COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT

32nd Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities (2013)

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary. 5

1............ Overview of the legislation. 7

1.1......... Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy. 7

1.1.1...... The international framework. 7

1.1.2...... The EU legislation. 7

1.2......... Safeguards. 8

1.2.1...... The international framework. 8

1.2.2...... The EU legislation. 8

1.3......... Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services. 9

2............ Basic concepts. 9

2.1......... Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy. 9

2.1.1...... What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of duties?. 9

2.1.2...... Procedure. 10

2.1.3...... Review of measures. 12

2.1.4...... Judicial reviews. 12

2.2......... Safeguards. 12

2.2.1...... What are safeguard measures?. 12

2.2.2...... Procedure. 13

3............ TDI Modernisation. 14

4............ Country-wide market economy status (MES) 15

4.1......... China. 16

4.2......... Vietnam.. 16

4.3......... Armenia. 16

4.4......... Kazakhstan. 16

4.5......... Mongolia. 16

4.6......... Belarus. 16

5............ Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts. 17

5.1......... Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) 17

5.2......... Bilateral contacts/information activities – industry and third countries. 17

6............ The Hearing Officer 17

7............ General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures. 19

7.1......... Measures in place. 19

7.2......... Review investigations. 20

8............ Overview of activities in 2013. 21

8.1......... New investigations. 21

8.1.1...... Initiations. 21

8.1.2...... Provisional measures. 22

8.1.3...... Definitive measures. 23

8.1.4...... Details on individual cases. 24

8.1.5...... Investigations terminated without measures. 35

8.1.6...... Details on some individual cases. 35

8.2......... Review investigations. 37

8.2.1...... Expiry reviews. 37

8.2.2...... Interim reviews. 41

8.2.3...... “Other” reviews. 44

8.2.4...... New exporter reviews. 45

8.2.5...... Absorption investigations. 46

8.2.6...... Circumvention investigations. 46

8.3......... Safeguard investigations. 48

9............ Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures. 48

9.1......... Follow-up of measures. 48

9.2......... Monitoring of undertakings. 48

10.......... Refunds. 49

11.......... Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice / Court of First Instance. 49

11.1....... Overview of the judicial reviews in 2013. 49

11.2....... Cases pending. 49

11.3....... New cases. 49

11.4....... Judgments rendered by the General Court 49

11.4.1.... Solutions of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia – T-84/07 and T-459/08,– T-235/08, T-118/10, - Judgments of 7 February 2013. 49

11.4.2.... Zeolite A powder originating in Bosnia and Herzegovina – T-304/11 – Judgment of 30 April 2013. 51

11.4.3 ... Integrated electronic compact fluorescent lamps (CFL-i) originating, inter alia, in China - T-459/07, and T-469/07,– Judgments of 11 July 2013. 52

11.4.4 Certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating, inter alia, in India – T-6/12 – Judgment of 6 September 2013. 53

11.4.5 ... Polyester staple fibres originating, inter alia, in China and in South Korea, T-536/08 and T-537/09– Judgments of 13 September 2013. 54

11.4.6.... Certain aluminium foil originating, inter alia, in Armenia – T-512/09– Judgment of 5 November 2013. 55

11.5....... Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice. 56

11.5.1 ... Cotton-type bed linen originating in Pakistan – C-638/11P– Judgment of 14 November 2013. 56

11.5.2.... Ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in the Former Yugoslavian Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) and Russia – C-13/12P - Judgment of 28 November 2013. 56

11.5.3 Ferro-silicon originating, inter alia, in Kazakhstan – C-10/12P – Judgment of 19 December 2013. 57

12.......... Activities in the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) 58

12.1....... Dispute settlement in the field of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards. 58

12.1.1.... Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedure. 58

12.1.2.... Dispute settlement procedures against the Union. 58

12.2....... Other WTO activities. 59

13.......... Conclusion. 60

Executive summary

This report sets out the European Union's anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard activities during 2013.

The report, as in previous years, gives an overview of the EU legislation in force with regard to the trade defence instruments, including safeguards.

The report also summarises the developments in general policy. As in previous years, the report no longer contains a commentary on each individual case. It gives an overview of all investigations together with the most essential information such as, for instance, the rate of individual duties imposed. In turn, cases which merit some special attention are treated in more detail. Consequently, the report is more factual and condensed and covers the essential facts of the year.

The detailed annexes which cover all cases ensure that the factual content of the report remains meaningful and sufficient to provide a full overview of the activity in 2013.

2013 saw a decrease in the number of new cases initiated when compared to the previous year, 9 as compared to 19 in 2012. Regarding other activities, 2013 also saw a decrease in the number of provisional measures imposed, 6 compared to 9 the previous year while the number of investigations terminated without measures increased slightly from 9 in 2012 to 11 in 2013. There was significant increase in the number of definitive measures imposed, up from 3 in 2012 to 15 in 2013.

As regards review investigations initiated, there was a slight decrease from 37 in 2012 to 36 in 2013. These included 17 expiry reviews, 10 interim reviews, 2 new exporter review, 3 anti-circumvention investigations as well as 4 other reviews. In the period, 5 expiry reviews were concluded with confirmation of the measures and 3 interim reviews were concluded with the measures being confirmed or amended.

There was no new safeguard investigation opened nor safeguard measures imposed during 2013.

In 2013, with the aim of improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the EU's trade defence instruments, important progress was made during 2013 concerning the ongoing Modernisation of the trade defence instruments which had been launched in October 2011. A legislative proposal, a communication and draft guidelines on four subjects were adopted by the Commission in April 2013. The legislative proposal was then transmitted to Council and Parliament where it is following the ordinary legislative procedure.

As in previous years, this report provides an overview of the Court cases relating to the trade policy instruments. In 2013, the Court of Justice (COJ) and the General Court (GC) rendered 28 judgments in total relating to the areas of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy.

2013 was the sixth full year of activity for the Hearing Officer in DG Trade, who became operational in April 2007. During 2013 the Hearing Officer continued the work related to guaranteeing the rights of defence in trade proceedings before the European Commission. In addition the Hearing Officer also contributed to improved transparency in TDI activities.

The European Parliament's INTA Committee continued to be informed about developments in the EU's trade defence activities.

The relevant activities in the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are also reported, including dispute settlement procedures initiated against the EU.

The annexes to this report provide easy access to the activities in table form.

This report is also available to the general public with the following link.

Internet Website : http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence/anti-dumping/

1. Overview of the legislation

1.1. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

1.1.1. 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. Even though, the beginning of the disciplines dates back quite some time, world trade is currently still distorted by unfair practices, making the instruments still relevant.

Since the beginning, considerable efforts have been made to harmonise the rules relating to trade 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 relevant criteria which are reflected in its own legislation. The EU's role is the more so important today as a number of new users take action without the necessary rigor and restraint, affecting negatively also EU operators. The role the EU plays as a prudent user has therefore also an exemplary function at WTO level.

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. The basic texts are:

– Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30 November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European EU – Codified Version[1]

– Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June 2009 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the European EU – Codified Version[2].

These regulations will overall be referred to as the "basic Regulation(s)".

The EU 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 WTO obligations.

The EU interest test is a public interest clause and provides that measures can only be taken if they are not contrary to the overall interest of the EU. This requires an analysis of all the economic interests involved, including those of the EU industry, users, consumers and traders of the product concerned. The EU interest test does not involve wider aspects such as foreign or development policy considerations.

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 determined by using the cost of production of the EU industry and a reasonable profit margin; it reduces the anti-dumping measures for individual exporting companies in almost half of the cases and is applied, on a world-wide level, only by the EU on a regular basis.

1.2. Safeguards

1.2.1. 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 the People's Republic of China's Protocol of Accession.

WTO safeguards should only be adopted after a comprehensive investigation which provides evidence of the existence of a) unforeseen developments leading to b) increased imports, c) the existence of a serious injury for EU producers and d) a causal link between the imports and the injury.

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 explicitly in the EU legislation but has been confirmed as a self-standing condition by WTO jurisprudence). 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:

– Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009[3] on the common rules of imports – Codified Version

– Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94[4] on common rules for imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) Nos 1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83.

– Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94[5] 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.

These regulations will overall be referred to as the "basic safeguard Regulation(s)".

1.3. Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services

Regulation No 868/2004[6] dealing with the effect of subsidisation and unfair pricing for air services from third countries, adopted by the EP and the Council in 2004, has never been used. In December 2012, the Council of the European Union concluded that the Regulation "has proven not to address adequately the specific characteristics of the aviation services sector" and supported the Commission's intention to analyse, in consultation with industry and Member States, possible options for a more effective instrument to safeguard open and fair competition and its intention, on that basis, to present a proposal for a revision or replacement of Regulation 868/2004. The review of the regulation, involving different services of the Commission as well as external experts, is on-going. In particular, a study has been undertaken for DG MOVE, the purpose of which was to analyse policy options to be envisaged in the context of the review.

