Proposal for a COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) on the introduction of time limits for investigations carried out under the Community instruments of commercial defence and modification of the relevant Council Regulations
Date: 1993-11-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping legislation, dumping, economic survey, exchange of information, import, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

C0M(93) 541  f mal 

Brussels,  4  November  1993 

§«-.. 

Proposal  for a 

COUNCIL REGULATION  (EEC) 

on the Introduction of time  limits for Investigations carried out 
under  the Community  Instruments of commercial  defence 
and 
modification of the relevant  Council  Regulations 

(presented  by  the Commission) 

EXPLANATORY  MEMORANDUM 

1.  INTRODUCTION 

The effectiveness of  the Community's  instruments of  commercial 

defence has been a major preoccupation  in the Community  for some 

time, particularly  In view of the  liberalization of  trade due to 

the creation of  the single market  and  the further  push  in this 

direction  from the Uruguay Round.  In June 1992, the Commission 

addressed part of  this problem  in its proposal  on decision-making 

procedures*1) which  is still  before the Council.  There  is, 

however, another aspect of the overall  problem which remains to be 

addressed,  i.e. the excessive duration of anti-dumping and anti-

subsidy  investigations which has provoked criticisms from the 

European Parliament, Member  States, Community  industries,  importers 

and exporters, which  have all  condemned  the  length of  these 

Community  investigations.  Excessive  time delays cause uncertainty 

in the market  place, reduce the chances that measures, once taken, 

have the desired effect, and contribute  to the creation of a  lack 

of confidence  in the effectiveness of Community  commercial  policy. 

Thus, to maintain  the credibility of this aspect of  commercial 

defence  It  is necessary  to propose corrective action to  improve 

efficiency.  For the same reasons,  it  is also appropriate to 

propose  the same corrective action to  improve efficiency of 

safeguard  action*2). 

In addition to the above-mentioned proposal on decision-making 

there  is another proposal  to modify Council  Regulation  (EEC) No 

288/82 which  Is also before  the Council*3).  It should be noted 

that nothing  in the existing proposal  conflicts with  those already 

(1) Commission  proposal of 30.6.92, SEC(92) 1097 FINAL 

(2)  Council  Reg.(EEC)  No  288/82  of  5.2.82,  OJ  No  L35  of  9.2.82 

(3) Commission 

proposal 

of 

18.9.93, 

C0M(92), 

374 

FINAL 

/ItL 

before the Council.  It should be underlined that the  latter are 

maintained and  that  the Commission considers their adoption as 

essential  for an effective commercial  defence.  The present 

proposal  has been drafted  In such a manner  that  it  is compatible 

with  the existing  legislation and complements  the proposals already 

before the Council on decision-making.  The common purpose of all 

these proposals  is to  improve the credibility of  the Community's 

trade policy. 

2.  THE PRESENT SITUATION - ANTI-DUMPING AND ANTI-SUBSIDY 

At present,  investigations frequently  take up to 18 months  in the 

Community  between  the  initiation and  the provisional  determination, 

which  is nearly twice the time taken by, for example, the United 

States.  Annex A sets out  the actual  time  limits in force  in the 

United States and, by way of comparison,  it also outlines the 

proposed  time  limits for the EC and the time taken at present  to 

complete  these cases. 

The short duration  in the  United States  is due to several  reasons. 

First, the scope of  their  investigations is more  limited  in that 

they neither apply a public  interest  test nor a "lesser duty rule", 

i.e. they automatically apply  the full margin of dumping  as a duty 

rather  than  investigating whether a  lower amount would suffice. 

Furthermore, they have a simple decision-making process and they 

operate  in one  language, a situation which  is also true for Canada 

and Austral la. 

However, the main reason for  the short duration  is that  these 

countries operate mandatory  legal  time  limits*4) which  they  are 

able  to apply because  they have allocated  sufficient  resources to 

the problem.  In this respect, the United States,  employs 

approximately 5 times the number of staff  for roughly  the same 

number  of  investigations as the EC and Canada 3 times the number 

of staff  for one third the number of  investigations  in the EC. 

Moreover, they employ staff  specifically qualified  for this work 

which requires auditing or accounting experience  if it  is to be 

carried out effectively. 

(4) approximately  25 days to accept or  reject  a complaint  and 6 months 

on average from  initiation to provisional  determination. 

