Report from the Commission - Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on third country anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard action against the community (2005) [SEC(2006) 1804]
Date: 2007-01-09
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping legislation, anti-dumping measure, common commercial policy, competition law, protective clause, report, third country

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 9.1.2007 
COM(2006) 873 final 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION 

ANNUAL REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT 
ON THIRD COUNTRY ANTI-DUMPING, ANTI-SUBSIDY AND SAFEGUARD 
ACTION AGAINST THE COMMUNITY (2005) 

[SEC(2006) 1804] 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
PART I 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
INTRODUCTION 

The  need  to  open  third  country  markets  and  create  new  opportunities  for  trade  has  been 
identified  as  one  of  the  key  elements  in  Europe's  trade  policy.  However,  in  order  to  ensure 
that  European  companies  can  benefit  from  such  opportunities  it  is  imperative  that  they  are 
able to compete fairly in third country markets. Unfortunately, increasing exports are often the 
target  of  increasing  trade  defence  actions  by  third  countries  and  the  European  Union,  as  a 
major exporter worldwide, is frequently exposed to such actions. While it is recognised that 
third countries have the right to take trade defence measures where necessary, in accordance 
with WTO rules, all too often these actions do not conform to the required standards. In turn 
these  actions  become  a  serious  and  unjustified  impediment  to  our  legitimate  market  access 
opportunities.  As  a  result,  DG  Trade  considers  the  fair  and  proper  implementation  of  WTO 
trade  defence  instruments  by  our  trading  partners  as  a  priority  and  every  effort  is  made  to 
ensure that our exports are not unduly penalised. For  this reason the European Commission 
monitors third country trade defence actions and helps companies and EU Member States to 
fully avail of their rights as interested parties in line with WTO rules. 

In  practical  terms  this  involves  channelling  information,  analysing  complaints  and  findings, 
advising companies regarding the relevant laws and regulations and making representations to 
investigating authorities where necessary. 

The  role  of  the  Commission  is  most  important  where  cases  are  problematic  either  due  to 
individual  or  systemic  breach  of  the  relevant  WTO  laws.  To  address  such  problems  we  use 
the diplomatic route, normally the quickest and the most efficient way to resolve these issues 
or  failing  that  we  resort  to  litigation  in  the  WTO  context.  Both  approaches  have  met  with 
success  including,  for  example,  the  removal  of  over  12  measures  by  India  following 
consultations with them. 

Our  efforts  to  have  third  countries  improve  their  standards  are  not  solely  focussed  on 
individual  cases.  In  the  context  of  the  Doha  Round  which,  unfortunately  at  the  time  of 
writing,  is  suspended  the  EU  tabled  proposals  to  strengthen  the  rules  and  the  disciplines 
governing  the  use  of  anti-dumping  and  countervailing  measures  which  would,  if  adopted, 
make it more difficult for countries to abuse the system. These efforts to improve the overall 
standards by users of the instruments is further strengthened  by negotiating  the  inclusion of 
specific  obligations  on  the  fair  use  of  trade  defence  instruments  in  any  bilateral  trade 
agreement  with  third  countries.  Furthermore,  the  trade  defence  services  of  DG  Trade  also 
devote a great deal of time and resources to providing technical assistance to third countries 
on  the  use  of  the  instruments  in  order  to  persuade  them  to  apply  the  rules  in  a  fair  and 
balanced  manner.  The  Community  is  well  placed  to  advise  on  this  given  our  own  high 
standards in administering these instruments. This report sets out, in more detail, the specific 
cases we have followed, the various initiatives taken and details the successes we have had in 
our  work  during  2005.  The  report  comprises  of  two  sections,  the  first  deals  with  the  main 
trends  of  the  year,  while  the  second  deals  with  specific  countries  or  groups  of  countries, 
focusing on some of the most notable cases. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

TRENDS 

1.1. 

