WRITTEN QUESTION P-3506/01

by Niels Busk (ELDR) to the Commission

(12 December 2001)

Subject: Antidumping duty on commercial fertiliser

What are the Commission's reasons for retaining the antidumping duty on commercial fertilisers from eastern Europe and the proposal to increase it?

By reducing the import duty on grain, the Commission has brought prices down as it desired. Proposing a higher antidumping duty on commercial fertiliser would therefore unreasonably reduce agriculture's ability to compete in the EU and represent a complete reversal of the Commission's present trade policy.

Does the Commission agree with this assessment?

Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission

(4 February 2002)

The Community has imposed anti-dumping duties on a number of nitrogenous fertilisers from certain third countries, including from certain countries of Eastern Europe.

The Commission would remind the Honourable Member that Community producers which are suffering injury as a result of dumped imports are entitled to protection in the form of anti-dumping duties in accordance with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Anti-Dumping Agreement and Community legislation. In the fertiliser cases, the Commission has proposed to Council the imposition of anti-dumping duties only after thorough investigation of the evidence presented by the complainant Community industry, the exporters, importers and users concerned.

It is to be noted that anti-dumping duties are only proposed if it is in the interest of the Community as a whole, taking account of the interests of all the parties concerned by the proceeding. In each of these fertiliser cases, all parties concerned had the possibility to submit their views. In particular, farmers' organisations have systematically been invited to contribute to the investigations. Moreover, parties who so requested were granted an opportunity to be heard by the Commission. The Commission carried out an analysis of the possible negative effects of anti-dumping measures on users and in particular on farmers. On the basis of the data received and verified, the Commission reached the conclusion that the potential increase in farmers' costs which might result from the imposition of such anti-dumping duties, even under a worst case scenario, would be very limited (less than 1 %) and, in view of all the circumstances, was not such as to justify denying the Community fertiliser industry relief from proven unfair trade practices.

The Honourable Member also refers to certain reductions in cereals import duties. These reductions were made in accordance with the Community's commitments under the WTO Agreement. The reduction in customs tariffs on agricultural goods is in no way linked to measures aimed at combating injurious dumping. The objective of anti-dumping measures is to eliminate the effects of injurious dumping, which are established despite the existence of any customs tariffs.

For these reasons, the Commission does not share the assessment that the anti-dumping measures on fertilisers would unreasonably reduce the ability of Community farmers to compete on the EU market. Nor do these anti-dumping measures represent in any way a departure from the Community's trade policy.