3.  THE PROPOSED SOLUTION AND PRECONDITIONS 

a)  Solution for Anti-dumping and Anti-subsidy 

Certain of  the differences between the EC and US systems outlined 

above will, of course, always remain.  Therefore, the most  feasible 

solution  is the  introduction of mandatory  time  limits based on the 

\ 

peculiarities of the EC.  Thus, the appropriate  time  limits for 

practice of our major  trading partners but adapted  to the 

the EC would be : 

- 

a maximum 1 month  from receipt of complaint  to  initiation or 

rejection of  complaint; 

- 

a maximum 9 months between  initiation of  investigation and 

provisional  measures***). 

a maximum  15 months between  initiation of  investigation and 

definitive conclusion. 

b)  Solution  for Safeguard Action 

As far as safeguard measures under Regulation No 288/82 and other 

similar  instruments are concerned, the  limited number of 

investigations carried out by the Commission  has not given rise, so 

far, to a problem of  the same magnitude as that concerning  anti 

dumping or anti-subsidy  actions.  Nevertheless, delays  have 

occurred  in certain cases.  It would appear appropriate, therefore, 

to  introduce the same changes for safeguard  action as  is proposed 

for anti-dumping and anti-subsidy  investigations. 

(5) The  Commission  understands  the  wish  of  European  industry  to  have 

shorter  time  limits  than  those  indicated  in  the  present  proposal. 

The  Commission  is prepared  to propose  to  reduce  these  time  limits 

further  provided  it  is  assured  of  having  the  means  to  carry  out 

reduced  delays.  The  Commission  will  undertake  a  review  of  the 

duration of  these time  limits within 2 years after  their entry  into 

force with a view to reducing  them  further. 

In addition, in order  to  Introduce a more democratic and 

transparent  system,  it appears necessary  to confer on Community 

industries the right  to  lodge complaints for safeguard measures in 

the same manner as for antI-dumping and anti-subsidy cases. 

c)  Preconditions 

For the  imposition of  time  limits it  is Imperative  that strict, 

sufficiently  short and  legally binding deadlines be set  for the 

Community  Institutions concerned and  the other participants  in such 

procedures  i.e. for the Community  industry, exporters,  importers, 

users and consumer organizations.  The same must  apply for written 

or oral  consultations of Member  States.  The  imposition of such 

deadlines will only be realistic  if: 

- 

Investigations of dumping and  Injury/Community  interest would 

have to be carried out separately and  In parallel.  This would 

also  increase the transparency and objectivity of these 

Investigations, as well  as  Improve the quality of the work 

carried out  in these  investigations which, as  is well known, is 

under strict scrutiny by GATT panels and the European Court. 

- 

Clarifications are made to existing provisions.  A more 

systematic use of sampling would have to be made where there 

are a  large number of parties  involved  in the  investigation. 

Moreover, the consequences of non-cooperation by  interested 

parties have to be clarified. 

- 

Staffing  Is Increased.  In this respect,  it has to be borne in 

mind  that  the changes envisaged will  lead to a considerably 

increased workload  for a staff which  is already stretched  to 

breaking point.  Moreover, adequate staff  levels are essential 

to  implement the reform given the  implications of  failing to 

meet  the time  limits where the  legal  right  to continue the 

investigations would fail and the  institutions would be exposed 

to serious  legal consequences under Article 215 of The Treaty. 

Indeed, since the quantity of work will  not diminish but 

increase following Uruguay and  liberalization vis-à-vis PECOs 

and  the CIS*6),  then  it  is clear  that more personnel  is needed 

if the same work has to be done  in a shorter  period of time. 

The additional  staff  required  to  implement  time  limits and the 

other changes outlined  has been calculated  in relation  to the 

number of  investigating staff needed.  The methodology used to 

calculate  this figure  is set out  in ANNEX B which shows a 

requirement  for  146  investigators, an  increase which naturally 

generates an  increased hierarchy, policy and supporting staff 

requirement.  The total existing staff and the additional  staff 

required to  implement  changes are set out  in ANNEX  C.  The 

calculations are based on  the average of 56 new  investigations 

per  year*7).  The staff  required  to carry out a deadlines 

based system,  involving a 50% reduction  in the duration of 

investigations for  these new cases, means that more work has to 

be done  in a shorter  time, and thus extra staff  is required. 