General Overview 

The end of 2005 saw a welcome change from the trend of previous years with the number of 
trade  defence  measures  in  place  against  Community  exporters  decreasing.  At  the  end  of 
2005 the number of measures in force against the Community was 151 compared to 185 at the 
end  of  2004.  There  were  30  measures  terminated  during  2005  and  23  measures  expired.  Of 
the  terminations  12  were  by  India,  directly  as  a  result  of  reviews  carried  out  by  them  on 
measures against the EC following the WTO dispute launched against them in 2003.  

In terms of statistics, the measures in force at the end of 2005 against the EC break down as: 
US  (27%),  India  (15%),  Brazil  (6%),  China  (6%)  and  South  Africa  (5%),  Argentina, 
Australia, Canada and Ukraine (4% each), others (25%). 

The number of new cases initiated against the Community in 2005 compared to 2004, went 
down  from  33  to  20.  This  decline  in  the  number of  measures  and  investigations against  the 
Community  reflects  the  global  trend,  with  the  WTO  reporting  that  2005  was  the  fourth 
consecutive  year  where  new  initiations  declined  and  the  second  year  where  new  measures 
declined. 

It is however important to note that the number of new AD and CVD investigations directed 
against the Community, or its Member States, only marginally decreased. Indeed, the overall 
decrease of new investigations against the Community in 2005 as compared to the previous 
year  (-13)  is  mainly  explained  by  a  reduction  of  new  safeguard  investigations.  In  particular 
this  relates  to  Belarus  and  Turkey,  which  initiated  a  significant  number  of  safeguard 
investigations in 2004 (respectively 4 and 5), but none in 2005.  

In  this  respect,  it  should  be  recalled  that  even  if  it  is  likely  that  in  most  of  the  cases  the 
Community  exports  are  not  directly  targeted  by  those  investigations,  the  EU  exporters  are 
nevertheless  concerned,  because  safeguard  measures  are  erga-omnes,  i.e.  they  apply  to  all 
imports irrespective of their origin.  

In spite of a decreasing number of new safeguard investigations, those still account for over 
half of the new cases opened. Indeed, of the 20 new trade defence cases initiated affecting the 
EC in 2005, 11 were safeguard cases.  

This is a continuation of a worrying trend highlighted in last year’s annual report, in particular 
because, as mentioned above, Community exporters are also exposed to safeguard measures 
even  if  they  clearly  are  not  at  the  origin  of  the  problem.  It  appears  that  safeguard  action  is 
viewed  by  many  countries  as  an  easier  option  than  the  more  technical  AD  and  CVD 
investigations. 

However,  in  the  EC  the  use  of  safeguards  is  seen  as  an  instrument  of  last  resort  largely 
because of its erga omnes nature and the fact that it addresses imports which are fair unlike 
dumping or subsidisation products which are deemed unfair practices. As a result any requests 
for safeguard action in the EC are carefully examined to ensure that the very high standards 
required, particularly regarding injury, are evident. Unfortunately many third countries appear 
to  use  the  safeguard  instrument  in  instances  which,  in  the  EC,  would  not  warrant  even  the 
opening of an investigation. The Community continues to address this issue both in the WTO 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
context and also on a bilateral basis with third countries in an effort to curb any escalating use 
of this instrument.  

While this relative reduction in trade defence activity against the Community is welcome, it is 
impossible to say whether it is a lasting trend. Likewise, it is very difficult to clearly identify 
which  specific  factors  may  explain  this  reduction  though  the  strengthening  of  the  euro  may 
have  been  a  significant  cause.  One  additional  factor  is  that  DG  Trade  has  been  monitoring 
third country actions now for over six years and have continually intervened with other users 
to persuade them to improve their overall practice as well as in specific cases. This has been 
done, not only through direct representations to the investigating authorities themselves, but 
also by using the institutional framework created under various bilateral agreements which the 
EC  has  completed  with  third  countries.  By  exploiting  these  forums,  the  EC  can  raise  the 
profile of cases and exert further pressure on third countries to apply the instruments properly. 
These efforts have certainly had an impact on third countries use of trade defence instruments 
against the EC both in quantitative, as well as qualitative terms.  