2. Basic concepts

2.1. Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

2.1.1. What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of duties?

2.1.1.1. Dumping and subsidies

Dumping is traditionally defined as price discrimination between national markets, or as selling below cost of production, plus profit. The EU’s anti-dumping legislation defines anti-dumping as selling a product in the EU at a price below its “normal value”. This “normal value” is usually the actual sales price on the domestic market of the exporting country. Therefore, a country is selling at dumped prices if the prices in its home market are higher than its export prices (i.e. price discrimination).

Where sales in the domestic market are not representative, for instance because they have only been made in small quantities, the normal value may then be established on another basis, such as the sales prices of other producers on the domestic market or the cost of production, plus profit. In the latter case, a company is selling at dumped prices if its export prices are below the cost of production, plus profit.

A certain segregation of the market, triggered by a variety of distortions, exists in the majority of the cases where dumping occurs on a more than incidental basis. That segregation may be caused, amongst other reasons, by government intervention e.g. high customs duties. As a result, exporters are shielded, at least to a certain degree, from international competition on their domestic market.

Subsidies can have similar effects to sales at dumped prices in that they allow exporters to operate from a distorted home base. Subsidies involve a direct support from a government or a government-directed private body which has the effect of conferring a benefit to producers or exporters (e.g. grants, tax and duty exemptions, preferential loans at below commercial rates, export promotion schemes, etc.), all aimed at allowing the exporters to sell at low prices in the EU. Only subsidies which are “specific”, i.e. targeted at individual companies or certain sectors of the economy, can be subject to trade defence measures.

Both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are thus only second-best solutions in the absence of internationally agreed and enforced competition rules.

2.1.1.2. Material injury and causation

For measures to be taken against these unfair trading practices, it is not sufficient that companies are exporting their products to the EU at dumped or subsidised prices. Measures can only be taken if these exports cause material injury to EU producers.

Typical indicators of injury are that the dumped and/or subsidised import volumes increase over a certain period and import prices undercut the sales prices of the EU industry. As a consequence, the latter is forced to decrease production volumes and sales prices thus losing market shares, making losses or having to make employees redundant. In extreme cases, exporters may try to eliminate viable EU producers by using a predatory, below cost, pricing strategy. In any event, the injury analysis requires that all relevant factors be taken into account before deciding whether the EU industry is in fact suffering “material injury”.

A further condition for the imposition of measures is the need for “a causal link”: the injury must be caused by the dumping or the subsidy. This condition is often fulfilled when the injury to the EU industry coincides with the increase in dumped and subsidised imports. It is important to note that the dumped or subsidised imports do not have to be the only cause of the injury.

2.1.1.3. EU interest

Finally, it has to be established whether there are compelling reasons according to which measures would be contrary to the overall interest of the EU. In this respect, the interests of all relevant economic operators which might be affected by the outcome of the investigation must be taken into account. These interests typically include those of the EU industry, users, consumers and traders of the product concerned and the analysis assesses the positive impact measures will have on some operators as opposed to the negative impact on others. Measures should not be imposed only if it can be clearly concluded that their negative impact would be disproportionate,.

2.1.2. Procedure

Investigations are carried out in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the basic Regulations. These rules guarantee a transparent, fair and objective proceeding by granting significant procedural rights to interested parties. In addition, the results of an investigation are published in the Official Journal, and the EU is obliged to justify its decisions in this publication. Finally, it is ensured that each case is decided on its merits and the Commission does not hesitate to terminate a case if the conditions to impose measures are not met.

Whereas each investigation is different depending on the products and countries involved, all cases follow the same procedural rules. However, certain preferential rules apply to any candidate countries. The rules relating to a new case are summarised below.

Initiation

A case normally starts with a sufficiently substantiated complaint from the EU industry manufacturing the same or a similar product to the one referred to in the complaint. Then, the Commission assesses whether the complaint contains sufficient evidence to allow for the initiation of the case. A case is opened by a notice of initiation published in the Official Journal. In this notice, all interested parties, including users, exporting country authorities in anti-subsidy investigations in particular and, where appropriate, consumer organisations are invited to participate and co-operate in the proceedings. Detailed questionnaires are sent to producers in the exporting countries, in anti-subsidy investigations also to the exporting country authorities, and in the EU to the producers, traders (in particular importers) and other interested parties, such as users. These questionnaires cover all different conditions to be fulfilled, i.e. dumping/subsidy, injury, causation and EU interest. The parties are also informed that they can request a hearing and ask for access to the non-confidential files which will help them defend their case.

The investigation up to the provisional measures

Following receipt of the replies to the questionnaire, investigations are carried out by Commission officials at the premises of the co-operating parties.

The main purpose of these visits is to verify whether the information given in the questionnaires is reliable. The verified information is subsequently used to calculate or determine the dumping margin and the injury factors, in particular the price undercutting margin and injury elimination level, as well as for the EU interest analysis. The respective calculations and analysis often involve the processing of thousands of transactions, the complex examination of production costs and the assessment of the economic situation of numerous economic operators.

The results of the calculations and other findings are summarised in a draft implementing act, on the basis of which it is decided whether to impose provisional measures, whether to continue the investigation without proposing duties or whether to terminate the proceedings. In either eventuality the decision is the Commission's responsibility.

The investigation up to the definitive stage

Following the publication in the Official Journal of a Commission regulation imposing provisional duties, interested parties, which so request, receive a full disclosure which allows them to verify the Commission’s findings and to submit comments. Comments can also be made at a hearing. These provisional submissions and comments are taken into account when a second, definitive, draft implementing act is prepared by the Commission.

After final disclosure, assessment of comments of interested parties and after receiving the opinion of the Member States via the Trade Defence Instruments Committee, the Commission decides whether or not to adopt definitive measures. At definitive stage, Member States can block the adoption of a draft implementing act by qualified majority. The Commission may also accept undertakings offered by exporters, which undertake to respect minimum prices. In the latter case, no duties are generally imposed on the companies from which undertakings are accepted. The Commission regulation imposing definitive duties/accepting undertakings, and deciding on the collection of the provisional duties, is published in the Official Journal.

As set out above, throughout the process and at various specific steps, the procedure - consisting e.g. of requests for information, hearings, access to the file and disclosure – ensures that the rights of defence of interested parties are fully respected in this quasi-judicial process.

In view of the findings made, the Commission may also be decided to terminate a case without the imposition of measures. The same procedure (disclosure, comments, hearing, draft implementing act) as described above applies. The termination of the case is made by a Commission Decision after consultation of the Member States.

Timing

The procedure described above is subject to strict statutory time limits. A decision to impose provisional duties must be taken within nine months of the initiation and the total duration of an investigation is limited to fifteen months in anti-dumping cases and to thirteen months in anti-subsidy cases. This leads to significant time constraints, taking into account, inter alia, internal consultations and the necessity to publish regulations and decisions in all EU languages at the same time.

Anti-dumping or countervailing measures will normally remain in force for five years, and may consist of duties or undertakings concluded with exporters. Measures are taken on a countrywide basis, but individual treatment, i.e. the application of a company-specific duty, can be granted to exporters which have co-operated throughout the investigation. During the five-year period, interested parties may, under certain conditions, request a review of measures or the refund of anti-dumping duties paid. Measures may also be suspended for a certain period, subject to given criteria.

2.1.3. Review of measures

The basic Regulations provide for administrative reviews and distinguish between interim reviews, newcomer reviews and expiry reviews.

The expiry review is initiated at the end of the five year life-time of the measures. Initiation of such a review requires a request by the EU industry evidencing that the expiry of the measures would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Since the amendment to the basic Regulations, expiry reviews initiated after 20 March 2004 are subject to strict deadlines, i.e. they shall normally be concluded within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review, but in all cases be concluded within 15 months.

During the five year life-time of measures, the Commission may perform an interim review. Under the latter procedure, the Commission will consider whether the circumstances with regard to subsidy/dumping and injury have changed significantly or whether existing measures are achieving the intended results in removing the injury. Since 20 March 2006, the deadline for concluding an interim review is set at 12 months, but no later than 15 months.

Finally, the basic Regulations provide that a review shall be carried out to determine individual margins for new exporters in the exporting country concerned. Since 20 March 2006, the deadline for conclusion of newcomer reviews is nine months.

During these reviews, the main procedural rules outlined in chapter 2.1.2 are also applicable.