This requirement  to carry out work  in a shorter  time is 

continuous, as  is the  influx of new cases.  The consequence of 

the new system will  be a gradual  reduction  in the number of 

cases  in progress at any given time but, given the deadlines, 

an  increased workload  at any point  in time.  Therefore, the 

result will  not  lead to unused  resources but will  stop the 

tendency towards ever-increasing periods of  time necessary for 

completion of cases.  Finally,  in this respect,  it should be 

understood  that no margin of security has been  incorporated 

into the staffing figures for  increases  in case numbers, which 

will  certainly  happen due to the  liberalization of  the  internal 

market  and the further push  in this direction resulting from 

the Uruguay Round and  the PECOS/CIS negotiations. 

(6) For  example  the elimination of  quantitative  restrictions, granting 

of market  economy  status, etc. 

(7) This  figure  should  not  be  confused  with  the  number  of 

investigations  in  progress  at  any  given  time  -  SEE  ANNEX  D  WHICH 

SETS  OUT  THE  NUMBER  OF  NEW  CASES  INITIATED  AND  INVESTIGATIONS  IN 

PROGRESS FOR THE PERIOD 1981 - 1992. 

Member States play their role  in, firstly, explaining to 

interested parties how Community  legislation operates and, 

secondly,  in ensuring a more effective enforcement of measures 

once they are  imposed. 

The extra staff required  for this purpose  is treated as being 

additional  to other  requirements of the Commission. 

The figures set out  in Annex C  Include provision for the 

transformation of 23 national  expert posts  into permanent 

posts.  This  is necessary because of the time required for 

training and the short duration of contracts which has made 

national  expert staffing particularly unsuited  to working under 

a deadlines-based approach. 

Annex C also specifies that  there will be a requirement  for an 

additional  translator  in each  language given that  translations 

will  have to be made under  tight deadlines. 

The recruitment of the necessary staff takes place  In tandem 

with the  implementation of time  limits.  In this respect, the 

calendar  for recruitment, the method of recruitment, the 

budgetary  implications and the timing of the  introduction of 

time  limits and other changes are addressed  in paragraph  4 

below. 

The budgets for training and computerization, as well  as 

missions, are  increased.  The need  for  increased spending on 

training and computerization  is self-evident.  With regard to 

missions, the split of dumping and  injury  investigations would 

result  in more missions which would have to be compressed 

within  legally binding time limits. 

Finally, this occasion should be used to give users and consumers a 

greater  input  into the whole process.  They have been pressing for 

years to obtain  interested party status  in these  investigations, a 

demand which was even pursued, unsuccessfully, before the European 

Court of Justice.  The Commission should now accommodate them in 

order  to  increase the transparency  in this  important area of trade 

poIi cy. 

4-  Timetable for Action 

a)  Calendar  for recruitment of additional  staff 

Assuming  the Council  approves the Commission's proposal on the 

implementation of deadlines by the end of  1993, it should be 

borne  in mind  that  it will  take some time to put the necessary 

administrative structure  into place, and that  it  is imperative 

that the  implementation of  time  limits and the recruitment of 

staff be accomplished  in tandem.  In this respect, it has to be 

borne  in mind that the Edinburgh Summit  imposed strict 

budgetary ceilings until  1995 and, consequently, a realistic 

timetable for supplying  the necessary statutory staff would be 

10 posts  in 1994, 59  in 1995 and the remaining 59  in 1996*8). 

b)  External  Recruitment of qualified personnel 

Apart  from  legal and economic specialists who are available in 

house or as a result of general open competitions, this type of 

work requires staff with auditing or accounting experience. 

Accountants or auditors, in the numbers required, are Just not 

available from within the Commission and, therefore, 

redeployment  cannot work.  Thus, special  external  competitions 

may have to be organised, early  in 1994, to recruit the 

suitably qualified personnel. 

(8) For non-statutory  staff, the figures are 14  in 1995 and 6  in 1996, 

c)  Implementation of  time  limits 

Given the above timetable on staff  recruitment, the most 

realistic date for entry  into effect of time  limits with 

respect  to new cases (as opposed  to pending cases or reviews) 

would be 1.4.1995. 

It can be expected  that all cases, including reviews, would be 

subject  to the "new system  from  1.7.1996, when the full 

administrative structure will be  In place. 

d)  The budgetary  implications of  the above are set out  in the 

attached  "fiche financière". 

5.  CONCLUSION 

To achieve  the above and  in order  to meet  the preoccupations 

frequently expressed by  the European Parliament, Member  States and 

the Community  industry, the Commission  herewith submits  to the 

>* 

Counc iI : 

- 

a proposal  to amend  the Community's basic anti-dumping and 

anti-subsidy and safeguard  legislation. 

