Commission staff working document - Annex to Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on third country anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard action against the Community (2004) {COM(2005)594 final}
Date: 2005-11-23
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU production, agricultural product, anti-dumping legislation, chemical product, export policy, impact study, international competition, iron and steel product, third country, trade relations













EUR-Lex - 52005SC1519 - EN






Important legal notice




|



52005SC1519

Commission staff working document - Annex to Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on third country anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard action against the Community (2004) {COM(2005)594 final}  /* SEC/2005/1519 */  








[pic] | COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES |Brussels, 23.11.2005SEC(2005) 1519COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENTANNEX TO ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT ON THIRD COUNTRY ANTI-DUMPING, ANTI-SUBSIDY AND SAFEGUARD ACTION AGAINST THE COMMUNITY (2004) {COM(2005)594 final}TABLE OF CONTENTSACTIONS BY COUNTRY 41. UNITED STATES 41.1. Some notable US cases 41.1.1. Privatisation methodology (countervailing duties) (DS 212) 41.1.2. "Zeroing": Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins (DS294) 51.1.3. The use of “adverse inferences” – the Firth Rixson case (DS319) 62. INDIA 62.1. Some notable cases 72.1.1. Anti-dumping investigation on imports of coated paper inter alia, from the Community 73. RUSSIA AND UKRAINE 73.1. Some notable cases 83.1.1. Russian anti-dumping investigation into imports of stainless steel from the EC 83.1.2. Safeguard investigation into imports of electric lamps 84. CHINA 84.1. Some notable Chinese cases 94.1.1. Chloroform: Imposition of definitive duties 94.1.2. Hydrazine Hydrate: Imposition of provisional duties 94.1.3. Interim review on definitive measures on Catechol from the Community 94.1.4. New investigations opened 95. INDONESIA 105.1. Some notable cases 105.1.1. Anti-dumping investigations on coated and uncoated paper from Finland 106. LATIN AMERICA 106.1. Some notable cases 116.1.1. Mexican provisional countervailing duties on olive oil 116.1.2. Peru: safeguard investigation on certain made-up textile articles 116.1.3. Argentina: Extension of the countervailing duties on wheat gluten 126.1.4. Argentinean review of the anti-subsidy measures on olive oil 127. AUSTRALIA 137.1. Some notable cases 137.1.1. Countervailing duty investigation on olive oil from Italy, Spain and Greece and anti-dumping investigation on olive oil from Italy and Spain 138. Measures in force at the end of 2003 and 2004 159. Investigations opened in 2003 and 2004 1710. Measures imposed in 2004 1911. Investigations initiated in 2004 2112. All measures in force on 31 December 2004 (definitive and provisional) 23ACTIONS BY COUNTRYUNITED STATESAt the end of 2004, the US had a total of 53 trade defence measures in force against imports from the Community. The majority of the measures take the form of anti-dumping duties (40), while 13 are countervailing measures. This compares to 2003 where there were 36 anti dumping measures and 17 countervailing measures in force against the EU. Steel remains the main target of US TDI activity, followed by chemicals and agriculture.The United States continues to put forward its own specific interpretation of the relevant WTO agreements, an interpretation that often leaves room for challenge as demonstrated by the significant number of panels the US has lost in cases involving all three types of trade defence instruments in the past two years. The major events in 2004 relate to measures subject to WTO dispute settlement proceedings and, in particular, the initiation of a WTO case on “zeroing” and the establishment of an implementation panel in the privatization case.Although US investigations are generally open and transparent, the proceedings are burdensome and require a very high level of expertise. Exporters, therefore, often have no other option than resorting to costly legal counsel to defend their interests.Other aspects of the US trade practice closely followed by the EC were the Byrd Amendment, the US “sunset reviews” methodology and the modification in the certification requirements proposed by the US Department of Commerce (’DOC’). ”[1] .As regards sunset reviews, the US terminated in 2004 the CVD case on stainless steel wire rod from Italy. It was the first time since the introduction of the Uruguay Round Agreements that a case involving European companies was closed by the DOC during a sunset review. Unfortunately, the DOC did not, in other similar cases, adopt the same approach and decided to continue the measures despite the evidence that subsidization was no longer likely to continue or recur. Keeping these measures artificially alive is not only WTO inconsistent but also demonstrates that the US practice on sunset reviews should undergo some form of revision. The EC will in 2005 decide whether to pursue this issue further with the US.Some notable US casesPrivatisation methodology (countervailing duties) (DS 212)In December 2002, the WTO Appellate Body (AB) concluded that a privatization at arm’s length and for fair market value creates a presumption that no benefit accrues to the privatised company. This presumption can be rebutted if the investigating authority can demonstrate that the Government, at the time of the privatization, seriously interfered with the proper functioning of the market and created “market distortions”. The US was invited by the AB to bring their methodology in the 12 cases concerned into conformity with WTO law, by 8 November 2003 at the latest.The US, in accordance with their domestic legislation, developed a new “change-in-ownership” methodology [2] (Section 123 of the US law), which they then applied to the 12 cases brought by the EC before the WTO (Section 129)[3].On 7 November 2003, the US issued their final determinations. In eight out of the twelve cases under review, the DOC found that the companies were privatized at arm’s length, for a fair market value and that there were no “market distortions” . As a consequence, four cases were terminated because the subsidy was found to be de minimis and the remaining four had their duty rates substantially reduced. Less positive was the result of the four “sunset reviews” where the measures continued unchanged.Despite the important improvements brought by the new US privatization methodology, the EC has reserved its position on certain aspects of the approach which it still considers unsatisfactory (e.g. application to sunset review cases). After a new series of consultations with the US, the Commission decided to pursue a 21.5 panel against the US. This panel was established on 27 September 2004 and the final report is due on 14 June 2005. In the 21.5 case, the EC challenged three sunset reviews , alleging that the DOC had erred in the case of Corrosion-resistant steel from France by finding that the privatization of Usinor was not at fair market value, and in the cases of Steel plate from UK and Spain, by not examining the