2.1.4. Judicial reviews

The procedural rights of the parties, including hearings and access to non-confidential files, are respected in the course of the proceeding, and a system of judicial review is in place to ensure their correct implementation. The competence to review anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases lies with the General Court and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Furthermore, WTO members may have recourse to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.

2.2. Safeguards

2.2.1. What are safeguard measures?

Safeguard measures allow temporary protection against the adverse effects of import surges. Under the EU legislation[7] implementing the WTO Safeguards Agreement, they can be applied under the following conditions: safeguard measures may be imposed if, as a result of unforeseen developments, a product is being imported into the EU in such increased quantities and/or on such terms and conditions as to cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to EU producers of like or directly competitive products. Safeguard measures may only be imposed to the extent and for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy the injury.

2.2.2. Procedure

Investigations are carried out in accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the basic safeguard Regulations. These rules guarantee a transparent, fair and objective proceeding. In addition, the results of safeguard investigations are published in the Official Journal, and the EU is obliged to justify its decisions in this publication.

Initiation

The Commission is informed by one or more Member States should trends in imports of a certain product appear to call for safeguard measures. This information must contain evidence available, of the following criteria: a) the volume of imports, b) the price of imports, c) trends in certain economic factors such as production, capacity utilisation, stocks, sales, market share, prices, profits, employment, etc. Where there is a threat of serious injury, the Commission must also examine whether it is clearly foreseeable that a particular situation is likely to develop into actual injury.

This information is passed on by the Commission to all other Member States. If there is sufficient evidence to justify an investigation, the Commission publishes a notice of initiation in the Official Journal within one month of receipt of the information and commences the investigation, acting in co-operation with the Member States.

Provisional measures

Provisional measures may be imposed at any stage of the investigation. They shall be applied in critical circumstances where delay would cause damage which would be difficult to repair, making immediate action necessary, and where a preliminary determination provides clear evidence that increased imports have caused, or are threatening to cause, serious injury.

The duration of the provisional measures can, however, not exceed 200 days (i.e. slightly more than six months).

Definitive measures

If, at the end of the investigation, the Commission considers that definitive safeguard measures are necessary, it will take the necessary decisions no later than nine months from the initiation of the investigation, at which stage the results of the investigation are published in the Official Journal. In exceptional circumstances, this time limit may be extended by a further maximum period of two months.

Safeguard measures shall be applied only to the extent to prevent or remedy serious injury, thereby maintaining as far as possible traditional trade flows. As to the form of the measures, the EU will choose the measures most suitable in order to achieve these objectives. These measures could consist of quantitative quotas, tariff quotas, duties, etc.

Safeguard measures shall be applied only to the extent to prevent or remedy serious injury, thereby maintaining as far as possible traditional trade flows. As to the form of the measures, the EU will choose the measures most suitable in order to achieve these objectives. These measures could consist of quantitative quotas, tariff quotas, duties, etc.

Duration and review of the measures

The duration of safeguard measures must be limited to the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and to facilitate adjustments on the part of the EU producers, but should not exceed four years, including the duration of the provisional measures, if any. Under certain circumstances, extensions may be necessary but the total period of application of safeguard measures should not exceed eight years.

If the duration of the measures exceeds one year, the measures must be progressively liberalised at regular intervals during the period of application. If the duration of the measures exceeds three years, the Commission will examine, mid way through their duration, the appropriateness of further liberalisation and necessity for their continued application. This will be done either on the Commission's own initiative or at the request of a Member State. Where the Commission considers that the application of the measure is still necessary, it shall inform the Member States accordingly. Where the Commission considers that any surveillance or safeguard measure should be revoked or amended, it shall do so after having received the approval of the Member States.

3. TDI Modernisation

Important progress was made on the ongoing modernisation project in 2013, launched in 2011, with the adoption of a legislative proposal, a Communication and draft guidelines on four subjects - Analogue Country, Injury margin, Expiry review and Union interest by the Commission in April 2013.

After adoption of the package in spring 2013, the legislative proposal is following the ordinary legislative procedure in the Council and Parliament. The draft guidelineswere subject to a public consultation in 2013.

4. Country-wide market economy status (MES)

In an anti-dumping investigation, Commission services usually compare the export price of a product with its 'normal value', which is the price paid payable in the domestic market of the exporting country or a constructed normal value (Article 2 (1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation). However, this methodolgoy can only be used if costs and prices in the exporting country are reliable and the result of supply and demand, i.e. not subject to significant distortions. There are five criteria to determine whether a former State trading country can be considered a market economy for the purpose of anti-dumping investigations (according to Article 2 (7) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation). These criteria are:

i. a low degree of government influence over the allocation of resources and decisions of enterprises, whether directly or indirectly (e.g. public bodies), for example through the use of state-fixed prices, or discrimination in the tax, trade or currency regimes;

ii. an absence of state-induced distortions in the operation of enterprises linked to privatisation and the use of non-market trading or compensation system;

iii. the existence and implementation of a transparent and non-discriminatory company law which ensures adequate corporate governance (application of international accounting standards, protection of shareholders, public availability of accurate company information);

iv. the existence and implementation of a coherent, effective and transparent set of laws which ensure the respect of property rights and the operation of a functioning bankruptcy regime;

v. the existence of a genuine financial sector which operates independently from the state and which in law and practice is subject to sufficient guarantee provisions and adequate supervision.

Six countries requested country-wide MES: China, Vietnam, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Belarus. In 2013, Mongolia and Vietnam provided further information in support of their requests, which allowed services to continue updating reports assessing their respecitive economies. The remaining four countries, China, Armenia, Kazakhstan and Belarus, did not submit information that would have allowed a further analysis of their progress.

Companies from non-market economy countries which are members of the WTO have the possibility to request market economy treatment on an individual basis in the context of anti-dumping investigations.

4.1. China

China is undoubtedly the most important MES applicant country and the first of the six countries to have requested the status.

The first preliminary assessment was prepared in 2004 which concluded at that time that China fulfilled only one of the five MES criteria i.e. the second criteria outlined above.

At several working group meetings since then both parties discussed China's progress on the outstanding criteria. The last MES report was shared with the Chinese authorities in 2008. No consultations on MES took place in 2013. The Commission remains willing to discuss further progress made by China towards MES, but it is essential that the Chinese authorities deliver the necessary information for the MES analysis by the Commission.

4.2. Vietnam

Following an MES working group meeting in Vietnam in November 2012 work continued on updating the assessment report during 2013 to reflect developments in the Vietnamese economy. An updated report was finalised in May 2013 which was subsequently shared with the Vietnamese authorities. While the report indicated that there had been some good progress in the reform of the Vietnamese economy, this was not sufficient to justify granting any of the remaining four criteria (criterion one has been met). The Vietnamese continued to be very active in providing updated information on progress in their economy.

4.3. Armenia

The first assessment report on Armenia's MES was shared with the Armenian authorities early in 2010 following which the Commission services sent questions in order to have information on further developments in their economy. However, by the end of 2013 still no new information had been sent to the Commission from Armenia.

4.4. Kazakhstan

As a follow-up of DG Trade's assesment of Kazakhstan's progress towards fulfilling the market economy status criteria in 2010, a Note Verbale was sent to the Kazakhstan authorities setting out the main problems regarding the 5 MES criteria. By the end of 2013 no reaction had been received from the Kazakhstani authorities.

4.5. Mongolia

Information collected during a working group meeting in Ulan Bator in 2011 as well as additional information received in December 2012 was analysed allowing the Commission services to update the MES report in 2013.

4.6. Belarus

In 2013 no progress was made on the MES file. The Commission had decided already in 2010 to put the consultations with the authorities of the Republic of Belarus on hold due to the political situation in the country. As soon as the situation in Belarus changes the Commission is ready to continue the MES analysis.

5. Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts

5.1. Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)

Participating in Trade Defence investigations can pose certain challenges for SME's owing to their small size, resource limitations and their fragmentation. In order to help SMEs deal with the complexity involved in TDI investigations the Helpdesk for SMEs was set up. In 2013, the helpdesk received many requests for information, which were all immediately addressed. These questions ranged from case-specific queries to more general trade defence issues addressing both the procedual and substance elements of proceedings. The TDI website also specifically highlights SME's role in TDI proceedings and offers practical advice and help.

5.2. Bilateral contacts/information activities – industry and third countries

Explaining the legislation and practice of the EU's trade defence activity is an important part of the work of the TDI services.

There were a number of bilateral contacts dedicated to discussing various trade defence related topics with a number of third countries during 2013. These included China, Korea, Morocco, Mexico, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam Malaysia.

There were several meetings with key stakeholder associations and companies in 2013, including Business Europe and Eurocommerce. These contacts with the main stakeholders are regular events and designed to improve cooperation with parties affected by TDI. A significant part of these meetings was dedicated to the discussion of the ongoing modernisation project.