This proposal  is principally aimed at: 

a)  incorporating  time  limits, 

b)  providing a basis for sampling where there are a  large 

number of parties  involved and clarifying the provisions 

with  regard  to  interested  parties and  the treatment  of non 

or partial  cooperators; and 

c)  permitting the  imposition of provisional  measures for a 

full 6 months rather  than the current  situation where they 

are first  imposed  for 4 months and then,  if necessary, 

extended  for a further  two months by the Council; and 

d)  conferring on Community  industries the right  to  lodge 

safeguard  complaints. 

10 

The above proposai  is  made, of course, on the assumption that the 

necessary  financial  resources are provided by the Council  for the 

budgetary years 1995 and 1996.  In effect, the credibility of the 

Community  vis-à-vis  its own  industries and third countries is 

involved  in this policy.  Therefore, every effort must  be made to 

achieve the above objectives,  including the question of additional 

resources.  If these are not  forthcoming, the Commission would have 

to reconsider  its position. 

ANNEX A 
(Explan. Memo) 

ANTI-DUMPING - US TIME LIMITS 

Adequacy of complaint 

20 days after  it  is lodged 

Prel.  injury finding 

45 days after  it  is lodged 

Pre I. dumping  finding 

Final dumping finding 

160 days after  it  is lodged 
(210 in complex  cases) 

75 days after prel. dump, finding 

(135  in complex cases) 

Final  injury  finding 

45 days after  final dump, finding 

investigations may  be finished  in a period  ranging  from a minimum of 280 
days for simple cases or a maximum of 390 days  in complex cases. 

PROPOSED TIME LIMITS FOR EC 

Adequacy of complaint 

1 month 

Prel. dumping and  injury finding 

9 months 

Final  dumping and  injury finding 

15 months 

THE TIME TAKEN AT PRESENT  IN EC 

Adequacy of  complaint 

2- 3 months 

Prel. dumping and  injury  finding 

15-18 months 

Final  dumping  and  injury  finding 

21-24 months 

/M 

Ant I-dumping and ant I-subsidy -

Calculation of number of  Investigators 

ANNEX B 

DUMP ING 

investigators would work  in teams of  two and would not be 

involved  in more than two cases at  the same time; 

56 cases are on-going  at any one time, 13 of which are 

complicated,  25 of which are normal  and 18 of which are simple-, 

two teams of  two officials would work on each complicated  case, 

though  the second  team would also have to do a simple case at the 

same time,  i.e accounting  for 26 cases and 26 teams or 52 

investigators; 

for the remaining 30 cases  (5 simple and 25 normal), 1 team of 

two would work on 2 cases at the same time,  i.e 15 teams of 2 

investigators or 30  investigators; 

the above would give a total  requirement  of 82  Investigators. 

INJURY 

investigators would work  in teams of two and would not be 

involved  in more than two cases at the same time; 

48 cases are on-going at any one time, 8 of which are 

complicated, 27 which are normal  and 13 of which are simple; 

two teams of two officials would work on each complicated case, 

though the second  team would also have to do a simple case at the 

same time,  i.e accounting  for 16 cases and  16 teams or 32 

investigators. 

for the remaining 32 cases, 1 team of two would work on 2 cases 

at the same time, i.e 16 teams of 2  investigators or 32 

investigators; 

the above would give a total requirement of 64  investigators. 

41 

ANNEX  C 

(Explan. Memo.) 

The Existing and Additional  Staff Required  to  Implement  Changes 

DG1 

Existing  Additional 

1. 

A Grade  (stat) 

32 

57 

2. 

B Grade  (stat) 

22 

42 

3. 

C Grade  (stat) 

18 

20 

Sub-Total 

72 

109 (new posts of which 55 

in 1995, and 54 in 

1996) 

4. 

A Grade  (stat. temp) 

13 

10*D 

5. 

National  Experts and 

replacements 

23*2) 

23*3) 

6. 

C Grade  (non-stat) 

11 

17*4) 

Translation Service 

7. 

LA Grade  (stat) 

9  (new posts) 

8. 

C Grade  (non-stat) 

3*4) 

(1) To be supplied  from existing resources. 

(2) These are national  experts  to be replaced  by permanent  staff. 