privatizations of British Steel and Aceralia, and by failing to examine other evidence of subsidization during the sunset reviews."Zeroing": Laws, regulations and methodology for calculating dumping margins (DS294)The DOC consistently carries out its dumping calculations by failing to give credit for non-dumped transactions (a method known as “zeroing”) in a way that the Commission considers inconsistent with the WTO ADA Agreement. Indeed, the practice followed by the US is in essence identical to the one that was condemned in European Communities – Bed Linen from India (DS141) .The US applies “zeroing” both in new investigations and in the yearly reviews of existing orders (administrative reviews). This results in inflating, or indeed artificially creating, margins of dumping and in the unwarranted collection of anti-dumping duties. The EC industry is severely affected by this practice: DG Trade has identified 31 cases in which “zeroing” was applied. In many cases, without “zeroing”, the dumping margin would have been de minimis or even negative and, therefore, no anti-dumping duty would have been imposed or collected. Several hundred million USD in trade volume is involved. Some of the products are major export items and other important products will inevitably be affected in the future if the US is allowed to continue “zeroing”.For the foregoing reasons, the Commission requested consultations with the US under the WTO Dispute Settlement Procedures . Two rounds of consultations were held in 2003, but these failed to resolve the dispute as the US confirmed that the “zeroing” practice would be continued. A panel was therefore requested by the EC on 6 February 2004 and established in March. The panel proceedings started in October 2004 and the final panel report is expected towards the end of September 2005.The use of “adverse inferences” – the Firth Rixson case (DS319)In March 2002, the DOC imposed an anti-dumping duty of 125.77% on imports of stainless steel bars from the United Kingdom made by Firth Rixson Special Steels Limited (FRSS). This very high duty rate was the direct result of the rejection by the DOC of the data provided by FRSS during the investigation; the DOC then refused to conduct a verification visit and established a duty on the basis of adverse facts available , i.e. the margin of dumping alleged by the complainant. To justify this treatment, the DOC alleged that FRSS had failed to comply to the best of their ability with the requests for information made by the DOC.The EC believes that the DOC has breached the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement (notably the provisions of Article 6 and Annex II thereof) by applying adverse facts available in this case. The anti-dumping duty imposed bears no relationship to any margin of dumping found for any exporter during the proceeding. Furthermore, this seems to be a recurring problem, since the recourse to adverse facts available has been a feature of US dumping cases for many years.Given the egregious nature of the case in question, and the recurring aspect of the problem, the Commission decided to request WTO consultations in this case. The request, dated 9 November 2004, challenged not only the determination by the DOC on imports from FRSS, but also the relevant provisions of US legislation, notably Section 776 of the 1930 US Tariff Act. The WTO consultations were held in Geneva on 11 January 2005; unfortunately, the consultations failed to solve the dispute.INDIAAt the end of 2004, India had a total of 36 trade defence measures in force against imports from the Community. The vast majority of these measures take the form of anti-dumping duties (34), while 2 are safeguard measures. This represents a slight increase from year 2003 where India had 29 AD measures in force against the EC. However, in terms of new investigations India only opened 3 in 2004 compared to 7 the year before. The sector most affected in 2004 remains the chemical industry, followed by the pharmaceutical sector.The EC has in the last years been one of the strongest critics of India’s anti-dumping practice which it considered in violation with WTO rules. The problems in the Indian cases mainly referred to the highly insufficient injury and causality analysis, the failure to provide meaningful disclosure documents and a continuous disregard of arguments presented by EC exporters and the EC. The EC along with China and Taiwan have most often been targeted by Indian anti-dumping measures. In many cases, the anti-dumping measures have been imposed in cases where the Indian domestic producer enjoys a quasi monopoly status and where imports are minimal.The lack of improvement in India’s anti-dumping practice led in December 2003 the EC to request WTO consultations with India on 27 of its anti-dumping measures, which the EC considered to be in violation of WTO rules. Several rounds of discussions were held with India in 2004. India has shown willingness to address some of the shortfalls raised by the EC. In addition, at the request of the EC, initiated reviews on a number of the cases subject to WTO consultations. The EC is closely monitoring the developments of these reviews.Although India still remains the world’s largest user of the anti-dumping instrument, some improvement to its anti-dumping practice has nevertheless been noted in 2004. In particular, the latest investigations have shown a more thorough and critical analysis both of the situation of the complaining industry, the impact of imports and of other factors which may at the same time be injuring the domestic industry. In addition, there has also been a noticeable improvement in the factual contents of the published decisions and disclosure documents.Some notable casesAnti-dumping investigation on imports of coated paper inter alia, from the CommunityThis anti dumping investigation, initiated in June of 2003, caused significant concern amongst EC exporters, mainly from Finland and Sweden, due to the very large number of paper products potentially affected (around 55 MEUR/year)DG Trade intervened at a very early stage in the proceeding on account of the very low standard of initiation of this investigation In its submission to the Indian authorities, the Commission underlined, inter alia, that the evidence presented in the petition did not support the claim of injury of the domestic industry since the latter was enjoying increased sales and substantial profits in the period where the alleged dumped imports were said to have occurred. The EC intervened again at the stage of the public hearing where the EC Delegation in Delhi reiterated the EC’s serious concerns as to the general compatibility of this investigation with WTO rules. Finally, in December 2004, the Indian authorities communicated that the investigation would be terminated without measures in view of the lack of injury to the domestic industry.RUSSIA AND UKRAINERussia and Ukraine have both intensified their trade defence activity in 2004. Russia initiated two safeguard and an anti-dumping investigation, which were still on-going at the end of 2004. Ukraine equally initiated two safeguard and an anti-dumping investigation. One of these cases (manganese ores) was terminated in 