6. The Hearing Officer

The primary role of the hearing officer is to guarantee the rights of defence of interested parties and thereby contribute to ensuring that the rules are implemented in an objective and transparent manner in trade proceedings.

Some ground rules of the rights of defence are laid down in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as follows: the right of every person (i) "to be heard, before any individual measure which would affect him or her adversely is taken", (ii) "to have his or her affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time" and (iii) "to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy".

More specific rules of parties involved in trade proceedings are contained in the basic Regulations dealing with the different types of trade defence instruments, such as the AD, AS, safeguards regulations, or in the trade barriers regulation.

Since 2012, the role and the powers of the Hearing Officer for DG Trade are set out in a formal mandate by a Decision of the President of the European Commission of 29 February 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing officer in certain trade proceedings (OJ L 107/5, 19 April 2012), underpinning the Commission’s commitment to guaranteeing due process in trade proceedings and to improve the impartiality of the function. The Hearing Officer is attached, for administrative purposes, to the Commissioner responsible for trade policy; however, he enjoys independence in performing his duties and shall not take instructions in fulfilling his tasks.

The terms of reference (ToR)[8]also lay out detailed rules on hearings conducted by the Hearing Officer on all aspects of a trade proceeding and throughout all phases of the proceedings. Furthermore, the Hearing Officer has delegated decision-making powers on a number of procedural issues, such as access to file, extension of deadlines and the confidential nature of a document. At the request of an interested party the Hearing Officer can also examine information that is confidential by nature and cannot be disclosed to parties, and inform the party whether in his view the information has been correctly reflected in the findings of the Services.

The Hearing Officer is empowered to raise with the Commissioner responsible for trade policy and the Director General for Trade any concerns about the conduct or content of any trade investigation.

During the year 2013 the HO received 159 requests for-intervention which concerned 30 TDI-proceedings. In all, 42 hearings with 188 interested parties were held, out of which seven were multiparty hearings involving 151 interested parties with similar interests and 1 confrontational hearing involving three interested parties with conflicting interests.

The interventions were requested by exporting producers in third countries, by the Union industry, as well as by users and importers, or their associations. While the interventions focused on procedural rights they had in some cases also an impact on the substantial outcome of the proceeding or contributed to Policy changes.

The main issues brought before the Hearing Officer in 2013 can be grouped in three categories (i) right to be informed, (ii) right to access the files and (iii) disagreement with determinations, findings and conclusions.

Right to be informed: Content, quality and timing of disclosure

One main field of activity of the Hearing Officer is to ensure that interested parties are properly and timely informed of the main facts and considerations before the Services take decisions in order to enable the parties to effectively exercise their rights of defence.

Complaints about content and quality of disclosure were raised in a number of cases. In some cases the matter could be settled during a hearing, in other cases, the Hearing Officer ensured that the disclosure was subsequently improved and that the matter was addressed in detail in the legal act. In cases where the risk of breaching confidentiality rules by disclosing more detailed information was considered too high, the Hearing Officer ensured that the methodology used to arrive at the findings was explained in full detail. In certain cases the Hearing Officer examined, in accordance with the terms of reference, confidential information and informed the requesting interested parties whether the information withheld from the party was relevant for its rights of defence and, if so, whether the information was correctly reflected in the findings and conclusions.

Right to access the files – Quality of non-confidential files

Another main activity of the Hearing Officer is to ensure that interested parties get access to the file and that the non-confidential file is meaningful while respecting the legitimate interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy.

Most of the intervention requests related to complaints about the completeness and meaningfulness of the non-confidential file, such as insufficient non-confidential summaries of complaints, questionnaire replies or undertaking offers. Wherever possible, the Hearing Officer recommended completing and improving non-confidential submissions. In cases where the request for access to a file or a specific document was not considered justified, the interested party was informed in writing about the reason and justification of the rejection.

Disagreement with determinations, findings and conclusions

The Hearing Officer also intervenes on request in order to ensure the right of any interested party to submit comments on determinations, findings and conclusions before any measure is taken and to observe that comments which are relevant to the case are properly taken into account.

Intervention requests in this regard were made in a number of cases where parties disagreed with certain determinations, e.g. the initiation or termination of a case, or objected the findings and conclusions on certain aspects, such as product scope, selection of a sample, dumping margin or the use of best facts available based on Article 18 of the basic AD Regulation. The Hearing Officer organised hearings, ensured that parties were fully informed about procedural rules and that comments and arguments of the parties were heard and replied to either in a hearing or in the disclosure document and the Regulation. In a number of cases, findings and conclusions were modified as a result of the intervention.

In a number of these cases, the Hearing Officer made recommendations to the Services at the appropriate level on issues relating to the rights of interested parties.

7. General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures

The number of new investigations initiated in 2013 decreased compared to the previous year, 9 compared to 19. The number of definitive measures imposed increased when compared to 2012 (15 as compared to 3) while the number of provisional measures imposed in 2013 decreased from 9 in 2012 to 6. Below are details on new investigations and review investigations.

7.1. Measures in place

At the end of 2013, the EU had 86 anti-dumping measures and 12 countervailing measures in force[9]. The anti-dumping measures covered 62 products and 24 countries (see Annex O); the countervailing measures covered 9 products and 7 countries (see Annex P). the large majority of measures was in the form of duties. However, in a number of cases, undertakings were accepted.

Of the 86 anti-dumping measures in force at the end of 2013 the main countries affected were China (51), India, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand (6 each), Russia (5), Taiwan (4), Ukraine and Korea (3 each) and USA and Philippines (2 each). Of the 12 anti-subsidy measures in place the majority concern imports from India – 5 in total, with imports from China subject to 2 measures and Canada, Iran, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates and USA all subject to 1 measure each.

Regarding the anti-dumping measures one has to look at the trade volume of the products concerned, which varies considerably depending on the sector concerned. The largest trade volumes are often generated by high technology, such as electronics, which are high-value products. It should be noted that in 2013, only 0.29%[10] of total imports into the EU was affected by anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. Table 1 below provides statistical information on the new investigations for the years 2009 – 2013.

TABLE 1

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy new investigations

during the period 1 January 2009 - 31 December 2013[11]

|| 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2013

Investigations in progress at the beginning of the period || 26 || 25 || 24 || 21 || 28

Investigations initiated during the period || 21 || 18 || 21 || 19 || 9

Investigations in progress during the period || 47 || 43 || 45 || 40 || 37

Investigations concluded : - imposition of definitive duty or acceptance of undertakings - terminations[12] || 11 11 || 9 10 || 13 11 || 3 9 || 15 11

Total investigations concluded during the period || 22 || 19 || 24 || 12 || 26

Investigations in progress at the end of period || 25 || 24 || 21 || 28 || 11

Provisional measures imposed during the period || 10 || 13 || 10 || 9 || 6

7.2. Review investigations

Anti-dumping measures, including price undertakings, may be subject, under the basic 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 circumvention investigations (Article 13).

Also anti-subsidy measures may be subject, under the basic 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 circumvention investigations (Article 23).

These reviews continue to represent a major part of the work of the Commission's TDI services. In the period from 2009 to 2013, a total of 162 review investigations were initiated. These review investigations represented 65% of all investigations initiated in that period.

In 2013, 36 reviews were initiated. Of these, 17 were expiry reviews, 10 interim reviews, 2 newcomer reviews, 4 other reviews and 3 circumvention investigations.

An overview of the review investigations in 2013 can be found in Annexes F to K. Table 2 provides statistical information for the years 2009 – 2013.

TABLE 2

Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations

during the period 1 January 2009 - 31 December 2013[13]

|| 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 || 2013

Reviews in progress at the beginning of the period || 32 || 33 || 34 || 21 || 26

Reviews initiated during the period || 34 || 31 || 24 || 37 || 36

Reviews in progress during the period || 66 || 64 || 58 || 58 || 62

Total reviews concluded during the period[14] || 33 || 30 || 37 || 32 || 39

Reviews in progress at the end of the period || 33 || 34 || 21 || 26 || 23

8. Overview of activities in 2013

8.1. New investigations

8.1.1. Initiations

In 2013, 4 new anti-dumping investigations, 5 new anti-subsidy investigations and no safeguard investigations were initiated. The anti-dumping investigations involved 4 different products from 2 different countries. The anti-subsidy investigations involve 3 products from 3 different countries. Details of these investigations are given in Annex A. The country most affected by the anti-dumping investigations is China with 3 investigations for anti-subsidy investigations China also with with 3 investigations. The main sector concerned by these new cases is textiles and allied.