(3) These  are  statutory  replacements  for  national  experts  achieved 

through  a transfer  of employment  credits. 

(4) These  are  non-statutory  staff  which  will  require  supplementary 

credits. 

Ji 

ANTI-OUPINO  ANO  ANTI-SUBSIDY  INVESTIGATIONS  OURINQ  THE  PERICO  1981  -  1992 

ANNEX  0 

( E X P L A N / M E M) 

1981 

1982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990  I 1991  I  1992 

l 

1 

1 

1 

29 

46 

53 

33 

40 

21 

39 

53 

60 

59 

46 

46 

58 

38 

49 

36 

24 

39 

40 

27 

43 

20 

39 

Investigations  In  progress ot 
the  beginning  of  the period 

Investigations  Inltloted 
during  the period 

Investigations  In  progress 

during  the period 

77 

104 

82 

76 

68 

60 

79 

80 

103 

79 

85 

Investigations  concluded  by : 

-  Imposition  of  definitive 

duty 

-  occeptonce  of  price 

undertaking 

-  determination  of no  dimplng 

-  determination  of no 

subsldlsatIon 

-  determination  of no  Injury 

-  other  reasons 

Total  Investigations 
concluded  during  the period 

Investigations  In  progress 
at  the end of the period 

Provltlonol  duties  Imposed 
during  the period 

10 

7 

7 

20 

18 

10 

18 

19 

16 

35 

3 

27 

27 

6 

25 

4 

4 

2 

1 

15 

2 

3 

1 

13 

5 

31 

51 

58 

42 

32 

47 

21 

26 

20 

45 

33 

28 

46 

53 

33 

40 

44 

21 

39 

53 

60 

58 

46 

57 

18 

22 

11 

J 

L 

28 

10 

23 

19 

18 

REVIEWS Of ANTI-OUPINO AND ANT I-SUBSIDY  INVESTIGATIONS DURING  1981 -  1992 
1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1981 

1 

1 
1982  I 1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987  I 1988  I 1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

A N N EX 
( E X P L AN 

D 
. M E M) 

Reviews  In progress  ot  the 
beginning  of  the period 
Reviews  opened  during  the 
period 

Reviews  In progress  during 
the period 

Reviews  concluded  by : 
-  ImpoaltIon  of  de/InltIve 
duty  In  I leu of price 
undertaking 

-  omendment  of  definitive 

duty 

-  suspension  of  definitive 

duty 

-  occeptonce  of  price 

undertoklng  In  I leu of 
defInltlve  duty 
-  amendment  of  price 

undertoklng 

-  repeal  or explry of 

defInltlve  duty 

-  repeol  or expiry  of  price 

undertoklng 

-  repeal  of  regional  duty 
-  no change  of  the measures 

In force 

Total  reviews  terminated 
during  the period 

16 

24 

24 

10 

2 

30 

20 

24 

27 

11 

20 

15 

21 

8 

24 

17 

26 

16 

21 

27 

18 

40 

34 

32 

44 

35 

35 

37 

41 

37 

48 

11 

11 

13 

16 

32 

12 

17 

24 

15 

22 

20 

15 

Reviews  In progress  at  the 
end of  the period 

16 

24 

20 

27 

11 

20 

15 

21 

22 

30 

Provisional  duties  Imposed 
during  the  reviews 

13 

J 

l 

J 

L 

y> 

PROPOSAL FOR 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) No 

On  the  introduction  of  time  limits  for  investigations carried  out  under 

the Community  instruments of  commercial  defence  and modification of  the 

relevant  Council  Regulations 

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

Having  regard  to  the  Treaty  establishing  the  European  Economic 

Community,  and  in particular Article  113 thereof, 

Having regard  to the proposal  from  the Commission, 

Having  regard  to the opinion of  the European Parliament, 

Whereas  the  common  commercial  policy  must  be  based  on  uniform 

principles, notably with  regard  to commercial  defence, 

Whereas  instruments  of  commercial  defence,  in particular  in  respect  of 

unfair  trade  practices,  are  an  indispensable  complement  to  an  open 

market  and  fair  trading  system,  thus  contributing  to  the  harmonious 

development  of world trade, 

/( 

Whereas,  to  this  end,  the  following  two  Community  instruments  were 

established,  inter alia: 

Council  regulation  (EEC)  No  2423/88  of  11  July  19881),  on 

protection  against  dumped  or  subsidised  imports  from  countries  not 

members of  the European Economic  Community, 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) No  288/82 of  5  February  19822),  on  common 

rules for  imports  (as  last amended^)) 

1)  OJ No L 209, 2.8.1988, p.1 

2)  OJ No L 35, 9.2.1982, p.1 

3)  OJ No L 284, 12.10.1991, p.1 

'"? 