In  last  years  report  it  was  mentioned  that  an  increasing  number  of  third  countries  almost 
exclusively initiate AD cases against the EC as a whole and not against individual Member 
States. This does not necessarily hold true for 2005. Of the 9 anti-dumping cases initiated, 5 
were  done  so  against  specific  Member  States.  Of  the  remaining  4,  it  is  noted  that,  China 
initiated all 3 cases against the EC as a whole while Pakistan initiated 1 such investigation. 

Clearly, from an economic and commercial viewpoint, initiating AD cases against the EC as a 
whole or individual Member States may entail significant consequences for the EC exporters 
of the goods subject to investigation. What is not clear is if one approach is more beneficial 
than the other e.g. lower dumping margins arising from a normal value based on prices of all 
sales  within  the  EC  versus  sales  in  one  Member  State  only  or  visa  versa.  From  a  legal 
perspective, opening a case against the EC as a whole,  given its status  as  a  Customs  Union 
and a WTO member in its own right, is not in itself contrary to GATT and WTO rules. The 
key  issue,  which  is  followed  closely  by  the  services,  is  that  third  countries  apply  the  rules 
correctly and act consistently when conducting investigations e.g. not initiating cases against 
the EC as a whole where the prima facie evidence of injurious dumping only relates to certain 
Member States or not selecting sales in one Member State only to establish normal value in an 
investigation concerning the EC as a whole. 

1.2. 

Sectors 

Chemicals are the products most targeted by trade defence action against the Community. In 
2005, 11 of the 20 new cases initiated  and  almost  half  of the measures imposed against the 
Community in 2005 relate to this sector. However, given that this sector ranks second in the 
order of importance of EC exports worldwide it is not surprising it also ranks so highly in the 
list  of  targeted  sectors.  On  a  global  scale  it  is  interesting  to  note  that  this  sector  also  ranks 
highly  for  AD  cases  initiated  over  the  last  ten  years  accounting  for  almost  20%  of  all 
initiations,  second  only  to  the  steel  sector.  No  other  sector  features  so  prominently  among 
trade defence actions taken in 2005. 

2. 

GENERAL ISSUES WITH THIRD COUNTRIES  

Last years report identified a number of shortcomings in third country trade defence actions 
including poor initiation standards, inadequate disclosure, lack of transparency and a general 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
overuse or indeed misuse of the instruments, particularly safeguards. While 2005 has shown 
improvements  by  some  countries,  particularly  regarding  disclosure,  there  is  unfortunately  a 
long way to go before all countries apply standards fully in line with the rule and spirit of the 
various WTO Agreements in the area of trade defence. The major systemic problems are as 
follows: 

2.1. 

Poor initiation standards 

Poor standards of initiation remain a problem among many users of trade defence instruments 
resulting in some investigations being initiated needlessly with the consequent negative effect 
on  trade  flows,  even  where  measures  may  not  be  subsequently  imposed.  While  clearly  the 
standards  for  the  initiation  of  an  investigation  are  not  those  required  for  the  imposition  of 
measures, prima facie cannot be interpreted to mean the minimum possible. However many 
countries continue to initiate investigations on the basis of complaints or requests which, here 
in  the  EC,  would  be  dismissed  as  insufficient  due  to  lack  of  evidence.  The  Commission 
services  continue  to  make  representations  on  individual  cases  to  third  country  authorities 
highlighting specific shortcomings following initiations. In addition there have been a number 
of  seminars  hosted  by  the  Trade  Defence  services  where  the  EU’s  practice  and  views 
regarding initiation standards have been explained.  

2.2. 

Rights of defence of interested parties, disclosure, and transparency  

Full and detailed disclosures, along with access to meaningful non-confidential data are key to 
ensuring the rights of interested parties in trade defence proceedings. However, all too often 
European  exporters  are  faced  with  a  lack  of  information  making  it  extremely  difficult  to 
mount  an  effective  defence  in  these  proceedings.  The  problems  are  two-fold;  a  lack  of 
substantive information generally justified on the basis that the data concerned should remain 
confidential  and  secondly  the  manner  in  which  information  is  presented  rendering  a 
meaningful  analysis  impossible.  These  shortcomings  become  evident  at  the  various  main 
steps  of  proceedings;  initiation,  imposition  of  provisional  measures  and  finally  definitive 
measures. 