In the five-year period from 2009 to 2013, 99 investigations were initiated on imports from 22 countries. The main sectors concerned by the investigations included chemical and allied – 28 investigations, iron and steel – 25 investigations, other - 16 investigations, textiles and allied – 6 investigations electronics – 5 investigations and other mechanical engineering – 4 investigations. A breakdown of the product sectors is given in Annex B(A).

The countries concerned during the period from 2009 to 2013 include the People's Republic of China with 38 investigations, India 11, Indonesia 5, Thailand 4, Malaysia and USA 3 each, Argentina, Iran, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Turkey and U.A.E. 2 each and Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Kazakhstan, Korea, F.Y.R.O.M., Russia, Ukraine and Vietnam with 1each. A table showing all the investigations initiated over the last five years broken down by country of export is at Annex B(B).

The list of cases initiated in 2013 can be found below, together with the names of the complainants. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex A.

Product – Type of investigation (AD or AS) || Country of origin || Complainant

Seamless pipes, of iron or steel, external diameter exceeding 406.4 mm AD || P.R. China || Defence Committee of the seamless pipes and tubes industry

Solar glass AD || P.R. China || EU Prosun Glass

Agglomerated stone AD || P.R. China || A.St.A Europe

Monosodium glutamate AD || Indonesia || Ajinomoto Foods Europe SAS

Solar glass AS || P.R. China || EU Prosun Glass

Filament glass fibre products AS || P.R. China || European Glass Fibre Producers Association

Polyester staple fibres AS || P.R. China India Vietnam || European Man-made Fibres Association (‘CIRFS’)

8.1.2. Provisional measures

In 2013, provisional duties were imposed in 5 anti-dumping proceedings and in 1 anti-subsidy proceeding. As shown in Table 1 (see point 7.1), this figure compares to 9 provisional measures imposed in 2012 and 10 in 2011.

The list of cases where provisional measures were imposed during 2013 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 C.

Product || Originating from || Type[15] and level of measure

Stainless steel wires || India || Individual AD Duties ranging 12.9% - 24.4%; Residual duty 27.8%

Biodiesel || Argentina Indonesia || Individual AD Duty ranging from €65.24 to €104.92 tonne – Residual duty €104.92 Individual AD Duty ranging from €0 to €83.84 tonne – Residual duty €83.84

Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) || Consigned from P.R. China || From 06/06/2013 to 06/08/2013 11.8% From 06/08/2013: Undertaking - AD Duties ranging from 37.3% - 67.9% Co-operating not in sample 47.6% Residual duty 67.9%

Solar glass || P.R. China || Individual AD Duties ranging from 17.1% - 42.1% Co-operating not in sample 38.4% Residual duty 42.1%

Stainless steel wires || India || AS Duties ranging 0% - 4.3% Residual duty 4.3%

8.1.3. Definitive measures

During 2013, definitive duties were imposed in 12 anti-dumping investigations and in 3 anti-subsidy cases. They involved imports from the People’s Republic of China with 7 measures, India 2 and Russia, Turkey, USA, Thailand, Argentina and Indonesia with 1 each.

The list of cases where definitive measures were imposed during 2013 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 || Originating from || Type[16] and level of measure

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel || Russia, Turkey || Russia: Residual AD Duty 23.8% Turkey: Individual AD Duties ranging from 2.9% to 12.1%: Residual duty 16.7%

Bioethanol || U.S.A. || Residual AD Fixed rate €62,3 per tonne

Certain aluminium foil || P.R. China || IndividualAD Duties ranging from 14.2% to 15.6%: Residual duty 35.6%

Certain organic coated steel products || P.R. China || Individual AD Duties ranging from 0% to 26.1%: Residual duty 13.6%

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || P.R. China Thailand || PR China: Individual AD Duties ranging from 24.6% to 57.8%: Residual duty 57.8% Thailand: Individual AD Duties ranging from 14.9% to 15.5%: Residual duty 15.5%

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware || P.R. China || Individual AD Duties ranging from 13.1% to 23.4%: Sampled companies 17.9% Residual duty 36.1%

Stainless steel wires || India || AD Duties ranging from 0% to 12.5%: Residual duty 12.5% Duty rate for cooperating companies not in sample 5%

Biodiesel || Argentina Indonesia || Argentina: Individual Fixed AD Duties ranging from €216.64 - €245.67 per tonne. Residual duty €245.67 Indonesia: Individual Fixed AD Duties ranging from €76.94 - €174.91. Residual duty €178.85 per tonne

Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) || Consigned from P.R. China || AD Duties and Undertakings Duties ranging from 44.7% to 64.9%. Duties sample 41.3% , Duties for those sampled also subject to AS duty 36.2% Residual duty 53.4%

Certain organic coated steel products || P.R. China || Individual AS Duties ranging from 13.7% to 29.7%: Residual duty 44.7%

Stainless steel wires || India || Individual AS Duties ranging from 0% to 3.7%: Residual duty 3.7% Duty rate for cooperating companies not in sample 3.4%

Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) || P.R. China || Individual AS Duties and Undertakings. Duties ranging from 0% to 11.5%: Sample 6.4% Residual duty 11.5%

8.1.4. Details on individual cases

Bioethanol originating in USA

In November 2011, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation into imports of bioethanol originating in the United States on the basis of a complaint lodged by the European Producers Union of Renewable Ethanol Association (ePURE). The product concerned was bioethanol, sometimes referred to as ‘fuel ethanol’. The investigation period (IP) of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 and the examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period January 2008 to the end of the IP.

Sampling

In view of the large number of exporters/producers in the USA, the Commission applied sampling, selecting six US bioethanol producers. However in the course of the investigation, it was found that none of the sampled exporting producers exported bioethanol to the Union market. In fact they were selling domestically to unrelated traders/ blenders which then blended it with gasoline and resold it domestically and for export in particular to the Union. As a result it was considered necessary to use data of traders and blenders which were actually exporting the product concerned to the Union. These traders/blenders represent over 90 % of total exports of bioethanol to the Union. In addition, the Commission sampled six Union producers, based on production and sales volume of bioethanol during the IP and their geographical location.

Dumping

The structure of the bioethanol industry and the way the product concerned was produced and sold in the US market and exported to the Union, made it impracticable to establish individual dumping margins for US producers. Thus, it was decided that a countrywide dumping margin should be established.

Normal value was calculated on the basis of the prices paid or payable in the ordinary course of trade to the two cooperating traders, by independent customers in the USA. The Export price was calculated with the data provided by the cooperating traders/blenders. The dumping margin calculated was 9.5%.

Injury and Causation

The investigation showed that dumped imports had surged in 2010 and in particular, in the IP. Imports of the product concerned from the USA significantly increased in terms of volume (63,406 to 686,185 tonnes) and market share (1,9% to 15,7%) during the period considered for the injury analysis. In this period, the average prices of dumped imports were found to undercut Union producers' prices by 5,6% on average. The investigation showed that certain injury indicators relating to the economic situation of the Union industry, such as sales volume, production and capacity utilization, improved mainly because of new Union producers entering the market in that period. Yet, these improvements were not in line with the increase in consumption during the period considered and were thus not sufficient to allow the Union industry to develop its activities. Other indicators such as profitability, cash flow and return on investment deteriorated or remained far below the normal level. In light of this, it was considered that the Union industry suffered material injury during the IP.

As regards causation, it was found that the increase in volume and market share of the low- priced imports from the country concerned coincided with an overall and continuous increase of consumption in the Union and also with negative results of the Union industry during the period considered. The exporters from the USA increased their market share by undercutting Union producers' prices, while the Union industry was not able to reach sustained positive levels of profitability despite its increase in activity. The examination of the other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry revealed that these factors did not appear to be such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the country concerned, and the injury suffered by the Union industry. Consequently, it was established that the dumped imports from the USA had caused material injury to the Union industry.

Union Interest

As regards Union interest it was considered that the imposition of measures would help the Union industry to increase its prices to reflect its cost of production as well as regain lost market share. On the basis of information provided by importers it was concluded that the imposition of measures would not impact on them negatively given the small percentage of their turnover accounted for by the imported product. As regards users it was found that any duties imposed would have a minimal impact on profit margin and could in any event be passed on to customers. On that basis it was concluded that the effect of anti-dumping measures against imports of the bioethanol from the USA would not have a significant negative impact on the Union and that that there were no compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive measures.

In view of the above conclusions, definitive anti-dumping measures of EUR 62,3 per tonne were imposed in February 2013.