- 3 

Whereas the completion of the single market  in 1992 makes  it appropriate 

to  improve  the  functioning of  these  instruments  of  commercial  datcncï, 

in  particular  in  respect  of  the  length  of  the  Investigations  carried 

out under  these  Instruments, 

Whereas  it  is, therefore,  appropriate  and  necessary  to  introduce  time 

Hmits  for procedures carried out under  the above-mentioned Regulations, 

Whereas  for complaints  lodged against  dumped or subsidized  imports  ii  is 

necessary  to  set  time  limits  for  the  initiation  of  investigations and 

for  the  provisional  and  final  determinations;  whereas  it  is  also 

appropriate  to ensure that final decisions, either positive or negative, 

are taken quickly  to ensure compliance  with  international obligations, 

Whereas  in order  that  the time  limits can be  respected,  it  is essential 

to  provide  for  sampling  where  there  are  a  large  number  of  parties 

involved  in an  investigation, to clarify  the periods within which  views 

and  information have to be submitted  to the Commission  in order  for them 

to be taken  into account  in the  investigation,  to define more  precisely 

the  parties  which  may  inspect  Information  available  to  the  Commission 

and  may  request  to be  informed  of  the  essential  facts on  the basis of 

which  definitive  measures  are  to  be  proposed  and  to  clarify  the 

consequences of partial or non-cooperation by these  parties, 

Whereas  it  is also  essential  to  ensure  that  consultations  with  Member 

States  within  the  Advisory  Committee  are  held  in  sufficient  time  to 

allow the time  limits to be respected, 

n 

-  4 -

Whereas  it  is also appropriate  to simplify  procedures by providing  that 

provisional  duties  can  be  imposed  for  a  full  six  month  period  rather 

than  for  an  initial  four month  period  which may  then be extended  for a 

further  two months, 

Whereas, review  investigations should also be completed expeditiously, 

Whereas,  for  Community  surveillance  and  protective  measures  it  is also 

necessary  to  set  time  limits  for  the  initiation  of  investigations and 

for determinations as to whether, or not, measures are appropriate, with 

a  view  to ensuring  that  such  determinations are made  quickly,  in order 

to  increase  legal certainty  for  the economic operators concerned, 

Whereas,  in  addition,  in  order  to  introduce  a  more  accessible  and 

transparent  system,  it  appears  necessary  to  confer  on  Community 

industries  the  right  to  lodge  complaints  for  safeguard  measures  in the 

same manner  as for anti-dumping and anti-subsidy cases, 

Whereas,  In  addition,  it  is  imperative  to  link  the  implementation  of 

this  Regulation  to  the  establishment  of  the  necessary  administrative 

structure  within  the  Commission's  services;  whereas,  the  Council, 

therefore, should specify  in a decision  to be adopted  in accordance with 

Article  113  of  the  EEC  Treaty,  the  complaints,  proceedings  and 

investigations to which  this Regulation will apply. 

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: 

11 

TITLE I 

Anti-dumping and countervailing duties 

Article 1 

1.  Article  2, paragraph  13, of  Council  Regulation  (EEC) No  2423/88  is 

ret it led "G Averaging Techniques" and the third  indent  is deleted. 

2.  The following sentence  is added to Article 5, paragraph 3: 

"A  complaint  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  lodged  on  the  first 

worlcing  day  following  its delivery  to  the Commission  by  registered 

mail  or  the  issuing  of  an  acknowledgement  of  receipt  by  the 

Commission." 

3.  The following text  is added  to Article 5, paragraph 5  in fine: 

"within  1 month of  the  date on which  the complaint  is  lodged with 

the Commission." 

4.  "The following text  is added to Article 6, paragraph  1  in fine: 

"within a time frame which allows the time limits set by the present 

Regulation  to be respected." 