A  number  of  European  exporters  co-operating  in  anti-dumping  investigations  by  third 
countries  have  highlighted  the  fact  that  many  rebuttal  arguments  made  by  them  following 
disclosure  are  ignored  by  the  investigating  authorities.  Such  an  approach  is  tantamount  to 
denying  interested  parties  certain  rights  and  weakens  the  justification  for  the  imposition  of 
subsequent  measures.  This  arises  particularly  in  relation  to  ‘other  factors’  which  must  be 
addressed  by  the  authorities  in  establishing  the  causal  link  in  investigations.  Many  third 
countries  either  ignore  submissions  in  this  regard  totally  or  simply  list  issues  raised  by 
interested parties without addressing them properly 

Countries such as China, India and Pakistan continue to bend the rules on these issues while 
the Commission services continually urge them to improve their practice either through direct 
case related interventions or through seminars explaining the EU’s own practice and views on 
these matters.  

2.3. 

Poor injury/causality analysis 

One of the most common and obvious shortcomings in third country trade defence cases is the 
poor injury and causation analysis. Examination of cases continually shows the poor standards 
applied  in  this  respect.  All  too  often  the  injury  indicators  will  show  positive  trends,  yet  the 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
existence of injury will be confirmed on the basis of poor performance during one year while 
paying  little  regard  to  overall  trends.  This  ‘cherry  picking’  approach  is  common  among 
certain  third  countries  and  is  clearly  in  breach  of  WTO  legislation.  The  problem  is  further 
exacerbated by poor investigation into causality with little regard being paid to ‘other factors’; 
In many cases our analysis would indicate that there are other obvious causes of injury, but 
these are often ignored resulting in the unjustified imposition of measures.  

3. 

RESULTS 

The drop in initiations and in the number of measures in force at the end of 2005 against the 
EC  or  Member  States  is  a  welcome  change  in  the  trend  of  previous  years.  While  this 
development cannot be attributed solely to the EC’s activity in monitoring third country cases, 
nevertheless it is considered to have contributed.  

The  most  obvious  success  in  2005  was  the  termination  by  India  of  12  measures  against  the 
Community  as  a  result  of  reviews  which  had  been  undertaken  following  the  WTO  dispute 
brought by the EC against India in 2003. Furthermore regarding India, there have been some 
efforts on their part to improve certain aspects of proceedings. Unfortunately there remains a 
lot to be done before they apply the instrument at a level consistent with WTO requirements.  

A number of other cases which are worthy of mention are:  

•  Russia:  termination  of  three  safeguards  cases  concerning  chemicals  where  other 
factors  were  the  clear  cause  of  injury.  Indications  of  a  positive  outcome  for  the 
ongoing anti-dumping case on stainless steel. 

•  Argentina: termination of countervailing measures on Olive Oil. 

•  Pakistan:  termination  of  investigation  on  tin  plate  from  Germany,  France,  Italy 

and UK. 

•  Morocco:  negotiation  of  quota  for  EC  exporters  of  ceramic  tiles  at  traditional 

export levels. 

•  Ukraine:  decrease  of  AD  duty  on  screw  compressors  from  75%  to  29%  by 
referring  to  a  wrong  application  of  the  Ukrainian  law  (this  level  of  duty  is 
however still considered excessive). 

•  Australia: termination of CVD measures on bulk brandy from France.  

4. 

MAIN ACTIVITIES OF THIRD COUNTRIES 

4.1. 

United States 

In 2005 the US did not initiate any new investigations against the EC. There were a number of 
sunset  reviews  of  existing  CVD  measures  initiated  late  in  2005  on  which  the  Commission 
continues to be active. As a result of these reviews or ongoing US court actions the US has or 
may  have  to  remove  many  CVD  measures  in  2006,  including  some  of  the  contentious 
measures on low-enriched uranium and a number of CVD measures on steel products dating 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
from  the  early  1990's.  At  the  end  of  2005  the  number  of  measures  in  place  by  the  US 
remained unchanged from the previous year at 39. 