Certain organic coated steel originating in P.R. China - AD investigation

In December 2011, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation on imports of certain organic coated steel products ('OCS') originating in the People's Republic of China on the basis of a complaint lodged by EUROFER, representing more than 70% of the Union production of the product concerned. The product concerned was certain organic coated steel products ('OCS'). The investigation of dumping covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 and the examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of September 2011. A provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed in September 2012.

Sampling

Owing to the large number of Union producers and also exporting producers, sampling was used in the investigation. As regards the Union producers, the Commission selected a sample consisting of six Union producers which accounted for 46% of the Union production and 38% of the Union sales. The Commission decided to limit the sample of exporting producers to two companies which accounted for the highest export volume to the Union (around 30% of the total imports into the EU in the IP).

Dumping

Three Chinese exporting producers, one of which was part of the sample, requested market economy treatment (MET) or individual treatment (IT), should the investigation establish that they did not meet the conditions for MET. One of these three exporting producer subsequently withdrew its MET request.

As regards the remaining two cooperating exporting producers in the PRC having requested MET, it was decided to examine the claims of both companies, Zhangjiagang Panhua Steel Strip Co. Ltd and its related companies (part of the sample), and Union Steel China and its related company (non-sampled). Neither of the two were found to meet the criteria to be granted MET because the cost of the major raw material, hot-rolled steel coils, was significantly distorted due to State interference in the steel market in the PRC and therefore did not substantially reflect market values, as required by the first criteria for MET.

Given that none of the Chinese companies were granted MET, the normal value for all Chinese exporting producers was established on the basis of information received from the producer in the analogue country, in this case, Canada. The export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned by independent customers in the Union. The dumping margin found was 68.1%.

Injury and causation

The investigation showed that all injury indicators pertaining to the economic situation of the Union industry deteriorated or did not develop in line with consumption during the period considered. Over the period considered, in the context of decreasing consumption, the volume of imports from the PRC increased steadily and significantly. At the same time, the Union industry sales volume decreased overall by 13 % and its market share dropped from 59 % in 2008 to 56,7 % in the IP. Although consumption recovered by 20% from 2009 to the IP, after the year of economic crisis affecting demand, the Union industry market share was decreasing. The Union industry was unable to regain the lost market due to the growth of the dumped imports from the PRC in the EU market, which were constantly undercutting the prices of the Union industry. In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow and profitability were seriously affected, meaning that the Union industry’s ability to raise capital and investment was undermined. As a result it was concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury.

Regarding causation, the investigation showed a substantial increase in the volume and market share of the dumped imports originating in the PRC in the period considered, especially from 2009 to the IP. These imports were found to be constantly undercutting the prices charged by the Union industry in the EU and in particular during the IP. This increase coincided with the negative development in the economic situation of the Union industry, which worsened in the IP. Other known factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry were also examined. These included imports from other sources, the export performance of the EU industry, EU industry importing from the PRC itself, captive use and captive sales at lower prices to related companies, the economic crisis and structural overcapacity. This examination revealed that these factors were not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

Union interest

In the context of the Union interest test, the interests of the Union industry, importers and users was examined. As regards the situation of the Union producers, it was considered that their already injurious situation would be further exacerbated if measures would not be imposed. In the absence of measures it was considered likely that some of the producers would be forced to close. As regards interests of importers and users, it was argued that the Chinese imports were needed to ensure suffficient competition on the EU market. However, given there was no real evidence provided to substantiate this, coupled with the fact that there were already sixteen different groups of Union producers on the market and other import sources, the claim was rejected. Concerns regarding possible shortages of supply were also rejected on the grounds that there was unused capacity of Union producers. Profitability of importers or users was also considered not to be seriously threatened as a result of any measures being imposed as, on the one hand, imports from China represented a small percentage of their business and, on the other, there was the possibility to use alternative sources of supply. On the basis of the information available, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons against the imposition of measures.

As a result, definitive anti-dumping duties ranging between 0% and 26.1% were imposed on organic coated steel originating in the People’s Republic of China in March 2013.

Certain organic coated steel originating in P.R. China - AS investigation

An anti-subsidy investigation was also initiated on Certain organic coated steel originating in China in February 2012 also based on a complaint lodged by Eurofer.

The investigation of subsidisation covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011. The injury investigation period was from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP.

Sampling

In view of the apparent high number of exporting producers, Union producers and unrelated importers, the Commission selected a sample consisting of 2 groups of exporting producers, accounting for the highest export volume to the Union, and six Union producers, accounting for 46% of the Union production and 38% of the Union sales.

Subsidy schemes investigated

Based on the information contained in the complaint, the Commission investigated more than 35 subsidy schemes, divided into the following categories: (i) Government Provision of Goods at Less than Adequate Remuneration ('LTAR'); (ii) Preferential loans and interest rates to the OCS industry; (iii) Equity programmes; (iv) Income and other direct taxes; (v) Indirect tax and Import Tariff Programmes; (vi) Grant programmes; (vii) Purchase of Goods by the Government for Higher than Adequate Remuneration; (viii) Other regional programmes; (ix) Ad hoc subsidies referred to in the complaint.

The highest subsidy rate (ranging from 23,02% to 32,4%) was established for the scheme concerning Government Provision of hot-rolled (HRS) and cold-rolled steel (CRS) at 'LTAR'. As regards this program, the EU institutions concluded that the Government of the PRC's (GOC)' export restrictions, government planning and the predominance of SOEs limited the freedom of private suppliers of HRS and CRS, obliging them to act in a non-commercial manner and to accept economically irrational (below- market) prices which they would not do in a free and open market. This confirmed that the government policy to supply HRS and CRS (including to the organic coated steel sector) extended to private suppliers. The EU institutions established that the evidence on file and other publicly available information led to the conclusion that private producers of HRS and CRS in China were entrusted and directed by the GOC to provide goods in the same way as steel State Owned Enterprises (SOEs).

The EU institutions calculated the amount of the countervailable subsidy for this programme by taking the sum of the differences between the actual purchase values and appropriate benchmark values of the HRS and CRS purchases. The resulting amount was then allocated over the total sales turnover of the cooperating exporting producer during the IP. The benchmark was selected by considering the figures in the biggest market for each relevant geographical region, i.e. Europe (EU), North America (USA), Latin America (Brazil), Asia (Japan) and Middle East/North Africa (Turkey). These countries are amongst the largest steel producers worldwide and are all WTO members. In addition, their prices were not the highest in the IP. In light of this, the EU institutions considered it as a reasonable and justified benchmark. For all other countervailable subsidy schemes investigated, the subsidy rate established ranged between 0,01% and 1,36%.

Injury and causation – see under the Summary for the AD case on Organic coated steel above.

The definitive countervailing duties ranging from 13,7% to 44,7% were imposed on imports of OCS from China.

Biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia

In August 2012 the Commission initiated an investigation into imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia on the basis of a complaint lodged by the European Biodiesel Board (EBB), representing more than 60% of the total Union production of the product concerned. The investigation period (IP) for dumping was from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 and for the injury assessment covered the period from 1 January 2009 to the end of the IP. In May 2013, provisional measures were imposed.

Sampling

In view of the large amount of producers/exporters, the Commission selected a sample of three Argentinean and four Indonesian exporting producers or groups of exporting producers. These sampled exporters represented 86% and 99% of the total volume of exports to the Union from Argentina and Indonesia respectively. As regards the EU producers, the final sample consisted of eight companies covering 27 % of Union production.

Dumping

Regarding Argentina, the investigation showed that the Argentinean biodiesel market was heavily regulated. As a result it was considered that domestic sales were not made in the ordinary course of trade. For this reason, it was provisionally decided to construct normal value by adding to the company's own production costs during the investigation period, the selling, general and administrative expenses incurred (‘SG&A’) and a reasonable profit margin. The complainants had claimed that the Differential Export Tax ('DET') system in Argentina depressed the prices of soya beans, distorting the costs of biodiesel producers.

Further investigation demonstrated that the DET systems depressed the domestic prices of the main raw material input in both Argentina and Indonesia. It was concluded that the domestic prices of the main raw material used by biodiesel producers in Argentina were artificially lower than the international prices due to the distortion created by the Argentine export tax system and, consequently, the costs of the main raw material were not reasonably reflected in the records kept by the Argentinean producers. Thus, the Commission revised its findings as regards constructed normal value, disregarding the costs borne by the exporting producers of the main raw material, i.e. soya bean, used in the production of biodiesel.

The Commission replaced the costs of production recorded by the exporters with the price at which those companies would have purchased the soya beans in the absence of such a distortion. In this case, the average of the reference prices of soya beans published by the Argentine Ministry of Agriculture for export FOB Argentina during the IP was used.