6.  The words "or to request  an oral  consultation" are deleted  from  the 

end of Article 6, paragraph 3  in fine: 

lo 

- 6 -

6.  The word  "immediately"  In the first sentence of Article 7, paragraph 

1  is  deleted  and  Article  7,  paragraph  1,  sub-paragraph  (a)  is 

amended  to read as follows: 

"Initiate  a  proceeding  within  one  month  of  the  lodging  of  the 

complaint  and  publish  a  notice  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the 

European  Communities;  such  notice  shall  indicate  the  product  and 

countries concerned, give a summary of  the  information received, and 

provide  that  all  relevant  information  is to be  communicated  to the 

Commission;  it  shall  state  the  periods  within  which  interested 

parties may make their views known  in writing and submit  information 

if  such  views and  information  are  to  be  taken  into account  during 

the  investigation;  it  shall  also  state  the  period  within  which 

interested parties may apply to be heard orally by the Commission  in 

accordance with paragraph 5 of this Article." 

7.  The following sub-paragraph  (c) is added to Article 7, paragraph 2 : 

"Where  there  are  a  large  number  of  parties  involved,  the 

investigation may be  limited to a sample of the parties, products or 

transactions which can be  investigated  in the time available." 

ii 

- 7 -

8.  The  text  "The  complainant  and  the  importers  and  exporters"  at  the 

beginning  of  Article  7,  paragraph  4,  sub-paragraph  (a)  is deleted 

and replaced by the following: 

"The  complainants,  importers,  exporters,  users  and  consumer 

organisations" 

9.  Article  7,  paragraph  7,  sub-paragraph  (b)  is  amended  to  read  as 

fol lows: 

"In  cases  in which  any  interested  party  or  third  country  refuses 

access  to,  or  otherwise  does  not  provide,  necessary  information 

within  the  time  limits set  by  this  Regulation  or  by  the  Commission 

under  this  Regulation,  or  significantly  impedes  the  investigation, 

preliminary or  final  findings, affirmative or  negative, may be made 

on  the  basis  of  the  facts  available.  Where  the  Commission  finds 

that  any  interested  party  or  third  country  has  supplied  it  with 

false or misleading  information,  it may make use of  facts available 

in place of such  information. 

10. Article  7,  paragraph  9,  sub-paragraph  (a)  is  amended  to  read  as 

fol lows: 

"Investigations  should  normally  be  concluded  within  one  year.  In 

any  event,  an  investigation  shall  be  concluded  within  15  months 

from  its  initiation either by  its termination  pursuant  to Article 9 

or by definitive action pursuant  to Article  12." 

ii 

- 8 -

11. The  following  text  is added  to  the  first  sentence  of  Article  11, 

paragraph  1 : 

"no  later  than 9 months from the  initiation of  the  investigation" 

12. Article  11, paragraph 5,  is amended  to read as follows: 

"Provisional  duties shall  have a maximum  period  of validity of four 

months.  However,  where  exporters  representing  a  significant 

percentage  of  the  trade  involved  so  request  or  do  not  object  upon 

notification  by  the Commission,  provisional  anti-dumping  duties may 

have a period of validity of six months." 

13. The  following sentence  is added to Article  14. paragraph 2: 

"Review  investigations shall  normally  be completed  no  later than 15 

months from the date of the initiation of  the review." 

<u 

f 

/ 

- 9 -

TITLE II 

Community surveillance and protective measures 

Article  2 

1.  The  following  paragraphs  are  added  to  Article  3  of  Council 

Regulation (EEC) No 288/82 : 

"2. Under  the same circumstances a  written complaint  may  be  lodged 

with  the  Commission  by  any  natural  or  legal  person,  or  any 

association not having  legal  personality, acting on behalf of a 

Community  industry which considers  itself  injured or  threatened 

by  such  imports.  This  complaint  shall  contain  the  evidence 

referred  to  in paragraph  1 above.  The Commission  shall  inform 

the Member States of such complaint  forthwith. 

3.  A  complaint  shall  be  deemed  to  have  been  lodged  on  the  first 

working  day  following  its  delivery  to  the  Commission  by 

registered mail or  the  Issuing of  an acknowledgement  of  receipt 

by the Commission. 

4.  For  the purposes of  this Regulation  a Community  industry  means 

the  producers  as  a  whole  of  the  like  or  directly  competitive 

products  to  the  imported  products  operating  within  the 

territory of  the Community, or  those whose collective output of 

the  like  or  directly  competitive  products  constitute  a  major 

proportion of the total Community production of those products. 

In case  of  a  complaint  concerning only  one  or  more  regions of 

the Community, the  industry concerned shall  be  identified  in the 

same manner as described above, but  in relation to the region or 

regions concerned. 

