgium,

Germany, Italy,

Finland,

Sweden

India

Indonesia

Korea/South

Madagascar

Morocco

Coated paper

Di Methyl Formamide

High Speed Steel of Non-Cobalt Grade

Epoxy resin

aluminium foil

Ceramic tiles and mosaic

Stainless steel bar

Blankets

Pasta

Wooden panels

23-01-2018

22-01-2018

14-08-2018

04-04-2018

09-10-2018

29-03-2018

18-05-2018

20-09-2018

31-07-2018

Italy

110

Pakistan

Philippines

South Africa

Turkey

Ukraine

United States

Tinplate of a width of 600 mm or more and of

a thickness of less than 0.5 mm

Ceramic tiles

Cement

Screws made of steel with hexagon heads

AC woven fabrics of yarn and fibres

Steel and steel products

Acrylic or modacrylic synthetic filament tow

20-08-2018

20-12-2018

10-09-2018

20-04-2018

07-09-2018

27-04-2018

21-03-2018

27-04-2018

11-10-2018

05-09-2018

20-02-2018

Poland

Germany

France, Austria

Greece

Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs

Strontium Chromate

Large Diameter Welded Pipes

111

B. New investigations initiated by third countries in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018

2015

Argentina

Australia

Belarus

Brazil

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Ecuador

Egypt

Eurasian Economic

Union

Gulf Cooperation

Council

India

Indonesia

Israel

Jordan

Korea

Lebanon

Madagascar

Malaysia

Mexico

Morocco

Pakistan

Phillippines

South Africa

Thailand

Tunisia

Turkey

Ukraine

USA

Vietnam

Zambia

TOTAL

2016

2017

2018

2015

2016

2017

2018

2015

2016

2017

2018

2015

2016

2017

2018

112

C. Measures imposed by third countries in 2018

Type Of

Measure

Date Of

Imposition

Country

Product

Instrument

Exporting MS

Australia

Brazil

Canada

China

Colombia

Gulf

Cooperation

Council

India

Korea/South

Mexico

South Africa

Ammonium nitrate

Railway wheels

A4 Copy paper

Steel reinforcing bar

Nitrile Rubber

Certain steel products

Nitisinone capsules

halogenated butyl rubber

Frozen fries

Flat rolled products of iron or non-

alloy steel

Synthetic Filament Yarn of Nylon

Wooden flooring

Solar Cells whether or not

assembled in modules or panels

Stainless steel bar

Coated printing paper

Seamless carbon steel pipes

Frozen chicken BSG

screws made of steel with

hexagon heads

Toothbrushes

steel and steel products

Sodium Percarbonate

Sulphuric acid and oleum

Ripe Olives

citric acid, sodium citrate, and

potassium citrate (also in blends

under HS 382499)

Certain carbon and alloy steel

wire rod

Certain carbon and alloy steel

wire rod

crystalline silicon photovoltaic

(CSPV) cells (whether or not

partially or fully assembled into

other products)

Large residential washers (LRWs)