In the case of Indonesia, due to the lack of representative domestic sales of the product concerned, the Commission provisionally constructed normal value by adding to the company's own production costs during the investigation period, the selling, general and administrative expenses incurred (‘SG&A’) and a reasonable profit margin However, these provisional findings were revised, as it was established that the DET system in Indonesia distorted the costs of production of biodiesel producers in that country, and therefore, the costs of production of exporting producers did not reasonably reflect the costs associated with the production and sale of the product concerned. Accordingly, the Commission replaced the costs of production recorded by the companies concerned by the reference export price for the main raw material, i.e. Crude Palm Oil (CPO), published by the Indonesian Authorities, which was in turn based on published international prices (Rotterdam, Malaysia and Indonesia).

For both Argentina and Indonesia, the normal value and the export price were compared on an ex-work basis, and due allowance was made in the form of adjustments, for differences affecting prices and price comparability. The dumping margins found ranged from 41.9% to 49.2% in the case of Argentina and from 20.1% to 23.3% in the case of Indonesia.

Injury and Causation

While during the IP some injury indicators showed a positive trend, e.g. production and sales, the Commission determined that the EU industry was not in a position to pass on cost increases during this period, resulting in a worsening of the industry's position (losses from 0,2% in 2011, to 2,5% in the IP). In addition, at a time of increasing consumption, the Union industry lost market share and profitability, while imports gained market share and undercut Union producer prices. Thus, it was established that the Union industry had suffered material injury.

As regards causation, the Commission established that the dumped imports from Argentina and Indonesia undercut the sales of the Union industry. Moreover, the significant increase in volume of dumped imports during the IP coincided with the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry. After separating and distinguishing the effects of all known factors, it was concluded that that the effect of other factors was not such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports and the injury suffered by the Union industry.

Union interest

The Commission determined that not imposing measures would most likely lead to a continuation of the negative trend of the financial situation of the Union industry. Any further decline in performance would ultimately lead to cuts in production and more closures of production sites, which would therefore threaten employment and investments in the Union. It was thus concluded that the imposition of measures would thus restore fair competition on the market.

There was no evidence provided by importers and traders regarding any negative impact which the imposition of measures would have on their business. As regards cooperating users of biodiesel, they stated that biodiesel was a very small part of their overall business activity and, if there was a duty increase on the price of biodiesel this would be passed on automatically to their customers.

One association of suppliers of raw materials, FEDIOL (Federation representing the European Vegetable Oil and Proteinmeal Industry in Europe) stated that that imports from the countries concerned had reduced the demand for rapeseed oil across the Union, with demand falling by over 1 million tonnes between 2009 and 2011. As a result they welcomed any imposition of duties as they considered this would have a positive effect on the supplier industry in the EU as capacity utilisation will increase. Any increase in demand for rapeseed oil would then feed through to the compound feed sector – as this is the residue from rapeseed oil production and the farming sector in the EU as the producer of rapeseed.

It was therefore concluded that it was not against the interest of the Union to impose measures.

As a result, definitive anti-dumping duties, ranging from €216,64 to €245,67 per tonne (Argentina), and from €76,94 to €178,85 per tonne (Indonesia), were imposed in November 2013.

Solar panels originating in People's Republic of China (PRC)– AD investigation

In September 2012, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation concerning the imports of solar panel crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells and wafers) from China, following a complaint lodged by EU ProSun on behalf of more than 25% of the total Union production. In the course of the investigation, it was concluded that, due to the different basic physical and technical characteristics, wafers should be excluded from the original definition of the product concerned, and therefore from the scope of the investigation. The investigation period of dumping was from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 (‘IP’) while the assessment of injury covered the period from 2009 to the end of the investigation period. In March 2013, the Commission made the imports of the product under investigation subject to registration. Provisional measures were imposed in June 2013.

Sampling

In view of the extraordinarily large amount of Union producers and exporting producers known to the Commission (220 and 135 respectively), the Commission selected a sample of 8 Union producers on the basis of the largest representative volume of production and 7 groups of exporting producers, representing 80% of the total Chinese export value. The decision to keep the identities of the sampled EU producers confidential was contested by some parties, yet the Commission confirmed that due to risk of retaliation the decision was duly justified.

Dumping

The Commission rejected all Market Economy Treatment ('MET') requests by the sampled exporting producers, as they failed to meet at least 1 of the 5 cumulative criteria set out in the basic Regulation. 18 cooperating exporting producers or groups of exporting producers not selected in the sample, submitted claims for individual examination. However, the producers, in addition to the 7 groups of exporting producers included in the sample, would be unduly burdensome and would prevent completion of the investigation in good time. In addition, the Commission also rejected the argument made by several interested parties that the MET determination had been made out of time.

Since all MET claims were rejected, normal value was established using an analogue market economy third country (i.e. India). The export prices were established on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation, where export sales to the Union were made directly to independent customers in the Union. Where export sales to the Union were made through related companies located in the Union, export prices were established on the basis of the first resale prices of these related companies to independent customers in the Union.

Normal value and export prices were compared on an ex-works basis. In order to ensure that the comparison was fair, due allowance in the form of adjustments was made for differences affecting prices and price comparability. Definitive dumping margins ranged from 53.8% to 111.5%.

Injury and causation

The analysis of the situation of the Union industry showed a clear downward trend of all the main injury indicators. Against a generally increasing consumption, overall production increased for modules and cells in the period considered. Although the volume of sales increased, the market share of the Union industry shrank in the IP due to the higher increase of the consumption during the period considered. Moreover, average sales price fell sharply throughout the period considered, negatively affecting financial performance indicators such as profitability, cash flow, return on investments and ability to raise capital.

Over the period considered, the overall Union industry’s sales volume increased. However, the increase in sales volumes of the Union industry was accompanied by a tremendous decrease in average sales price. During the period considered, imports of the interested parties from the PRC increased in terms of volumes and market share. At the same time, import prices continuously decreased, undercutting significantly the Union industry’s average price on the Union market.

The investigation concluded that, should dumped imports continue to enter the Union market, the losses of the Union industry would be likely to lead to the permanent discontinuation of any sizeable Union production of the like product. Consequently, the Commission determined that the Union industry suffered material injury.

Regarding causation, the Commission analysed the effects of all other known injury factors and identified four factors that may have contributed to injury, i.e. imports of the product concerned from Taiwan; reduction in the level of Feed in Tariffs (FIT); long-term polysilicon contracts of limited number of Union producers; and the financial and economic crisis. However, the Commission concluded that a collective assessment of all the factors that may have had an impact on the injurious situation of the Union industry failed to explain the material injury suffered by the Union industry, in particular in terms of low prices and financial losses due to the entry of low priced imports in significant quantities from the PRC.

Union Interest

Under the heading of Union interest and particularly as regards the Union industry, while it was argued by some interested parties that the Union industry would not be able to benefit from any measures because the measures would lower the demand for PV products in the Union, they were unable to provide any verifiable evidence of the existence of a direct link to support their argument. As regards claims that the Union industry would be not able to meet the demand of certain types of installations such as commercial rooftop and large ground-mounted installations, the investigation showed that the Union industry has the capacity to supply both the commercial and industrial installations. Claims that the Union industry was not 'bankable' were not substantiated by evidence and, in any event, it was considered that the imposition of measures would restore fair market conditions and thereby reassure investors, including from the banking sector, as to the ability of Union producers to develop viable projects. Arguments put forward that the imposition of duties on cells would de facto increase the cost of production of the Union producers of modules and make them less attractive for consumers were rejected on the grounds that publicly available sources indicated that the price trend of modules and cells was downward. It was also rejected that the Union industry would not benefit from any drop in imports from China as these would be replaced by imports from other sources. Indeed, the investigation did not confirm that there would be any increase in such imports from other countries and in any event there was no indication that the Union industry would not be able to compete if there were. As regards importers it was argued that the imposition of measures would entail significant costs for them if they were to change sources. However it was found that only one in four importers relied exclusively on imports of the product from China and therefore the impact on importers would on average be limited. It was also found that, given the nature of the product, testing of new product including from a new supplier seems standard, therefore this aspect would not result in significant additional costs. The interests of both upstream and downstream operators were also considered under the Union interest test. As regards upstream operators it was concluded that the impact of any anti-dumping duties on the machinery producers would not be significant given the situation of overcapacity in the Chinese market while the impact on the raw material supplier may be negative in the short term in view of the possible reduction of its sales to the PRC. As regards the impact on downstream operators and particularly as regards installers of PV it was considered that while the imposition of measures may lead to an increase of prices in the Union possibly generating less PV installations in the short term, the PV related activity for at least some of the installers constituted only part of their business activities and is also seasonal. In addition, it was also considered that given the renewable and energy efficiency objectives agreed at the level of the EU are legally binding on Member States, it is expected that reduced demand for solar installations will translate into increased demand for other forms of renewable electricity and energy efficiency. In this context it was expected that many of those involved in the installations of PV would have the transferable skills necessary to facilitate working in these neighbouring sectors. It was also found that the downstream operators were profitable (11%) and would be able to absorb some of the price increase if measures were to be imposed. Taking this into consideration it was concluded that given that the proposed measures could be at least partly taken in by the supply chain it would not necessarily result in higher prices for consumers at the retail level.