In  monitoring  US  cases  in  2005  the  focus  related  to  ongoing  WTO  dispute  settlement 
proceedings,  in  particular  the  cases  on  “zeroing”  and  “privatisation”.  In  the  “zeroing  case”, 
the  panel  and  the  Appellate  Body  reports  were  issued  in  September  2005  and  April  2006 
respectively  and  adopted  at  the  Dispute  Settlement  meeting  of  9  May  2006.  The  EC 
successfully obtained a condemnation of a method by which the US investigating authorities 
disregard non-dumped export transactions in their calculations (a method known as “zeroing”) 
with  the  result  of  significantly  inflating  margins  of  dumping.  The  US  now  has  until  April 
2007  to  implement  the  ruling.  Without  this  practice,  it  is  unlikely  that  the  US  authorities 
would  have  been  able  to  find  dumping  and  impose  duties  in  such  a  significant  number  of 
cases.  The  “zeroing”  practice  affects  several  hundred  million  USD  in  trade  volume  for  EC 
exporters.  

Regarding  the  privatisation  case,  following  a  request  from  the  EC,  in  September  2004,  an 
implementation panel was established as the US had not implemented some aspects of a WTO 
panel ruling in 2002. The panel report was issued in August 2005 and while the EC was not 
successful in all its claims it won most points regarding privatisations of companies in cases 
concerning steel from the UK and Spain. The US began its implementation of the findings in 
November  2005  and  this  was  completed  in  May  2006.  The  US  decided  to  maintain  the 
measures  in  force  which  was  a  disappointing  result  but  the  Commission  is  awaiting  the 
outcome of further sunset reviews before deciding whether any further steps are appropriate. 

In a third WTO case concerning the US, the EC had requested WTO consultations concerning 
an  AD  duty  imposed  on  a  UK  company,  Firth  Rixson  in  Steel  Bar  from  the  UK.  DOC  had 
penalised  this  company  with  an  "adverse  facts  available"  AD  duty  because  the  firm  was 
unable to produce detailed production cost data for a small factory which it had acquired in a 
merger and dismantled before the investigation started. Two rounds of WTO consultations, as 
well  as  several  bilateral  interventions  with  the  US,  were  held  in  2005  but  to  no  avail.  Any 
further  WTO  action  is  on  hold  pending  the  outcome  of  an  administrative  review  which  the 
company requested in March 2006. 

4.2. 

Russia, Ukraine and other non-WTO members 

The year 2005 saw a slight increase in cases opened by Russia over 2004 from 3 to 4, while 
Ukraine  initiated  only  1  case  compared  to  3  in  2004.  The  number  of  measures  in  force  by 
those two countries at the end of 2005 was 8, as compared to 5 in 2004. 

2005 was a very busy year concerning these countries, not only for these new cases but for a 
number of cases opened the previous year which became very active in 2005, in particular the 
anti-dumping case on stainless steel by Russia which, it is expected, will result in no measures 
being  imposed.  Also  for  Russia  it  was  shown  that,  in  certain  instances  their  approach  is 
reasonable demonstrated by their termination of three safeguard cases which had been opened 
on  chemical  products.  Of  course,  had  they  applied  higher  standards  in  examining  the 
complaints it is likely that the particular cases in question would ever have come to initiation 
stage.  Unfortunately  in  2005  Russia  has  also  shown  that  it  can  adopt  an  unreasonable  and 
unwarranted  approach  by  imposing  safeguard  measures  on  electric  lamps  case  which  are 
considered  excessive.  This  excessive  and  disproportionate  approach  was  also  in  evidence 
when Ukraine imposed anti-dumping measures on screw compressors.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
Non-WTO  members,  such  as  Russia  and  Ukraine,  pose  a  particular  problem  for  monitoring 
their trade defence actions against the Community i.e. their legislation and standards do not 
necessarily correspond to WTO rules and the ultimate resort to WTO dispute settlement is not 
available.  Nevertheless  in  monitoring  their  cases,  despite  the  fact  that  they  are  outside  the 
WTO system, the relevant WTO standards are still used as a benchmark. The fact that they 
are negotiating WTO membership provides certain leverage in urging them to improve their 
overall standards.  