and certain parts thereof

Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical

Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel

Forged steel fittings

Large Diameter Welded Pipes

Provisional

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

25-10-2018

18-06-2018

18-05-2018

06-03-2018

02-03-2018

25-10-2018

20-12-2018

20-04-2018

09-11-2018

15-05-2018

06-10-2018

27-03-2018

30-07-2018

16-11-2018

22-07-2018

04-04-2018

28-09-2018

Sweden

France

Austria, Slovakia,

Finland

Greece, Spain

France

Sweden

Belgium, United

Kingdom

Belgium, Germany,

Netherlands

Belgium, Germany, Italy

Denmark, Germany,

Spain, Italy, Lithuania,

Poland

Germany, France

Italy

Finland

Spain

Belgium, Denmark,

Germany, Ireland,

Netherlands, Poland,

United Kingdom

South Africa

Turkey

Ukraine

United States

CVD

Provisional

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

01-08-2018

03-02-2018

02-10-2018

02-03-2018

01-09-2018

18-01-2018

01-08-2018

02-01-2018

20-03-2018

19-03-2018

Germany, Sweden

Spain

Belgium

Spain, Italy, United

Kingdom

Italy

United States

Definitive

07-02-2018

Germany, Italy

Germany, Spain, Italy,

Sweden

Germany, Italy

Italy

Greece

United States

Definitive

Provisional

07-02-2018

10-04-2018

14-05-2018

27-08-2018

113

D. Measures imposed by third countries in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018

2015

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Dominican

republic

Ecuador

Egypt

Eurasian

Economic Union

GCC

India

Indonesia

Jordan

Korea

Malaysia

Mexico

Morocco

Philippines

South Africa

Thailand

Turkey

Ukraine

United States

Vietnam

Zambia

TOTAL

2016

2017

2018

2015

2016

2017

2018

2015

2016

2017

2018

2015

2016

2017

2018

114

E. Third countries’ measures in force at the end of 2015, 2016, 2017

and 2018

Country

CVD

TOTAL

2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018 2015 2016 2017 2018

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Canada

Chile

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Dominican Republic

Ecuador

Egypt

Eurasian Economic Union

GCC

India

Indonesia

Japan

Jordan

Korea

Lebanon

Malaysia

Mexico

Morocco

New Zealand

Pakistan

Philippines

South Africa

Thailand

Turkey

Ukraine

USA

Vietnam

Zambia

TOTAL

108

116

125

133

150

156

162

174

115

F. Detail of third countries’ measures in force at the end of 2018

Country

Argentina

Australia

Brazil

Canada

Product

Ceramic borders

Coated paper

Electrical terminals

PVC profiles

Straight handsaw blades

A4 Copy paper

Ammonium nitrate

Chrome bars

Prepared or preserved tomato

products (all other exporters)

Processed dried currants

Processed tomatoes

Q&T Steel Plate

Railway wheels

Steel Reinforcing Bar

Steel reinforcing bar

Adipic Acid

Butyl Acrylate

Elastomeric rubber pipes

Ethanolamines and

triethanolamines

Frozen fries

Galvanized steel wire

Glazed papers

Laminated steel

Lightweight paper

Milk powder

Monobutyl ethers of ethylene

glycol

Nitrile Rubber

Offset printing plates

Phenol

Plastic Tubes for Blood Collection

Seamless steel pipes

Certain fabricated industrial steel

components

Certain steel products

Copper tubes

Hot-rolled carbon steel plate and

high-strength low-alloy steel plate

Instrument

Type Of

Measure

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

Date Of

Imposition

02-07-2014

14-06-2012

02-04-2009

03-06-2014

21-02-2008

18-05-2018

25-10-2018

06-09-2016

16-04-2014

14-01-2009

11-02-2016

05-11-2014

18-06-2018

19-11-2015

06-03-2018

01-04-2015

25-09-2015

22-06-2015

04-11-2013

17-02-2017

30-01-2015

22-10-2008

04-10-2013

23-04-2012

23-02-2001

22-04-2016

13-08-2018

05-03-2015

16-10-2002

30-04-2015

07-10-2005

25-05-2017

25-10-2018

02-01-2014

09-01-2004

Exporting MS

Spain

Austria, Finland

Germany

Sweden

Austria, Slovakia,

Finland

Sweden

Romania

Italy

Greece

Italy

Finland, Sweden

France

Spain

Greece, Spain

Germany, France,

Italy

Germany

Germany, Italy

Germany

Belgium, Germany,

France,

Netherlands

Sweden

Finland

Germany, Finland

Belgium, Germany,

Finland, Sweden

Denmark, Ireland

Germany

France

Belgium, Germany,

United Kingdom

Belgium, Germany

Germany, United

Kingdom

Spain, United

Kingdom

Greece

Czech Republic,

Bulgaria, Romania

116

Canada

China

Nitisinone capsules

Rebar

Refined sugar

Steel plate

Adipic acid

Alloy Seamless Tubes

CVD

Provisional

Definitive

20-12-2018

03-01-2017

06-11-1995

04-06-2014

02-11-2009

10-05-2014

Sweden

Spain, Portugal

Denmark,

Germany,

Netherlands,

United Kingdom

European Union

Denmark, Italy

Germany, France,

Italy

Germany, France,

Italy

Czech Republic,

Germany, Spain,

Netherlands,

Poland

Germany, Spain,

France, Italy,

Netherlands,

Poland, Sweden,

United Kingdom

Germany, France,

European Union

Germany, France,

Sweden

Germany, Poland,

United Kingdom

Belgium, United

Kingdom

Denmark,

Germany, France,

Italy, Netherlands

Germany, France

Netherlands,

United Kingdom

Belgium, Germany,

Italy, Netherlands,

Poland

France, Italy,

United Kingdom

Germany, France,

Netherlands

Germany, France,

Netherlands

Germany

Austria, Finland,

Sweden, Bulgaria

Belgium, Germany,

Netherlands

Italy

Spain

China

Caprolactam

Definitive

22-09-2011

China

Certain iron or steel fasteners

Definitive

29-06-2010

China

Chloroprene Rubber

Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether

Grain oriented flat-rolled steel

(GOES)

halogenated butyl rubber

Definitive

10-05-2005

25-01-2013

23-07-2016

20-08-2018

China

Optical fiber

Perchlorethylene

Photographic paper

Definitive

22-04-2011

30-05-2014

23-03-2012

China

Polyamide-6 (PA6)