As a result the Commission determined that the overall positive effects for the Union industry outweighed the likely negative impact on other operators on the PV market including importers/installers/consumers. In light of this, it was concluded that based on the information available concerning the Union interest, there were no compelling reasons against the imposition of definitive measures on imports of the product concerned originating in the PRC.

As a result, definitive anti-dumping duties ranging from 27,3% to 64,9% were imposed in December 2013. On the same date, in the context of a parallel anti-subsidy proceeding, the Commission published a regulation imposing definitive countervailing duties on the same product. Following the final disclosure, the Commission confirmed the acceptance of an undertaking offer in connection to the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning the imports of the product concerned made by exporting producers together with the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products.

Solar panels originating in P.R. China – AS investigation

An anti-subsidy investigation was also initiaited on Solar Panels originating in China in November 2012 also based on a complaint lodged by EU Prosun.

The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012 (the ‘investigation period’ or ‘IP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2009 to the end of the IP (‘the period considered’). In March 2013, imports of the product concerned originating in China were made subject to registration. The remainder of the test focuses on issues of subsidisation of solar panels. For injury and Union interest the issues are largely identical with those of the AD case.

Subsidisation

The Commission first observed that the PV industry in the PRC received preferential treatment in many areas. PV industry in China was included amongst the 'strategic' industries in the 12th Five-Year Plan, and the Government of China ('GOC') had also issued a specific plan for the PV industry, i.e. the 12th Five-year Plan for the Solar Photovoltaic Industry. Moreover, the Decision No. 40 of the State Council suggested that the GOC would actively support the development of the new energy industry and expedite the development of solar energy, e.g. by instructing all financial institutions to provide credit support only to encouraged projects

Schemes investigated

The Commission investigated more than 25 specific schemes which allegedly involved the granting of subsidies by the Governmental authority. The schemes were divided in 5 groups: (i) Preferential policy loans, other financing, guarantees and insurance; (ii) Grant Programmes; (iii) Direct Tax Exemption and Reduction Programmes; (iv) Indirect Tax and Import Tariff Programmes; (v) Government provision of goods and services for less than adequate remuneration.

As regards the lending schemes, the investigation showed that Chinese state owned banks are public bodies within the meaning of the anti-subsidy law, i.e. possess, exercise or are vested with governmental authority. The Commission established that state-owned commercial and policy banks performed government functions on behalf of the GOC. In addition, it was established that the banks are controlled by the government in the exercise of their public functions, and that the GOC exercises meaningful control over state-owned commercial and policy banks through the government's pervasive involvement in the financial sector and the requirement for state-owned banks to follow government policies. Moreover, the Commission found that even privately owned commercial banks were entrusted or directed by the GOC to provide preferential loans to exporting producers.

The Commission established that most of the investigated schemes were countervailable and calculated a definitive subsidy margin which ranged from de minimis to 11.5%.

Definitive measures

In December 2013 the EU institutions imposed definitive countervailing duties ranging from 0 to 11,5%. Following the final disclosure, the Commission confirmed the acceptance of an undertaking offer in connection to the anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings concerning the imports of the product concerned made by exporting producers together with the China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products.

8.1.5. 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 2013, 11 new proceedings (8 anti-dumping and 3 anti-subsidy) were terminated without measures, compared to 9 in 2012 and 11 in 2011.

The list of cases which were terminated without the imposition of measures during 2013 can be found in the following table. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex E.

Product (type of investigation[17]) || Originating from || Main reason for termination

Welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless || F.Y.R.O.M. Turkey Ukraine || Withdrawal of complaint

White phosphorus || Kazakhstan || Union interest

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || Indonesia || Imports not causing material injury

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings || P.R. China Taiwan || Withdrawal of complaint

Seamless pipes, of iron or steel, external diameter exceeding 406.4 mm || P.R. China || Withdrawal of complaint

Bicycles || P.R. China || Withdrawal of complaint

Biodiesel || Argentina Indonesia || Withdrawal of complaint

8.1.6. Details on some individual cases

White phosphorus originating in Kazakhstan

In December 2011 the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation into imports of white phosphorus originating in Kazakhstan, following a complaint lodged by the only Union producer, Thermphos International BV.

The product concerned was white phosphorus, falling within CN code ex 2804 70 00 (‘white phosphorus’ or ‘the product concerned’). The investigation period was from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 and the examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP.

The sole exporting producer successfully requested market economy treatment ('MET'). Accordingly, normal value was calculated on the basis of Article 2(1) to (6) of the basic Regulation. Since the investigated company did not sell white phosphorus on the domestic market during the IP, normal value was constructed in accordance with Article 2(3) of the basic Regulation.

Despite the findings of injurious dumping caused by the dumped imports from Kazakhstan, the Commission concluded that on balance, the negative impact of measures on the users was more significant than the overall benefit to the Union industry. The Commission observed that white phosphorus was a resource which was, for almost all the users that came forward in the investigation regarded as a highly important raw material in their production process, and represented a considerable part of their total production costs.

The investigation showed that in particular, an anti-dumping duty could have a significant effect on users in the acid derivatives segment as they could not absorb the cost increase and continue to be competitive in the downstream market. The investigation determined that the imposition of measures may not provide sufficient relief to the Union industry, as imports from Kazakhstan, even when subject to duties, would have remained more competitive in terms of prices than the Union industry sales and would therefore not have guaranteed that the Union industry could have overcome its current fragile situation. Under these circumstances, it was considered that the likely negative effect of any anti-dumping duty on the downstream industries outweighed the expected positive effects of the duty on the Union industry

Therefore, the Commission concluded that the imposition of measures was not in the Union interest and decided to terminate the investigation accordingly.

Biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia

In September 2012, the Commission received a complaint alleging injurious subsidisation of production of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia. The complaint was lodged by the European Biodiesel Board ('EBB'), representing more than 25% of the Union production. The Commission initiated the investigation in November 2012.

In April 2013, the Commission made the imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia subject to registration. By a letter from October 2013, the complainant formally withdrew its complaint. The Basic AS Regulation provides that the proceeding may be terminated where the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest. After assessing the situation, the Commission established that the termination of the investigation was not against the Union interest, and therefore, concluded that the investigation should be terminated. Consequently, the registration of imports of biodiesel was discontinued.

In a parallel proceeding, the Commission imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on the imports of biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia in December 2013.

8.2. Review investigations

8.2.1. Expiry reviews

Article 11(2) and Article 18 of the basic Regulations provide for the expiry of measures after 5 years, unless an expiry review demonstrates that they should be maintained in their original form.

In 2013, 6 anti-dumping measures and no anti-subsidy measure expired automatically. The references for these measures are set out in Annex N.

Since the expiry provision of the basic Regulations came into force in 1985, a total of 492 measures have expired automatically.

8.2.1.1. Initiations

The list of the expiry reviews initiated in 2013 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, which allow the amendment of the duty rates but no such combined reviews were initiated in 2013. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex F.

Product (type of investigation AD or AS) || Originating from || Complainant

Ferro-silicon AD || P.R. China Russia || Euroalliages

Manganese dioxides AD || South Africa || Cegasa Internacional SA and Tosoh Hellas A.I.C.

Powdered activated carbon AD || P.R. China || Cabot Norit Nederland BV and Cabot Norit (UK) Ltd

Ammonium nitrate AD || Russia || Fertilizers Europe

Tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel AD || Korea, Rep. of Malaysia || Defence Committee of the Steel Butt-Welding Fittings Industry of the European Union

Sulphanilic acid AD || P.R. China India || CUF — Químicos Industriais

Sulphanilic acid (AS) || India || CUF — Químicos Industriais

Citrus fruits AD || P.R. China || Federación Nacional de Asociaciones de Transformados Vegetales y Alimentos Procesados (‘FENAVAL’)

Monosodium glutamate AD || P.R. China || Ajinomoto Foods Europe SAS

Citric acid AD || P.R. China || Ex-officio

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel AD || China Belarus Ukraine Russia || Defence Committee of the Steel Butt-Welding Fittings Industry of the European Union

8.2.1.2. Expiry reviews concluded with confirmation of duties

During 2013, 5 expiry reviews were co