We also saw the arrival of a new user, Croatia who initiated one safeguard case. 

4.3. 

China 

In  2005  China’s  global  trade  defence  actions  increased  very  significantly  over  the  previous 
year. In fact in the second half of 2005 China became the top initiator of anti-dumping cases 
among WTO members.  

Fortunately this trend is not reflected in China’s trade defence actions against the Community 
with the number of new cases opened in 2005 remaining stable at 3. However, the result of 
this increasing TDI activity is reflected in the current number of measures in force against the 
EC, which increased from 7 at end of 2004 to 9 at the end of 2005. In addition, China’s global 
activities  also  had  a  negative  impact  on  EC  companies  with  manufacturing  sites  located  in 
other Asian countries and exporting to China. 

Since  China  is  still  considered  a  new  user  of  trade  defence  instruments,  and  given  their 
increasing  use  of  the  instruments,  all  new  Chinese  investigations  are  closely  monitored  in 
order  anticipate  and  avoid  serious  and  large  scale  problems.  In  2005  China  reached  a 
conclusion  on  its  first  ever  interim  review  conducted  following  a  request  from  domestic 
industry.  Unfortunately  for  EU  exporters  of  catechol  this  resulted  in  an  increase  in  the 
margins. 

Last year’s report drew attention to the fact that China’s trade defence actions focussed on the 
chemical sector and this continued in 2005. All definitive measures in place at the end of 2005 
as well as 2 of the 3 initiations by China against the EC related to this sector. This may be 
explained  by  the  fact  that,  while  the  chemical  sector  is  one  of  China’s  fastest  growing 
industries, there are significant imports in the sector.  

4.4. 

India & Pakistan 

In  the  second  half  of  2005,  on  a  global  level,  India  was  overtaken  by  China  as  the  leading 
initiator of new anti-dumping cases. Nevertheless India still remains one of the largest users 
of TDI world wide. 

This year has seen another slight decline in the number of cases opened by India against the 
Community from 3 the previous year to 2 in 2005 (and 7 in 2003). The number of measures in 
place against the EC significantly decreased from 36 in 2004 to 22 at the end of 2005. This is 
the  outcome  of  the  successful  WTO  dispute  brought  by  the  EC  against  India  at  the  end  of 
2003,  and  which  resulted  in  the  termination  of  the  vast  majority  of  the  main  problem  cases 
during 2005. It is hoped that the favourable outcome of this dispute settlement continues to 
have an impact on India's general anti-dumping practice. In this context improvements in their 
overall practice have been apparent although there is still a long way to go. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
Pakistan initiated 3 AD cases against, inter alia, the EC in 2005, which is a change from their 
traditionally rather modest use of the trade defence instruments up to now. These concerned 
formic acid, tinplate and footwear. The EC had only been affected once by measures adopted 
in Pakistan. This increase in activity could be as a result of an increasing awareness among 
their domestic industry of the purpose of trade defence, as the Pakistani authorities have held 
a  number  of  seminars  for  industry  to  explain  the  instruments.  We  have  serious  concerns 
regarding  the  very  poor  standards  applied  by  Pakistan  in  their  administration  of  the 
instruments: in the formic acid case the authorities presented serious barriers for exporters to 
have  disclosure.  We  are  therefore  actively  pursuing  the  issues  with  them  and  closely 
monitoring their ongoing investigations. We are however satisfied that they terminated two of 
the investigations opened in 2005 without imposing measures (tinplate, footwear). 

4.5. 

Latin America 

The  previous  years  low  activity  trends  of  Latin  American  countries  has  been  confirmed  in 
2005. Only one new investigation was initiated by Brazil (AD case subsequently terminated 
in  2006  without  imposition  of  measures),  while  Argentina  neither  initiated  new  cases  nor 
imposed  any  definitive  measures  against  the  EC  in  2005.  Despite  the  fact  that  Argentina 
continued  to  be  an  active  user  of  anti-dumping  at  a  global  level  in  2005,  this  is  the  second 
year in succession where it was inactive vis-à-vis imports from the EC. While exports from 
the EC to Argentina have continued to recover in recent years, they have not yet reached the 
traditional levels existing prior to 2002 when their currency was devaluated. Nevertheless in 
2005  we  continued  bringing  pressure  on  Argentina  through  the  WTO  dispute  settlement 
mechanism regarding their CVD measures on wheat gluten and olive oil. 