2004 without the imposition of measures while in the case of the other five investigations measures were imposed in the first quarter of 2005.These investigations are probably the result of increased imports into Russia and Ukraine originating in neighbouring CIS countries with which they have contracted trade liberalisation agreements. The Commission has raised this issue on several occasions with the authorities of Russia and Ukraine and urged them to solve problems with their CIS partners at regional level, rather than taking erga omnes safeguard action.Some notable casesRussian anti-dumping investigation into imports of stainless steel from the ECRussia initiated the anti-dumping proceeding concerning stainless steel from the EC on 22 October. The investigation covers 26 product groups for which EC exports to Russia amount to around 75 MEUR/year.The initiation of this case was very controversial. The Commission was alerted by EC exporters to the fact that the dumping claim made by the Russian industry against them was based on inaccurate data, mainly concerning the price at which EC goods are exported to Russia. The Commission objected in writing to the Russian authorities, insisting that the allegations set out in the complainant were grossly inaccurate and should have been properly verified by the Russian authorities before opening the investigation.Discussions between the Commission and the Russian authorities continued into 2005, whereby Commission services co-ordinated their action with the European industry involved. At the oral hearing which took place in February 2005, the Commission raised further objections to this case, concerning both dumping and injury allegations made by the complainant and invited the Russian authorities not to pursue this case any further. Discussions continue on this case with the Russian authorities.Safeguard investigation into imports of electric lampsRussia initiated the safeguard investigation into electric lamps on 14 September 2004. Yearly EC exports to Russia for this product amount to approximately €10 million.In examining the case, the Commission came to the conclusion that any problem encountered by the Russian domestic industry was largely attributable to imports from CIS countries, in particular Kyrgyzstan which, as a result of a trade liberalisation agreement contracted in the CIS, was able to increase its exports to Russia very substantially. The Commission urged Russia to refrain from penalising countries that bear no responsibility for the surge in imports. It invited the Russian authorities to terminate the erga omnes investigation and to seek a solution at bilateral or regional level. The EC will continue to closely monitor the case.CHINASince China joined the WTO in December 2001, the Commission has followed all Chinese trade defence cases closely in order to ensure that they meet the relevant WTO rules.During 2004, anti-dumping investigations were opened by China on 3 products originating either in the EC as a whole or in one or more of its Member States. This compares with 4 anti-dumping investigations opened against imports from the EC in 2003. China opened one interim review on the measures in place on imports of catechol from the EC. There were no safeguard or anti-subsidy investigations initiated by China during 2004.At the end of 2004, a total of 5 definitive anti-dumping measures were in force against imports from the Community compared to 3 at the end of 2003. There were no safeguard or CVD measures in place on imports from the EC.While China may still be considered as a relatively new user of the trade defence instruments, it is important that it applies standards which are fully in conformity with the WTO Agreement. In this context, the Commission continue to have some concerns regarding the Chinese approach to anti-dumping cases. The main areas of concern to date relate to poor standards for initiation, inadequate disclosure, fears regarding the treatment of confidential data, burdensome demands for information to exporters and insufficient evidence relating to injury. The Commission continues to raise concerns with China at every opportunity. The Commission also continues to provide technical assistance to China in order to help further improve the standards applied by them in conducting investigations; a seminar was held in June 2004.Some notable Chinese casesChloroform: Imposition of definitive dutiesChina had initiated on 30 May 2003 an anti-dumping investigation on imports of Chloroform originating, inter alia, in EC, South Korea, the USA and India. The Commission followed the matter with the EC industries concerned which had co-operated in the case. In April 2004 provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce at rates ranging from 16% to 59%. In November 2004 definitive anti-dumping measures were imposed at rates ranging from 32% to 96%. Undertakings were accepted from certain EC companies who had cooperated in the proceeding.Hydrazine Hydrate: Imposition of provisional dutiesChina had initiated on 17 December 2003 an anti-dumping investigation on imports of Hydrazine Hydrate originating, inter alia, in France, the USA, Japan and South Korea. The Commission followed the matter with the EC industries concerned which had co-operated in the case. On 6 August 2004, provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed the Chinese Ministry of Commerce on imports originating in France, ranging from 118% to 120%. On 16 December 2004 the Chinese Ministry of Commerce extended the duration of the investigation for a further period of 6 months, until June 2005. The Commission continues to follow developments in the case.Interim review on definitive measures on Catechol from the CommunityOn 27 August 2003, China imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of Catechol from the Community with duties ranging between 20% and 79%. On 10 December 2004, China initiated an interim review on these measures, based on a request from the original complainant claiming that the dumping margin imposed was no longer sufficient as the levels of dumping had increased. The period of review is 1 September 2003 to 31 August 2004 and the outcome of the review is still pending. The complainant in this case is the sole producer of catechol in China and appears to using the anti-dumping instrument aggressively against imports of catechol as a further investigation was initiated against imports of the product from the USA and Japan in May 2005.New investigations openedThe 3 anti-dumping investigations initiated by China in 2004 concerning imports from the EC or Member States relate to Dimethyl Cyclosiloxan in July (DE and UK), Benzofuranol in August (EC) and Ethylene propylene Diene Rubber-EPDR in August (NL).The Commission informed the relevant industries concerned and offered assistance and advice during the proceedings. It continues to monitor the cases to ensure that they are carried out in accordance with WTO rules.INDONESIASome notable casesAnti-dumping investigations on coated and uncoated paper from FinlandOn 10 February 2003, Indonesia initiated two separate anti-dumping investigations simultaneously on imports of “uncoated writing and printing papers” and “coated fine