Definitive

22-04-2010

China

Colombia

Costa Rica

Dominican

Republic

Polyamide-6,6

Potato Starch

sugar

Toluidine

Unbleached sack paper

Frozen fries

Pounded Rice

Steel bars

CVD

Definitive

12-10-2009

17-09-2011

06-02-2007

22-05-2017

13-03-2013

09-04-2016

09-11-2018

19-02-2015

30-07-2014

117

Gulf Cooperation Flat rolled products of iron or non-

Council

alloy steel

India

2-Ethyl Hexanol

Acetone

Certain Rubber Chemicals

Definitive

15-05-2018

18-02-2016

11-03-2008

20-11-2005

Belgium, Germany,

Italy

Germany

Belgium, Spain,

Italy

Belgium, Germany,

Italy

Belgium, Germany,

Spain, Italy,

Netherlands,

Finland

Belgium, Spain,

France, Italy,

Netherlands,

Finland, Sweden,

United Kingdom

Belgium, Germany,

France,

Netherlands,

Austria, Portugal

India

Cold rolled steel 600 - 1250 mm

Definitive

24-10-2017

India

Cold-Rolled Flat Products of

Stainless Steel

Definitive

20-02-2010

India

Colour coated/pre-painted flat

products of alloy or non-alloy

steel

Flexible Slabstock Polyol

Hot rolled flat sheets and plates

thick =<150mm, width >= 600 mm

Methylene Chloride

Morpholine

Normal Butanol or N-Butyl

Alcohol

Phenol

Polyvinyl Chloride Suspension

Grade Resin

PVC paste resin

SBR - Styrene Butadiene Rubber

of 1500 series and 1700 series

Sodium Chlorate

Sodium Nitrate

Sodium nitrite

Solar Cells whether or not

assembled in modules or panels

Synthetic Filament Yarn of Nylon

Definitive

17-10-2017

India

Definitive

07-04-2015

23-11-2016

21-05-2014

24-01-2012

19-02-2016

08-03-2016

13-06-2014

07-10-2004

30-08-2017

02-11-2017

13-11-2014

29-11-2002

30-07-2018

Spain, Italy

Germany

Belgium, Spain,

Netherlands

Belgium, Germany,

France, Italy,

Austria, Sweden

Bulgaria

European Union

Germany, France

India

Definitive

06-10-2018

Denmark,

Germany, Spain,

Italy, Lithuania,

Poland

India

Indonesia

Japan

Wooden flooring

Flat rolled iron

H and I sections of other alloy

steel

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide

Definitive

27-03-2018

22-07-2014

21-01-2015

29-08-2008

Spain

118

Jordan

Korea/South

Lebanon

Malaysia

Aluminium bars, rods and profiles

Butyl Glycol Ether

Coated printing paper

Stainless steel bar

Sunflower and Soya Oil

steel concrete reinforcing bar

steel wire rods and deformed bar

in coils

Carbon steel tubes

carbon steel tubes with

longitudinal straight seam

Hot rolled steel coils

Seamless carbon steel pipes

Steel plate produced in Romania

Stranded wire ropes & cables

Bars and wire rods

Cold rolled steel sheets and

plated or coated sheets

Hot rolled steel sheets

Insulin

Paper A4

Paper reels and reams

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

15-05-2017

06-12-2016

22-07-2018

16-11-2018

16-05-2016

14-04-2017

Finland

Italy

France, Hungary

Germany, Austria,

Finland, United

Kingdom

Spain

United Kingdom

Germany, France

Spain

Malaysia

Mexico

Morocco

Definitive

15-04-2017

21-04-2016

06-01-2010

23-12-2015

04-04-2018

22-09-2005

27-02-2016

01-04-2014

07-09-2015

12-08-2014

03-02-2015

20-10-2014

01-01-2017

Spain, Portugal

Germany,

Portugal, Finland,

Sweden

Belgium, Germany,

Spain, France,

Portugal

Greece

Belgium

Italy

Belgium, Germany

Belgium, Germany,

Sweden

Germany,

Netherlands,

United Kingdom

Belgium, Denmark,

Germany, Ireland,

Netherlands,

Poland, United

Kingdom

Belgium,

Netherlands

Germany, United

Kingdom

Morocco

New Zealand

Pakistan

Philippines

South Africa

PVC

Canned peaches

Hydrogen Peroxide

Phthalic Anhydride

Steel angle bars

Testliner board

Certain flat rolled iron/steel

products

Frozen chicken

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

29-12-2016

09-03-1998

15-07-2011

07-02-2013

31-08-2009

16-09-2010

11-08-2017

South Africa

Definitive

27-02-2015

South Africa

Frozen chicken BSG

Definitive

28-09-2018

South Africa

Potato chips

Ropes & cables of iron or steel

screws made of steel with

hexagon heads