?4 

10 -

2.  Article  6,  paragraph  1,  sub-paragraph  (a)  of  Council  Regulation 

(EEC) No 288/82  is amended  to read as follows : 

"Initiate  an  investigation  within  one  month  of  the  receipt  of  an 

information  by  a  Member  State  or  the  lodging  of  a  complaint  by a 

Community  industry  and  publish  a  notice  in the Official  Journal  of 

the  European  Communities;  such  notice  shall  give  a  summary  of  the 

information  received,  and  provide  that  all  relevant  information  is 

to  be  communicated  to  the  Commission;  it  shall  state  the  period 

within  which  interested  parties  may  make  known  their  views  in 

writing and submit  information,  if such views and  information are to 

be  taken  into account  during  the  investigation;  it shall  also state 

the  period  within  which  interested  parties  may  apply  to  be  heard 

orally  by  the  Commission  in  accordance  with  paragraph  4  of  this 

Article;" 

3.  The  following  text  Is added  to  Article  6,  paragraph  2  of  Council 

Regulation  (EEC) No 288/82 : 

"The  complainant,  importers,  exporters  and  users  and  consumer 

organizations known  to be concerned, as well  as  the representatives 

of the exporting country, may  inspect all  information made available 

to the Commission  by any party  to an  investigation, as distinct  from 

internal  documents  prepared  by  the  authorities  of  the Community  or 

its Member  States, provided  that  it  is relevant  to  the  defence  of 

their  interests and not confidential  within the meaning of Article 8 

and that  it  is used by the Commission  in the  investigation.  To this 

end,  they  shall  address  a  written  request  to  the  Commission 

indicating  the  information required." 

^ 5T 

- 11 -

4.  Article  6,  paragraph  5  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  288/82  Is 

amended to read as follows : 

"Where  information. is not  supplied  within  the  time  limits  set  by 

this Regulation or  by  the Commission  under  this Regulation, or  the 

investigation  is significantly  impeded,  findings may be made on the 

basis of  the  facts available.  Where  the Commission  finds  that  any 

interested  party  or  third  country  has  supplied  it  with  false  or 

misleading  information,  it may make use of  facts available  in place 

of such  information." 

5.  The  following paragraph  is  inserted  after  Article 6, paragraph  5 of 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) No 288/82 : 

"5b is  Where  it  becomes  apparent,  after  consultations,  that  the 

complaint  lodged  by  a  Community  industry  does  not  provide 

sufficient  evidence  to  Justify  initiating an  investigation, 

then  the Commission  shall, within  one month of  the date on 

which  the  complaint  is  lodged,  decide  to  reject  the 

complaint.  The complainant  shall be  informed accordingly." 

6.  Article  7,  paragraph  2  of  Council  Regulation  (EEC)  No  288/82  is 

amended  to read as follows : 

"Where  no  Community  surveillance  or  protective  measures  have  been 

taken within nine months of the  initiation of  the  investigation, the 

investigation  shall  be  terminated,  after  consulting  the  Committee, 

within one month and  the decision published  in the Official  Journal 

of  the  European  Communities,  stating  the  main  conclusions  of  the 

investigation and a summary of  the reasons therefor." 

2£ 

-  12 

7.  The  following  text  Is added  to Article  7,  paragraph  3,  in fine, of 

Council  Regulation  (EEC) No 288/82 : 

"No  later  than nine months from  the  initiation of  the  investigation. 

In exceptional  circumstances,  this  time  limit  may  be extended  by a 

further  maximum  period  of  two  months;  the  Commission  shall  then 

publish a notice  in the Official  Journal  of  the European  Communities 

setting  forth  the  duration  of  the  extension  and  a  summary  of  the 

reasons therefor." 

?"? 

-  13 -

TITLE III 

Article 3 

The  present  Regulation  shall  enter  into  force  on  the  third  day 

following  its  publication  in  the  Official  Journal  of  the  European 

Communities.  It  shall,  however,  only  apply  to  complaints  lodged, 

proceedings  initiated  and  review  investigations  initiated  after 

dates  which  the  Council  shall  specify  in  a  decision  adopted  in 

accordance with Article 113 of  the Treaty. 

?* 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(93) 541 final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

02 

Catalogue number : CB-CO-93-588-EN-C 

ISBN 92-77-60729-7 

Office for Official Publications of the European Communities 
L-??35 Lïtxemboure