paper” originating, inter alia, in Finland.Working closely with the Finnish industry concerned, the Commission made submissions to KADI, the Indonesian investigating authority, regarding certain inadequacies of the complaints. In particular, concerns were raised regarding the lack of prima facie evidence contained therein on injury and causation. There were no provisional measures imposed in the case.In November 2004, definitive anti-dumping measures ranging between 20.44% and 60.40% were imposed on imports into China from Finland of Uncoated writing and printing paper, while the petition relating to coated writing and printing paper was dismissed. This outcome was welcomed by the main Finnish exporter as their largest exports to Indonesia are of coated writing and printing paper, which can continue free of anti-dumping duties.LATIN AMERICADuring 2004, Chile, Columbia and Peru each opened one safeguard investigation cases. In terms of new measures Venezuela imposed two measures (safeguard and countervailing), Peru, Chile and Brazil each imposed one measure (respectively countervailing, safeguard and anti dumping).The Latin American countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and Venezuela are becoming more active in the area of countervailing actions, in particular directed towards EC exports. This trend can probably be explained by the fact that these countries are increasing their presence on the world market for processed agricultural goods and therefore consider EC subsidies to agriculture-regardless of their form-to be harmful to their domestic production and exports. Argentina, for instance, extended in 2004 countervailing duties on imports of three types of EC processed agricultural products, i.e. olive oil, wheat gluten and canned peaches, solely on the basis of the existence of EC agricultural subsidies and despite the fact that the 2002 currency crisis made imports of these products substantially more expensive. The EC has in May 2005 requested WTO consultations with Argentina.Some notable casesMexican provisional countervailing duties on olive oilIn July 2003, Mexico initiated a countervailing duty investigation on imports of olive oil from the EC. The main exporting Member States are Italy and Spain and the trade interest is around €18.5 million (2002 figures). On 10 June 2004, Mexico imposed a provisional countervailing duty which was in force for four months, the maximum period allowed under WTO rules.The decision on definitive findings was due at the latest in mid-January 2005 since according to WTO rules this was the end of the maximum duration (18 months) of a countervailing duty investigation. The Mexican authorities have nevertheless continued the investigation.The Commission has been very involved in this case since its initiation. Along with exporting Member States, mainly Spain and Italy, the Commission prepared the reply to the subsidy questionnaire to submit all relevant information to Mexico on the alleged subsidies. The EC also participated-together with a representative of the Spanish authorities-in the public hearing on the case on 30 November 2004.The case raises serious concerns both in terms of substance and procedures. The evidence at hand appears to indicate that there is no domestic industry in Mexico which would have been injured by imports. The complainant had ceased production one year before the complaint was lodged for reasons which seems unrelated to imports. Moreover, the Commission has argued that Mexico did not carry out the necessary investigation to collect evidence supporting the argument that the subsidy granted to olive growers has actually benefited EC exporters of olive oil to Mexico.In order to clarify some of the more problematic aspects of the case, the EC twice used the prerogative of Article 13.2 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) to bilaterally consult with Mexico (November 2003 and December 2004). In addition, further to the imposition of provisional duties, the EC conducted consultation in Geneva under Article 4 of the Dispute Settlement Undertaking, covering the apparent breaches of the ASCM and the Agreement on Agriculture: abuse of initiation, lack of domestic industry and of proper injury finding. The issues arising with this case has been continuously raised in the context of the EC-Mexico Joint Committee meetings that took place in the meantime.The Commission will continue monitoring developments and awaits Mexico’s definitive decision.Peru: safeguard investigation on certain made-up textile articlesThe case was opened on 22 August 2004, ex officio , further to the expiry of the provisional measures imposed on textiles from China on the basis of paragraph 16 of China’s Protocol of Accession to the WTO. An erga omnes safeguard was the solution found by Peru to respond to its domestic industry that was pleading for action.The product concerned by the investigation is textiles falling under Chapter 61, 62, 63.02 and 63.09 (i.e. Articles of apparel and clothing accessories and other made-up textile articles, sets, excluding table sets).The Commission has participated actively in this case since its initiation. It has communicated to the Peruvian authorities that it has serious doubts that WTO standards have been respected, notably as regards the existence of “ unforeseen developments ” and the existence of serious injury and causation. The Commission also strongly urged Peru to carefully consider all the implications before initiating an erga omnes action on a very sensitive sector.On 14 October 2004, Peru applied provisional duties – in the form of minimum import prices-on certain sub-categories of the product concerned (twenty CN codes). However, the provisional measures have almost no impact on EC exports, given that they only apply to a restricted sub-category of products and prices of EC exports are normally higher than the fixed minimum import prices.In May 2005, Peru eventually decided not to apply definitive measures and terminated the investigation. Provisional measures were repealed.Argentina: Extension of the countervailing duties on wheat glutenOn 20 August 2004, following an expiry review initiated in 2003, Argentina extended the measures on imports of wheat gluten from the EC for another three years and increased the level of duty to US$ 204,74/tonne (US$123,30/tonne).The EC had already at the time of the original imposition in 1998 vigorously contested the legality of the CVD measures since the product in question did not-directly nor indirectly-benefit from any subsidies. The subsidies countervailed by Argentina were granted to co-or by-products of wheat gluten (e.g. starch, glucose). Despite this, Argentina had without any supporting analysis assumed that the subsidies in question were fully transferable to EC exports of wheat gluten.The initiation by Argentina, ex officio, of an expiry review was therefore met with strong protest by the Commission which throughout the review maintained that the original measures-and consequently any review – were contrary to WTO rules. In October 2003, the EC sought and held consultations with Argentina under Article 11.3 of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, but this did not