Definitive

Provisional

21-10-2016

28-08-2002

01-08-2018

119

Thailand

Hot rolled steel flat with certain

amounts of alloying elements

Hot-rolled flat in coils and not in

coils

Non Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat

Products in (non) coils

Structural Hot Rolled H-Beam

with Alloy

Electrical water heaters

Fittings

hinges

Laminated flooring

plywood

Polyethylene terephthalate

Definitive

15-09-2013

Thailand

Turkey

Definitive

27-05-2003

23-12-2014

28-01-2017

19-09-2013

07-09-2006

20-10-2017

13-06-2015

28-10-2016

07-11-2011

Slovakia

Belgium, Germany,

Spain, Sweden

Italy

Greece, Spain,

Italy

Germany

Bulgaria

Germany, Greece,

Spain, Italy

Belgium, Germany,

Greece, Italy,

Hungary,

Netherlands,

Finland, Romania

Germany, Sweden

Greece

Belgium, Germany,

Italy, United

Kingdom

Bulgaria

Poland, Bulgaria

Hungary, Poland,

Romania

Turkey

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)

Definitive

06-02-2003

Turkey

Sodium Percarbonate

steel and steel products

Toothbrushes

Tubes and pipes of refined

copper

Wall paper

woven fabriccs of synthetic

filament yarn

woven fabrics of synthetic and

artificial staple fibres

Flexible porous plates, blocks and

sheets of polyurethane foam

Sulphuric acid and oleum

Brass sheet & strip

Carbon & alloy steel cut to lenght

plate

Certain carbon and alloy steel

wire rod

Certain carbon and alloy steel

wire rod

Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical

Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel

Chlorinated isocyanurates

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

02-03-2018

02-10-2018

03-02-2018

17-10-2017

Turkey

Definitive

06-08-2015

Turkey

Definitive

22-08-2015

Ukraine

United States

Definitive

07-07-2016

01-09-2018

06-03-1987

05-05-2017

Italy

France

Germany

Belgium, Germany,

France, Italy,

Austria

Italy

Spain, Italy, United

Kingdom

Germany, Italy

Spain

United States

CVD

Definitive

19-03-2018

20-03-2018

United States

Definitive

10-04-2018

24-06-2005

120

United States

citric acid, sodium citrate, and

potassium citrate (also in blends

under HS 382499)

Cold rolled steel flat products

Corrosion-resistant steel

crystalline silicon photovoltaic

(CSPV) cells (whether or not

partially or fully assembled into

other products)

Emulsion styrene-butadiene

rubber (ESB rubber)

Finished Carbon Steel Flanges

Forged steel fittings

Hot rolled steel

Large Diameter Welded Pipes

Large residential washers (LRWs)

and certain parts thereof

Low enriched uranium

Non-oriented electrical steel

Pasta

Pressure sensitive plastic tape

x673

Ripe Olives

Seamless pipe

Seamless pipe small diameter

Sodium Nitrite

Stainless steel bar x709

Stainless steel butt-weld pipe

fittings

Stainless steel plates in coils

Stainless steel wire rod x743

Stainless steel wire rod x745

Steel concrete reinforcing bars

x752

Uncoated paper

Certain mineral or chemical

fertilizers

Monosodium glutamate- food

flavour

Pre-painted galvanized steel

sheet and strip

semi-finished and finished

products of alloy&non-alloy steel

Definitive

25-07-2018

Belgium

Netherlands,

United Kingdom

Italy

United States

CVD

Definitive

10-09-2016

15-07-2016

15-09-2016

United States

Definitive

07-02-2018

Germany, Italy

United States

Vietnam

CVD

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

Provisional

Definitive

12-09-2017

26-01-2017

26-11-2018

12-09-2016

27-08-2018

07-02-2018

37300

18-11-2014

35270

21-10-1977

01-08-2018

04-03-1997

11-10-2011

27-08-2008

02-03-1995

23-02-2001

21-05-1999

15-09-1998

37141

20-01-2016

04-08-2017

25-03-2016

15-06-2017

02-08-2016

Poland

Spain, Italy

Italy

Netherlands,

United Kingdom

Greece

Germany, Spain,

Italy, Sweden

France

Germany, Sweden

Italy

Spain

Germany

Romania

Germany

Spain

Italy

Belgium

Spain, Italy

Italy

Latvia

Poland

Portugal

Belgium, Germany,

Spain

Belgium, Germany,

Austria

121