Regarding Mexico an Argentina our work was characterised by consultations in the context of 
WTO  dispute  settlement  proceedings.  These  consultations  related  to  CVD  measures  on 
agricultural products namely olive oil (Mexico and Argentina) and wheat gluten (Argentina). 
Unfortunately none of these consultations brought the parties close to finding a solution and 
since then there have been preparations ongoing for two WTO panels (Argentina terminated 
the  measures  on  olive  oil).  Other  activity  regarding  trade  defence  by  Brazil  and  Mexico 
related  in  particular  to  actions  on  cases  initiated  or  measures  existing  prior  to  2005  (e.g. 
definitive determinations, expiry reviews and terminations).  

4.6. 

Turkey 

Even though no new investigations were initiated by Turkey in 2005, it should be recalled that 
this  country  initiated  an  unprecedented  number  of  safeguard  investigations  in  2004  (5  in 
total).  These  investigations  were  concluded  in  2005  with  the  Commission  playing  an  active 
part in these proceedings during that year. Overall, for the EC the results were positive with 
three  of  the  five  cases  being  terminated  without  measures  and  for  the  other  two,  where 
measures  were  imposed,  there  was  little  impact  on  EC  exporters  owing  to  the  nature  and 
scope  of  the  particular  measures.  Nevertheless  we  remain  seriously  concerned  regarding 
Turkey's over zealous recourse to the safeguard instrument. 

5. 

CONCLUSION 

Given the overall reduction in both new initiations and number of measures in place against 
the  EC  2005  was,  in  terms  of  trade  defence  measures,  an  improvement  for  European 
exporters. It is recalled that the decrease in number of measures in place is for an important 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
part related to termination of measures as a result of reviews carried out following the WTO 
dispute launched against India. As to the number of new investigations, the decrease is mainly 
related  to  less  initiation  of  erga  omnes  safeguard  investigations,  to  which  EC  exporters  are 
exposed without always being directly targeted. It is hoped that this trend will continue. In the 
meantime  the  EC  continues  to  monitor  third  country  actions  in  order  to  ensure  that  third 
countries  respect  WTO  and  bilateral  rules,  assist  and  defend  interests  of  EU  industries/MSs 
targeted and aim to reduce the economic impact of third country measures on exporters. 

The  problems  have  been  addressed  in  several  ways,  either  through  direct  intervention  on 
specific  cases,  raising  general  systemic  problems  in  the  framework  of  both  formal  and 
informal  bilateral  contacts  with  the  countries  concerned,  discussions  in  the  relevant 
Committees  in  the  WTO  context  as  well  as  the  continuation  of  training  for  third  countries 
regarding  our  own  views  and  practice  in  TDI  matters.  In  2005  officials  from  the  Trade 
defense  services  were  involved  in  ten  such  seminars  addressing  such  countries  as  China, 
Russia and Mexico.  

Discussions on anti-dumping and countervailing continued in 2005 in the context of the WTO 
Doha  round  with  the  aim  of  improving  the  rules  particularly  regarding  transparency, 
predictability  and  clarity.  The  Hong  Kong  Declaration  called  on  Members  to  avoid  the 
unwarranted  use  of  AD  measures  and  perhaps  these  ongoing  discussions  will  create 
awareness among users ultimately resulting in their prudent use.  

Finally, ensuring that third countries apply the same high standards in the application of their 
trade  defense  instruments  as  the  EC  is  an  important  factor  in  ensuring  that  any  improved 
market  access  which  is  obtained  in  these  countries  is  not  eroded.  Taking  an  active  role  in 
addressing  barriers  to  trade,  including  the  correct  and  transparent  application  of  the  trade 
defense  instruments,  will  contribute  to  improved  competitiveness  of  European  industry 
worldwide. 

EN 

11 

   EN