lead to any changes. The Commission continued nevertheless to make substantial submissions and interventions at bilateral level with Argentina.The Commission also strongly argued that the devaluation of the Argentinean peso in 2002 no longer justified maintaining the CVD measures since imports from the EC had tripled in price, rebutting any threat of injury from EC imports.Following Argentina’s decision to extend-and increase-the measures, the EC requested in May 2005 WTO consultations which were held in July 2005.Argentinean review of the anti-subsidy measures on olive oilIn July 1998 Argentina imposed, for a two year period, definitive countervailing duties of US$1,0/kg on packed olive oil and US$0.80/kg on olive oil in bulk. The duties were extended for another two-year-period in June 2001, following a sunset review. These measures were due to expire in June 2003, but Argentina initiated another ex officio sunset review procedure just before the expiry date.The issue at stake here is similar to that for the wheat gluten case. The investigating authorities are targeting an aid scheme (production aid to olive growers), which does not grant a direct benefit to the product concerned by this investigation, namely olive oil. This lack of direct link between the aid scheme and the product concerned naturally requires that the analysis demonstrate how the benefit passes through to olive oil producers. The Argentinean authorities have consistently failed to do so, which the Commission views as a clear breach of the requirements of the WTO SCM Agreement.The Commission has also objected to the fact that Argentina, by initiating this investigation ex officio, has not respected the peace clause . The devaluation of the peso has also rendered the imports of olive oil from the EC much more expensive, thereby questioning the necessity to maintain the measures.The result of the sunset review was published in December 2004 and extends the measures for an additional 3 years. The EC has decided to pursue the case at the WTO and requested in May 2005 WTO consultations with Argentina which were held in July 2005.AUSTRALIAAustralia is one of the “old” users of trade defence instruments and has often targeted Community agricultural aid schemes. However, the number of Australian trade defence cases against the Community has steadily declined in recent years. At the end of 2004, Australia had a total of 8 trade defence measures in force against imports from the Community compared to 7 last year. The majority of these take the form of anti-dumping duties (5), while 3 are countervailing measures. During 2004, Australia initiated only one investigation (anti dumping) and imposed no new measures. Australia also terminated 2 AD measures.Some notable casesCountervailing duty investigation on olive oil from Italy, Spain and Greece and anti-dumping investigation on olive oil from Italy and SpainOn 12 November 2003, Australia initiated a countervailing duty investigation into olive oil from Italy, Spain and Greece. At the same time, it initiated an anti-dumping investigation into imports of olive oil from Italy and shortly after, another AD investigation into imports of olive oil from Spain.The EC had a strong interest in this case, both from an economic and a policy perspective. Australia represents one of the largest markets for EC exports of olive oil worldwide (approximately 60 MEUR/year). The olive oil sector has huge growth potential: worldwide consumption is increasing rapidly and local producers are setting up business in countries where the climatic conditions are favourable to olive oil production. A number of these new olive oil producing countries (e.g. Argentina, Mexico and Peru – see previous sections) have also launched CVD actions against the EC and it is rumoured that other countries could follow suit.In terms of overall policy, this case had very important implications for the EC. The olive oil regime has been overhauled in recent years and will be fully replaced by a new regime in 2006 . The changes affecting olive oil should be seen within the general reform of the EC Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which will “decouple” aid from production quantities. In spite of this, Australia was trying to demonstrate that the current subsidies granted to olive farmers “pass through” directly and in full to the exported olive oil. The Commission has closely cooperated with EC exporters and affected Member States to demonstrate to Australia that this was not the case.The Commission raised, amongst other things, the problem of Australia’s definition of “like product” and the size of its domestic industry. The Australian olive oil industry has only recently established itself and has a domestic market share of just 2%. With such a low market share, the Commission considers it difficult to accept the Australian claim of injury and causality. The Commission also argued that Australia has not demonstrated how the benefits granted to olive growers “pass through” to the oil exported to Australia, nor has it adjusted its analysis in the light of the recently adopted reform of the EC support scheme to olive farmers. Finally, the Commission objected to the methodology applied by the Australian authorities to calculate dumping margins, as well as for their failure to meet standards of disclosure.Following the submissions made by the Commission, Australia, on 24 May 2004 terminated both the AD and CVD investigations without imposition of measures. For the CVD investigation, this was on the grounds that the aid was not actionable. For the AD investigation, the authorities established dumping for 3 out of 6 companies, but concluded that this was not the cause of injury.The CVD finding could be very important for the EC, since its findings can be used as ammunition in other third countries’ investigations concerning similar cases, involving agricultural or processed agricultural products. On 8 June 2004, the complainant lodged an application with the Trade Measures Review Officer (‘TMRC’) for a review of the decision to terminate the investigation into the alleged subsidisation of olive oil exported to Australia from Greece, Italy and Spain. However, the TMRC upheld the decision to terminate the investigation, by stating that there was no evidence that production aid to olive growers confers a benefit on the export of olive oil to Australia from Greece, Italy and Spain. Subsequently, the complainant twice appealed to the Federal Court under the Administrative Decision (Judicial Review) Act. On 31 May 2005, the Federal Court handed down its judgement and rejected the appeal on all counts.Measures in force at the end of 2003 and 2004Country | AD | CVD | SG | TOTAL |Brazil | Horse nail or horse shoe nail | Finland | Finland | AD | 2004-06-03 |Canada | Hot rolled carbon steel plate | Czech Republic | Czech Republic | AD | 2004-01-09 |Chile | Wheat and wheat flour | EC | Spain | SG | 2004-12-10 |China | Chloroform-trichloromethane | France, Germany, UK | France, Germany, UK | AD | 2004-11-30 |China | Chloroprene Rubber | EC | AD | 2004-12-01 |China | Hydrazine Hydrate | France | France | AD | 2004-08-03 |Ecuador | Ceramic tiles | EC | SG | 2004-02-13 |India | Caprolactam (6-Hexanelactum) | EC except Netherlands | EC except Netherlands | AD | 2004-09-16 |India | Propylene glycol | Spain | Spain | AD | 2004-08-20 |India | PVC paste resin | Italy Spain | Italy Spain | AD | 2004-09-20 |Indonesia | Uncoated writing and printing paper | Finland | Finland | AD | 2004-11-11 |Korea | Stainless Steel Bars | Spain | Spain | AD | 2004-07-30 |Mexico | Olive Oil | EC | Spain, Italy | CVD | 2004-06-10 |Moldova | Sugar | EC | SG | 2004-01-01 |Peru | Textile products | Italy, Spain | Italy, Spain | CVD | 2004-10-13 |Ukraine | Biscuits | EC | SG | 2004-12-23 |USA | Chlorinated isocyanurates | Spain | Spain | AD | 2004-12-16 |USA | Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) | Finland, Netherlands, Sweden | Finland, Netherlands, Sweden | AD | 2004-12-27 |USA | Thermal Transfer Ribbons | France | France | AD | 2004-03-08 |Venezuela | Paper and paperboard | EC | Definitive | SG | 2004-06-06 |Venezuela | Potato starch | EC | Definitive | CVD | 2004-06-07 |INVESTIGATIONS INITIATED IN 2004Country | Product | Type | Date of Initiation | Case initiated against |1 | AUSTRALIA | Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer resin | AD | 2004-12-10 | Hungary |2 | BOSNIA HERZEGOVINA | Washing preparations and cleaning preparations | SG | 2004-11-03 | EC |3 | BYELORUSSIA | Polyester yarn | SG | 2004-09-06 | EC |4 | BYELORUSSIA | Poultry | SG | 2004-08-11 | EC |5 | BYELORUSSIA | Sugar Confectionnaries | SG | 2004-07-20 | EC |6 | BYELORUSSIA | Tubes and Pipes | SG | 2004-08-02 | EC |7 | CANADA | Laminate flooring | AD | 2004-10-04 | Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, Poland |8 | CHILE | Wheat and wheat flour | SG | 2004-12-10 | EC |9 | CHINA | Benzofuranol; (7-Hydroxy or Furan phenol) | AD | 2004-08-12 | EC |10 | CHINA | Dimethyl Cyclosilonax | AD | 2004-07-16 | Germany, UK |11 | CHINA | Ethylene-Propylene-non-Conjugated Diene Rubber (EPDM) | AD | 2004-08-10 | Netherlands |12 | COLOMBIA | Electric irons | SG | 2004-01-26 | EC |13 | INDIA | Acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (NBR) | AD | 2004-08-17 | EC except Germany |14 | INDIA | Certain Rubber Chemicals | AD | 2004-08-17 | Belgium, Germany, Italy |15 | INDIA | Starch from tapioca (manioc) | SG | 2004-07-07 | EC |16 | INDONESIA | Ceramic tableware | SG | 2004-10-19 | EC |17 | MOLDOVA | Cosmetics | SG | 2004-06-18 | EC |18 | NEW ZEALAND | Oral Liquid Paracetomol | AD | 2004-10-01 | Ireland |19 | PERU | Textile products | CVD | 2004-08-22 | Italy, Spain |20 | RUSSIA | Flat rolled stainless steel (hot and cold rolled, containing nickel) | AD | 2004-10-27 | EC |21 | RUSSIA | Lamps | SG | 2004-09-14 | EC |22 | RUSSIA | White sugar | SG | 2004-06-09 | EC |23 | SOUTH AFRICA | Cheddar cheese | AD | 2004-06-25 | Ireland |24 | TURKEY | Activated earth and clays | SG | 2004-07-17 | EC |25 | TURKEY | Glassware | SG | 2004-07-27 | EC |26 | TURKEY | Thermometers | SG | 2004-07-26 | EC |27 | TURKEY | Unframed glass mirrors | SG | 2004-07-17 | EC |28 | TURKEY | Voltmeters and Ammeters | SG | 2004-07-17 | EC |29 | UKRAINE | Pumps / parts of pumps | SG | 2004-03-15 | EC |30 | UKRAINE | Roofing and facing products of asphalt or of similar material, in rolls | SG | 2004-10-20 | EC |31 | UKRAINE | Screw compressor installations | AD | 2004-08-12 | Belgium, Finland, Italy |32 | USA | Chlorinated isocyanurates | AD | 2004-06-10 | Spain |33 | USA | Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) | AD | 2004-07-06 | Finland, Netherlands, Sweden |ALL MEASURES IN FORCE ON 31 DECEMBER 2004 (DEFINITIVE AND PROVISIONAL)| Country |Product |Type |Provisional or Definitive |Date of first imposition |Case initiated against |Exporting Member States | |1 |ARGENTINA |Calcium carbide |AD |Definitive |2001-11-21 |Poland |Poland | |2 |ARGENTINA |Hot rolled steel (HRS) |AD |Definitive |2002-04-30 |Slovakia |Slovakia | |3 |ARGENTINA |Hot-rolled iron sections, L-shaped, with equal sides |AD |Definitive |2002-01-11 |Czech Republic |Czech Republic | |4 |ARGENTINA |Olive oil |CVD |Definitive |1998-06-25 |EC |Greece, Italy, Spain | |5 |ARGENTINA |Peaches, preserved in water containing added sweetening matter, including syrup, preserved in any other form or in water |CVD |Definitive |1996-01-10 |EC |Greece | |6 |ARGENTINA |Steel disc for agricultural machines |AD |Definitive |2001-07-30 |Spain |Spain | |7 |ARGENTINA |Unglazed ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles, of fine earthenware "porcellanato", unpolished |AD |Definitive |1999-11-17 |Italy |Italy | |8 |ARGENTINA |wheat gluten |CVD |Definitive |1998-07-22 |EC | | |9 |ARGENTINA |Washing Machines |AD |Definitive |2002-02-28 |ItalySpain |ItalySpain | |10 |AUSTRALIA |Air conditioners, split system caravan |AD |Definitive |2001-04-21 |Italy |Italy | |11 |AUSTRALIA |Brandy, bottled |CVD |Definitive |2001-06-28 |France |France | |12 |AUSTRALIA |Brandy, bulk |CVD |Definitive |2000-08-09 |France |France | |13 |AUSTRALIA |Canned peaches |CVD |Definitive |1992-02-19 |Greece |Greece | |14 |AUSTRALIA |Dichlorophenoxy acetic acid (2,4-D) |AD |Definitive |2003-03-24 |UK |UK | |15 |AUSTRALIA |Polyethylene high density |AD |Definitive |2003-12-18 |Sweden |Sweden | |16 |AUSTRALIA |Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer resin |AD |Definitive |2005-03-24 |Hungary |Hungary | |17 |AUSTRALIA |Polyvinyl chloride homopolymer resin (PVC) |AD |Definitive |2000-03-24 |Hungary |Hungary | |18 |BRAZIL |Canned peaches |AD |Suspended |2002-04-26 |Greece |Greece | |19 |BRAZIL |Cold-rolled flat stainless steel |AD |Definitive |2000-05-26 |FranceSpain |FranceSpain | |20 |BRAZIL |Horse nail or horse shoe nail |AD |Definitive |2004-06-03 |Finland |Finland | |21 |BRAZIL |Hydroxyethylcellulose |AD |Definitive |2000-04-19 |Netherlands |Netherlands | |22 |BRAZIL |Insulin Products |AD |Suspended |2001-02-12 |DenmarkFrance |DenmarkFrance | |23 |BRAZIL |Méthyl métacrylate |AD |Definitive |2001-03-14 |FranceGermanySpainUK |FranceGermanySpainUK | |24 |BRAZIL |Milk powder |AD |Definitive |2001-02-23 |EC |DenmarkIreland | |25 |BRAZIL |Phenol |AD |Definitive |2002-10-16 |EC |BelgiumGermany | |26 |BRAZIL |Polycarbonate resins |AD |Definitive |1999-07-26 |Germany |Germany | |27 |BRAZIL |Sodium Tripoliphosphate (STPP) |AD |Definitive |1997-08-05 |UK |UK | |28 |BRAZIL |Steel blade (for stone cutting) |AD |Definitive |2003-10-13 |Italy |Italy | |29 |BRAZIL |Toys |SG |Definitive |1997-01-01 |EC |Italy | |30 |BRAZIL |Vacuum blood containers made of glass and plastic |AD |Definitive |1998-10-16 |UK |UK | |31 |BULGARIA |Ammonium nitrate |SG |Definitive |2002-12-29 |EC | | |32 |BULGARIA |Crown corks |SG |Definitive |2002-11-29 |EC |GermanyGreeceItalyUK | |33 |CANADA |Canned ham |CVD |Definitive |1984-08-07 |Denmark, Netherlands |Denmark, Netherlands | |34 |CANADA |Cigarette tubes |AD |Definitive |1999-04-12 |France |France | |35 |CANADA |Hot rolled carbon steel plate |AD |Definitive |2000-06-27 |Finland |Finland | |36 |CANADA |Hot rolled carbon steel plate |AD |Definitive |2004-01-09 |Czech Republic |Czech Republic | |37 |CANADA |Hot rolled carbon steel plate |AD |Definitive |1994-05-17 |ItalySpain |ItalySpain | |38 |CANADA |Hot rolled carbon steel sheet |AD |Definitive |1999-07-02 |FranceSlovakia |FranceSlovakia | |39 |CANADA |Refined sugar |CVD |Definitive |1995-11-06 |EC | | |40 |CANADA |Refined sugar |AD |Definitive |1995-11-06 |DenmarkGermanyNetherlandsUK |DenmarkGermanyNetherlandsUK | |41 |CANADA |Refined sugar |CVD |Definitive |2000-11-03 |EC | | |42 |CANADA |Reinforcing bar (steel) |AD |Definitive |2001-06-01 |LatviaPoland |LatviaPoland | |43 |CANADA |Stainless Steel round bar |AD |Definitive |1999-03-04 |FranceGermanyItalySpainSwedenUK |FranceGermanyItalySpainSwedenUK | |44 |CANADA |Steel plate |AD |Definitive |1999-05-17 |ItalySpain |ItalySpain | |45 |CHILE |Wheat and wheat flour |SG |Provisional |2004-12-10 |EC |Spain | |46 |CHINA |Acrylic Estyers (Acid) |AD |Definitive |2001-06-09 |Germany |Germany | |47 |CHINA |Caprolactam |AD |Definitive |2003-06-06 |BelgiumGermanyNetherlands |BelgiumGermanyNetherlands | |48 |CHINA |Catechol |AD |Definitive |2003-08-27 |FranceItaly |FranceItaly | |49 |CHINA |Chloroform-Trichloromethane |AD |Definitive |2004-11-30 |FranceGermanyUK |FranceGermanyUK | |50 |CHINA |Chloroprene Rubber |AD |Provisional |2004-12-01 |EC | | |51 |CHINA |Hydrazine Hydrate |AD |Provisional |2004-08-03 |France |France | |52 |CHINA |Methylene Chloride |AD |Definitive |2002-06-20 |GermanyNetherlandsUK |GermanyNetherlandsUK | |53 |COLOMBIA |Coffee grade fertilizers |AD |Definitive |1999-10-06 |Belgium |Belgium | |54 |ECUADOR |Ceramic tiles |SG |Definitive |2004-02-13 |EC | | |55 |ECUADOR |Medium Density Fiberboard |SG |Definitive |2003-07-16 |EC |BelgiumGermany | |56 |EGYPT |Common electric filament lamps from 25-200 watts-voltage up to 240 watts |AD |Definitive |2002-09-05 |HungaryItalySpain |HungaryItalySpain | |57 |EGYPT |Reinforcing iron bars and rods hot rolled in irregulary wound coil of iron or non alloy steel for construction purposes |AD |Definitive |1998-06-22 |Latvia |Latvia | |58 |EGYPT |Stainless steel kitchen sinks |AD |Definitive |1998-06-28 |GreeceSpain |GreeceSpain | |59 |EGYPT |Steel reinforcing bars |AD |Definitive |1998-06-28 |Latvia |Latvia | |60 |EGYPT |Tyres for motor cars |AD |Definitive |1999-10-04 |EC | | |61 |INDIA |Acrylic fibre |AD |Definitive |2002-10-09 |GermanyUK |GermanyUK | |62 |INDIA |Acrylic fibre (below 1,5 denier) |AD |Definitive |2002-09-12 |Italy |Italy | |63 |INDIA |Acrylonitrile butadiene rubber (NBR) |AD |Definitive |1997-07-30 |Germany |Germany | |64 |INDIA|Aniline |AD |Definitive |2001-06-26 |EC | | |65 |INDIA |B & W Photographic Paper |AD |Definitive |2000-12-21 |FranceHungaryUK |FranceHungaryUK | |66 |INDIA |Bisphenol A (BPA) |SG |Definitive |2003-10-27 |EC |Belgium | |67 |INDIA |Caprolactam (6-Hexanelactum) |AD |Definitive |2004-09-16 |EC except Netherlands |EC except Netherlands | |68 |INDIA |Caustic soda |AD |Definitive |2001-06-26 |France |France | |69 |INDIA |Caustic soda |AD |Definitive |2003-10-01 |EC except France |EC except France | |70 |INDIA |Choline chloride |AD |Definitive |2001-11-26 |EC | | |71 |INDIA |Cold rolled flat products stainless steel |AD |Definitive |2002-10-19 |EC | | |72 |INDIA |D(-) Para Hydroxy Phenyl Glycine Base (PHPG) |AD |Definitive |2001-03-07 |EC | | |73 |INDIA |Epichlorohydrin (ECH) |SG |Definitive |2003-10-29 |EC |BelgiumGermany | |74 |INDIA |Flexible slabstock polyol (molecular weight 3000-4000) |AD |Definitive |2002-10-31 |EC | | |75 |INDIA |Graphite Electrodes |AD |Definitive |2003-01-31 |Poland |Poland | |76 |INDIA |High styrene butadiene copolymer / High styrene resin/rubber (HSR) |AD |Definitive |2001-12-18 |EC | | |77 |INDIA |Hydroxyl Amine Sulphate (HAS) |AD |Definitive |2001-03-28 |EC | | |78 |INDIA |Methylene Chloride |AD |Definitive |2003-10-20 |EC | | |79 |INDIA |Oxo Alcohols |AD |Definitive |2000-08-18 |EC | | |80 |INDIA |Phenol |AD |Definitive |2003-02-13 |EC | | |81 |INDIA |Photographic Paper |AD |Definitive |2000-12-21 |FranceUK |FranceUK | |82 |INDIA |Potassium carbonate |AD |Provisional |2003-04-30 |EC | | |83 |INDIA |Propylene glycol |AD |Definitive |2004-08-20 |Spain |Spain | |84 |INDIA |Purified Therephtalic Acid (PTA) |AD |Definitive |2000-05-30 |Spain |Spain | |85 |INDIA |PVC paste resin |AD |Definitive |2004-09-20 |ItalySpain |ItalySpain | |86 |INDIA |Seamless tubes |AD |Definitive |2000-06-21 |AustriaCzech Republic |AustriaCzech Republic | |87 |INDIA |Sodium Cyanide |AD |Definitive |2000-06-06 |EC | | |88 |INDIA |Sodium Ferro Cyanide |AD |Definitive |1996-12-20 |EC | | |89 |INDIA |Sodium hydrosulphite |AD |Definitive |2003-12-03 |Germany |Germany | |90 |INDIA |Sodium nitrite |AD |Definitive |2002-03-28 |EC | | |91 |INDIA |Theophylline & Caffeine |AD |Definitive |2001-07-30 |EC | | |92 |INDIA |Thermal Sensitive Paper (TSP) |AD |Definitive |2000-04-06 |EC | | |93 |INDIA |Vitamin A palmitate |AD |Definitive |2003-01-23 |EC | | |94 |INDIA |Vitamin AB2D3K |AD |Definitive |2002-09-09 |EC | | |95 |INDIA |Vitamin AD3 (500/100) |AD |Definitive |2002-05-21 |EC | | |96 |INDIA |Vitamin C |AD |Definitive |2000-09-15 |EC | | |97 |INDONESIA |Sorbitol |AD |Definitive |2001-03-12 |EC | | |98 |INDONESIA |Uncoated writing and printing paper |AD |Definitive |2004-11-11 |Finland |Finland | |99 |ISRAEL |Woven pile weather stripping |AD |Definitive |1998-11-18 |SpainUK |SpainUK | |100 |JORDAN |Ceramic sanitary ware |SG |Definitive |2003-02-18 |EC |France, Italy, Spain | |101 |JORDAN |Magnetic tapes |SG |Definitive |2002-05-01 |EC | | |102 |JORDAN |Pasta |SG |Definitive |2003-02-18 |EC |Italy | |103 |JORDAN |Sweetened biscuits |SG |Definitive |2001-09-01 |EC | | |104 |KOREA |Pre-Sentized Printing Plate |AD |Definitive |2000-01-18 |Netherlands |Netherlands | |105 |KOREA |Stainless Steel bars |AD |Definitive |2004-07-30 |Spain |Spain | |106 |MALAYSIA |Self copy paper in rolls and sheets |AD |Definitive |1997-04-20 |EC | | |107 |MEXICO |Bovine Meat |CVD |Definitive |1994-06-03 |EC |Denmark | |108 |MEXICO |Crystal polystyrene |AD |Definitive |1999-09-23 |EC | | |109 |MEXICO |Non-pregelatinized modified cationic potato starch |AD |Definitive |1992-05-25 |Netherlands |Netherlands | |110 |MEXICO |Olive oil |CVD |Provisional |2004-06-10 |EC |Spain, Italy | |111 |MEXICO |Parathion Methyl |AD |Definitive |2000-05-31 |Denmark |Denmark | |112 |MEXICO |Sorbitol UPS grade |AD |Definitive |1990-09-27 |France |France | |113 |MOLDOVA |Sugar |SG |Definitive |2004-01-01 |EC | | |114 |MOROCCO |Bananas |SG |Definitive |2001-02-21 |EC | | |115 |NEW ZEALAND |Canned peaches |CVD |Definitive |1998-01-09 |EC | | |116 |NEW ZEALAND |Canned peaches |AD |Definitive |1998-03-09 |Greece |Greece | |117 |PAKISTAN |Sorbitol 70% solution |AD |Definitive |2003-11-19 |France |France | |118 |PERU |Olive oil |CVD |Definitive |2003-05-25 |Czech RepublicGreeceItaly |Czech RepublicGreeceItaly | |119 |PERU |Textile products |CVD |Provisional |2004-10-13 |ItalySpain |ItalySpain | |120 |PHILIPPINES |Ceramic floor and wall tiles |SG |Definitive |2002-04-11 |EC | | |121 |PHILIPPINES |Figured glass |SG |Definitive |2003-10-13 |EC | | |122 |PHILIPPINES |Float glass / Tinted Float glass |SG |Definitive |2003-10-13 |EC | | |123 |PHILIPPINES |Glass Mirors |SG |Definitive |2003-10-13 |EC | | |124 |RUSSIA |Ball bearings and other taper roller bearings |SG |Definitive |2003-07-24 |EC |FinlandGermany | |125 |RUSSIA |Caramels |SG |Definitive |2002-01-25 |EC |DenmarkItalyNetherlandsSpainUK | |126 |SOUTH AFRICA |Acetaminophenol |AD |Definitive |1999-06-18 |France |France | |127 |SOUTH AFRICA |Cable supertension |AD |Definitive |2000-03-31 |Germany |Germany | |128 |SOUTH AFRICA |Circuit breakers |AD |Definitive |1997-08-08 |FranceItaly |FranceItaly | |129 |SOUTH AFRICA |PVC roll goods |AD |Definitive |2002-02-22 |GermanyNetherlands |GermanyNetherlands | |130 |SOUTH AFRICA |Ropes & cables of iron or steel |AD |Definitive |2002-08-28 |GermanyUK |GermanyUK | |131 |SOUTH AFRICA |Self-copy paper |AD |Definitive |2002-07-19 |BelgiumGermanyUK |BelgiumGermanyUK | |132 |SOUTH AFRICA |Supertension cable |AD |Definitive |2000-03-31 |Germany |Germany | |133 |SOUTH AFRICA |Suspension PVC |AD |Definitive |2002-10-18 |FranceUK |FranceUK | |134 |SOUTH AFRICA |Sutures |AD |Definitive |2000-05-12 |Germany |Germany | |135 |SOUTH AFRICA |Uncoated woodfree paper |AD |Definitive |1998-02-13 |PolandSweden |PolandSweden | |136 |TAIPEI |H-Beam |AD |Definitive |1998-12-14 |Poland |Poland | |137 |THAILAND |Flat cold-rolled stainless steel |AD |Definitive |2003-03-13 |EC |BelgiumDenmarkFinlandItalySpainSweden | |138 |THAILAND |Flat hot rolled in coils and not in coils |AD |Definitive |2003-05-27 |Slovakia |Slovakia | |139 |THAILAND |H-sections |AD |Definitive |1997-05-26 |Poland |Poland | |140 |TURKEY |Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) |AD |Definitive |2003-02-06 |BelgiumFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryItalyNetherlands |BelgiumFinlandGermanyGreeceHungaryItalyNetherlands | |141 |UKRAINE |Biscuits |SG |Definitive |2004-12-23 |EC | | |142 |UKRAINE |Disposable syringes |SG |Definitive |2001-06-08 |EC |BelgiumGermanyIrelandSpain | |143 |UKRAINE|Instant coffee |SG |Definitive |2003-03-01 |EC | | |144 |USA|Aminoacetic acid |AD |Definitive |1970-03-24 |France |France | |145 |USA |Antifriction bearings |AD |Definitive |1989-05-15 |Italy, UK |Italy, UK | |146 |USA |Ball bearings |AD |Definitive |1989-05-15 |France, Germany |France, Germany | |147 |USA |Brass sheet & strip |AD |Definitive |1987-03-06 |France, Germany, Italy |France, Germany, Italy | |148 |USA |Brass sheet & strip |CVD |Definitive |1987-03-06 |France |France | |149 |USA |Calcium aluminate cement and cement clinker |AD |Definitive |1994-06-13 |France |France | |150 |USA |Carbon quality steel flat products |CVD |Definitive |1993-08-17 |France |France | |151 |USA |Carbon steel flat products |CVD |Definitive |1993-08-17 |Belgium, Germany |Belgium, Germany | |152 |USA |Chlorinated isocyanurates |AD |Provisional |2004-12-16 |Spain |Spain | |153 |USA |Corrosion-resistant carbon steel flat products |AD |Definitive |1993-08-19 |France, Germany |France, Germany | |154 |USA |Cut-to-length carbon steel plate |CVD |Definitive |1993-07-09 |UK |UK | |155 |USA |Cut-to-length carbon steel plate |AD |Definitive |1993-08-19 |Belgium, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, UK |Belgium, Finland, Germany, Poland, Spain, Sweden, UK | |156 |USA |Cut-to-length carbon steel plate |CVD |Definitive |1999-12-29 |Italy |Italy | |157 |USA |Cut-to-length carbon steel plate |AD |Definitive |2000-02-10 |France |France | |158 |USA |Cut-to-length carbon-quality steel plate |AD |Definitive |2000-02-10 |Italy |Italy | |159 |USA |Eggs, whole dried |AD |Definitive |1970-09-18 |Netherlands |Netherlands | |160 |USA |Glass heavy sheet |AD |Definitive |1971-12-09 |France, Germany |France, Germany | |161 |USA |Grain-oriented silicon electrical steel |CVD |Definitive |1994-06-07 |Italy |Italy | |162 |USA |Grain-oriented silicon electrical steel |AD |Definitive |1994-08-12 |Italy |Italy | |163 |USA |Granular polytetrafluoroethylene resin |AD |Definitive |1988-08-30 |Italy |Italy | |164 |USA |Hot rolled carbon steel flat products |AD |Definitive |2001-11-29 |Netherlands |Netherlands | |165 |USA |Industrial belts |AD |Definitive |1989-06-14 |Italy |Italy | |166 |USA |Industrial nitrocellulose |AD |Definitive |1983-08-10 |France |France | |167 |USA |Industrial nitrocellulose |AD |Definitive |1990-07-10 |Germany, UK |Germany, UK | |168 |USA |Low enriched uranium |AD |Definitive |2002-02-13 |France |France | |169 |USA |Oil country tubular goods |CVD |Definitive |1995-08-10 |Italy |Italy | |170 |USA |Oil country tubular goods |AD |Definitive |1995-08-11 |Italy |Italy | |171 |USA |Pasta |AD |Definitive |1996-07-24 |Italy |Italy | |172 |USA |Pasta |CVD |Definitive |1996-07-24 |Italy |Italy | |173 |USA |Potassium chloride |AD |Definitive |1969-12-19 |France, Germany |France, Germany | |174 |USA |Pressure sensitive plastic tape |AD |Definitive |1977-10-21 |Italy |Italy | |175 |USA |Purified Carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) |AD |Provisional |2004-12-27 |Finland, Netherlands, Sweden |Finland, Netherlands, Sweden | |176 |USA |Seamless line and pressure pipe |AD |Definitive |1995-08-03 |Germany |Germany | |177 |USA |Small diameter seamless pipe |AD |Definitive |2000-08-14 |Czech Republic |Czech Republic | |178 |USA |Sorbitol |AD |Definitive |1982-04-09 |France |France | |179 |USA |Stainless steel angle |AD |Definitive |2001-05-18 |Spain |Spain | |180 |USA |Stainless steel bar |AD |Definitive |1995-03-02 |Spain |Spain | |181 |USA |Stainless steel bar |AD |Definitive |2002-03-07 |France, Germany, Italy, UK |France, Germany, Italy, UK | |182 |USA |Stainless steel bar |CVD |Definitive |2002-03-08 |Italy |Italy | |183 |USA |Stainless steel butt-weld pipe fittings |AD |Definitive |2001-02-23 |Italy |Italy | |184 |USA |Stainless steel plates in coils |CVD |Definitive |1999-05-11 |Belgium, Italy |Belgium, Italy | |185 |USA |Stainless steel plates in coils |AD |Definitive |1999-05-21 |Belgium, Italy |Belgium, Italy | |186 |USA |Stainless steel sheet and strip in coils |AD |Definitive |1999-07-27 |France, Germany, Italy, UK |France, Germany, Italy, UK | |187 |USA |Stainless steel sheet and strip in coils |CVD |Definitive |1999-08-06 |Italy |Italy | |188 |USA |Stainless steel wire rod |AD |Definitive |1994-01-28 |France |France | |189 |USA |Stainless steel wire rod |AD |Definitive |1998-09-15 |Italy, Spain, Sweden |Italy, Spain, Sweden | |190 |USA |Steel concrete reinforcing bars |AD |Definitive |2001-09-07 |Latvia, Poland |Latvia, Poland | |191 |USA |Sugar |CVD |Definitive |1978-07-31 |EC | | |192 |USA |Sugar |AD |Definitive |1979-06-13 |Belgium, France, Germany |Belgium, France, Germany | |193 |USA |Sulphanilic Acid |AD |Definitive |2002-11-08 |Hungary, Portugal |Hungary, Portugal | |194 |USA |Sulphanilic Acid |CVD |Definitive |2002-11-08 |Hungary |Hungary | |195 |USA |Sulphur chemical (Sodium thiosulfate) |AD |Definitive |1991-02-19 |Germany, UK |Germany, UK | |196 |USA |Transformers |AD |Definitive |1972-06-14 |France |France | |197 |VENEZUELA |Blue-veined cheese |CVD |Definitive |1994-05-24 |EC |Denmark, Netherlands | |198 |VENEZUELA |Paper and paperboard |SG |Definitive |2004-06-06 |EC | | |199 |VENEZUELA |Potato starch |CVD |Definitive |2004-06-07 |EC | | |[1] DOC was proposing to introduce stricter certification rules in AD/CVD investigations and to consider a criminal offence any false declaration provided by foreign interested parties.[2] “Notice of Final modification of Agency Practice under Section 123 of the URAA” , FR 68 37125 of 23 June 2003.[3] These cases involve France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.