EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF CERTAIN FATTY ALCOHOLS FROM INDONESIA
Document: Request for Consultations by Indonesia
Date: 1 August 2012
Document codes: WT/DS442/1; G/ADP/D94/1; G/L/993
Complainant: Indonesia
Respondent: EU
Third parties: India, South Korea, Turkey, U.S., Malaysia, Thailand
Dispute stage: Appellate Body
Agreements cited: Art. 2.3, 2.4, 5.8, 3.1, 3.4, 3.5, 9.4, 9.2  Anti-dumpingArt. X:3(a)  GATT 1994Art. 2.6, 4.1, 3.2, 3.3, 6.7, 6.9, 1, 18  Anti-dumpingArt. VI  GATT 1994

EUROPEAN UNION – ANTI-DUMPING MEASURES ON IMPORTS OF
CERTAIN FATTY ALCOHOLS FROM INDONESIA

Request for Consultations by Indonesia

 The following communication, dated 27 July 2 012, from the delegation of Indonesia to the
delegation of the European Union and to the Ch airperson of the Dispute Settlement Body, is
circulated in accordance with Article 4.4 of the DSU.

 Pursuant to Article 4 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the
Settlement of Disputes , Article 17.3of the Agreement on Implementation of Article VI of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "Anti-Dumping Agreement"), and Article XXIII:1 of the
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (the "GATT 1994"), the Government of Indonesia
requests consultations with the European Union with respect to the imposition of definitive and
provisional anti-dumping measures by the European Union on the importation of fatty alcohols, and
with respect to certain aspects of the investigation underlying these measures.
1

Indonesia is particularly concerned about the following aspects of the measures at issue:

 The European Union failed to treat the I ndonesian exporters' related Singapore sales
offices as a single economic entity with their related producer/exporters. Furthermore,
the European Union made adjustments to th e export price of both Indonesian exporters
to reflect both the selling expenses of the Singapore sales offices as well as a
"commission" paid to the related Singa pore sales offices. Because it did not have a
proper factual or legal basis for this double-counting, the European Union appears to
have acted inconsistently with:
o Articles 2.3 and 2.4 of the Anti-dumping Agreement, because it inappropriately
adjusted the export price the Indonesian exporters and thereby failed to conduct a
fair comparison between the export price and normal value;

1 The definitive measure was imposed pursuant to Council Implementing Regulation (EU)
No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive antidumping duty and collecting definitively the
provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia,
and Malaysia , OJ L 293, 11.11.2011, p.1. The provisional measure was imposed pursuant to Commission
Regulation (EU) No 446/2011 of 10 Ma y 2011 imposing a provisional anti-du mping duty on imports of certain
fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia , OJ L 122, 11.5.2011, p. 47. The
investigation was initiated pursuant to the Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning
imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia, OJ C 219,
13.8.2010, p. 12.

o Article 5.8 of the Anti-Dumping Agreem ent, because, where the unwarranted
adjustment discussed above is eliminated, the dumping margin for the Indonesian
exporters falls below the de minimis threshold, such that no anti-dumping duties
may legally be imposed on those exporters;
o Articles 3.1 and 3.5 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because the EU incorrectly
calculated the volume of dumped imports and thereby also failed to properly
assess the existence of a causal link between dumped imports and the material
injury suffered by the domestic industry;
o Article 9.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agre ement, because the European Union
incorrectly calculated the "all others" rate and inappropriately applies definitive
anti-dumping duties to imports from exporte rs or producers not included in the
examination;
o Article 9.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because the European Union fails to
collect anti-dumping duties in the "appropriate amounts"; and
o Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994, because the European Union failed and
continues to fail to administer its laws , regulations, decisions and rulings in a
uniform, impartial, and reasonable manner.
 The European Union also inappropriately ex cluded "branched" fatty alcohols from the
scope of the domestic "like" product and, by excluding the production of such
"branched" fatty alcohols from the scope of the domestic industry, also incorrectly
defined the domestic industry. The European Union thereby appears to have acted
inconsistently with:
o Article 2.6, Articles 3.1 and 4.1 read with Article 2.6, and Articles 3.4 and 3.5 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because it incorrectly defined the product under
consideration as well as the domestic like product, and failed to provide a reasoned
and adequate explanation for its determination.
o Article 4.1of the Anti-Dumping Agreemen t, because it incorrectly defined the
scope of the domestic industry and faile d to provide a reasoned and adequate
explanation for its determination.
o Articles 3.1, 3.2, 3.4, and 3.5of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, because it failed to
conduct a proper injury and causation analysis, based on positive evidence and an
objective examination of the relevant f acts, and based on a correct product and
domestic industry definition, and failed to provide a reasoned and adequate
explanation for its injury and causation determination.
 The European Union appears to have acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.5,
third sentence, of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to provide a reasoned and
adequate explanation, based on positiv e evidence and involving an objective
examination, of why the injury suffered by the domestic industry was not attributable to
other known factors, such as, in particular, the effects of sales of branched fatty
alcohols on sales of linear fatty alcohols and the impact of the financial crisis.

 The European Union appears to have acted in consistently with Articles 3.1, 3.3 and 3.4
of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by cumulating imports from Indonesia, which were
subject to negative price undercutting margin s, with imports from other countries,
which were at prices that undercut the dom estic product. The European Union also
appears to have acted inconsistently with its own administrative practice in this respect,
thereby giving rise to a violation of Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
 The European Union appears to have acted inconsistently with Articles 6.7 and 6.9 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to pr ovide the Indonesian exporters with the
results of the EU's verification visits to the exporters.
 It appears to Indonesia that the foregoing cannot be reconciled with Article VI of the
GATT 1994, Articles 1 and 18 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and the specific provisions cited
above. In addition to the legal instruments embodying the measures at issue, this request also covers
any amendments, extensions, related instruments or practices, the results of any review proceedings as
well as modifications of the original measures tri ggered by any proceedings under EU law, including
proceedings before the European Court of Justice. Indonesia reserves the right to raise additional
legal claims or matters during the course of consultations.
 Indonesia looks forward to receiving your response to this request. I propose that the date and
venue of the consultations be agreed between our two missions.