COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 31st Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities (2012)
Date: 2013-12-19
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: Armenia, Belarus, China, Court of Justice of the European Union, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Viet Nam, anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, import (EU), trade dispute













EUR-Lex - 52013SC0538 - EN











|



52013SC0538

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 31st Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities (2012) /* SWD/2013/0538 final */









TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive summary. 5
1............ Overview of the
legislation. 7
1.1......... Anti-dumping and
anti-subsidy. 7
1.1.1...... The international framework. 7
1.1.2...... The EU legislation. 7
1.2......... Safeguards. 8
1.2.1...... The international framework. 8
1.2.2...... The EU legislation. 8
1.3......... Anti-subsidy and unfair
pricing instrument for airline services. 9
2............ Basic concepts. 9
2.1......... Anti-dumping and
anti-subsidy. 9
2.1.1...... What is dumping and what
are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for the imposition of
duties?. 9
2.1.2...... Procedure. 10
2.1.3...... Review of measures. 12
2.1.4...... Judicial reviews. 12
2.2......... Safeguards. 13
2.2.1...... What are safeguard
measures?. 13
2.2.2...... Procedure. 13
3............ TDI Modernisation. 14
4............ Country-wide market
economy status (MES) 15
4.1......... China. 16
4.2......... Vietnam.. 16
4.3......... Armenia. 16
4.4......... Kazakhstan. 16
4.5......... Mongolia. 16
4.6......... Belarus. 16
5............ Information and
Communication activities / Bilateral contacts. 17
5.1......... Small and medium sized
enterprises (SMEs) 17
5.2......... Bilateral contacts/information
activities – industry and third countries. 17
6............ The Hearing Officer 17
7............ General overview of
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures. 19
7.1......... New investigations. 19
7.2......... Review investigations. 20
8............ Overview of
activities in 2012. 21
8.1......... New investigations. 21
8.1.1...... Initiations. 21
8.1.2...... Provisional measures. 22
8.1.3...... Details on individual cases. 23
8.1.4...... Definitive measures. 27
8.1.5...... Details on individual cases. 27
8.1.6...... Investigations terminated
without measures. 29
8.1.7...... Details on some individual
cases. 30
8.2......... Review investigations. 31
8.2.1...... Expiry reviews. 31
8.2.2...... Interim reviews. 38
8.2.3...... “Other” reviews. 43
8.2.4...... New exporter reviews. 43
8.2.5...... Absorption investigations. 43
8.2.6...... Circumvention
investigations. 44
8.3......... Safeguard investigations. 46
9............ Enforcement of
anti-dumping/countervailing measures. 46
9.1......... Follow-up of measures. 46
9.2......... Monitoring of
undertakings. 46
10.......... Refunds. 47
11.......... Judicial review:
decisions given by the Court of Justice / Court of First Instance. 47
11.1....... Overview of the judicial
reviews in 2012. 47
11.2....... Cases pending. 47
11.3....... New cases. 47
11.4....... Judgments rendered by the
General Court 47
11.4.1.... Iron or steel fasteners
originating in China – T-150/09 Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners Co. Ltd v. Council of
the European Union – Judgment of 10 October 2012 (OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 29) 47
11.4.2.... Iron or steel fasteners
originating in China – T-162/09 Adolf Würth GmbH & Co KG (Künzelsau,
Germany) and Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang) Co Ltd (Shenyang, China) v. Council of
the European Union – Judgment of 19 April 2012 (OJ C 165, 9.6.2012, p. 17–17) 49
11.4.3.... Iron or steel fasteners
originating in China – T-170/09 Shanghai Biaowu High-Tensile Fasteners Co. Ltd
and Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd v. Council of the European Union –
Judgment of 10 October 2012 (OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 30) 49
11.4.4.... Iron or steel fasteners
originating in China – T-172/09 Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd and Jinn-Well
Auto-Parts  v. Council of the European Union – Judgment of 10 October 2012 (OJ
C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 30) 50
11.4.5.... Ironing boards originating in
the People’s Republic of China produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd
- T-156/11 - Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd v Council of the European
Union – Judgment of 18 September 2012. 52
11.4.6.... Certain polyethylene
terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates –
T-555/10 – JBF RAK LLC v Council of the European Union – Judgment of 24 May
2012. 53
11.4.7.... Certain polyethylene
terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates –
T-556/10 – Novatex Ltd v Council of the European Union – Judgment of 11 October
2012. 54
11.5....... Judgments rendered by the
Court of Justice. 55
11.5.1.... Certain prepared or preserved
citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of
China – C-338/10 GLS Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH– Judgment of 22 March 2012
(OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p. 5) 55
11.5.1.... Steel wire ropes and cables
originating in India – C-552/10 P Usha Martin Ltd– Judgment of 22 November 2012
(OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 2) 56
11.5.2.... Glyphosate originating in the
People’s Republic of China – C-337/09 P Council v. Zhejiang Xinan – Judgment of
19 July 2012 (OJ C 295, 29.9.2012, p. 2) 57
12.......... Activities in the
framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) 58
12.1....... Dispute settlement in the
field of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards. 58
12.1.1.... Overview of the WTO dispute
settlement procedure. 58
12.1.2.... Dispute settlement procedures
against the Union. 58
12.2....... Other WTO activities. 59
13.......... Conclusion. 59
LIST OF ANNEXES. 60
Executive summary
This report is submitted to the European
Parliament following its resolution of 16 December 1981 on the EU's
anti-dumping activities[1], and the report of the
European Parliament’s Committee on industry, external trade, research and
energy[2].

The report, as in previous years, gives an
overview of the EU legislation in force with regard to the trade defence
instruments, including safeguards.
The report also summarises the developments
in general policy. As in previous years, the report no longer contains a
commentary on each individual case. It gives an overview of all investigations
together with the most essential information such as, for instance, the rate of
individual duties imposed. In turn, cases which merit some special attention
are treated in more detail. Consequently, the report is more factual and
condensed and covers the essential facts of the year.
The detailed annexes which cover all cases
ensure that the factual content of the report remains meaningful and sufficient
to provide a full overview of the activity in 2012. 
2012 saw a slight decrease in the number of
new cases initiated when compared to the previous year, 19 as compared to 21 in
2011. Regarding other activities, 2012 saw a decrease in the number of
provisional measures imposed, 9 compared to 10 the previous year while the
number of investigations terminated without measures also dropped slightly from
11 in 2011 to 9 in 2012. There was significant decrease in the number of
definitive measures imposed, down from 13 in 2011 to 3 in 2012. 
As regards review investigations initiated,
there was an increase from 24 in 2011 to 37 in 2012. These included 14 expiry
reviews, 5 interim reviews, 1 new exporter review,13 anti-circumvention
investigations as well as 4 other reviews. In the period, 9 expiry reviews were
concluded with confirmation of the measures and 6 interim reviews were
concluded with the measures being confirmed or amended.
There was no new safeguard investigation
opened nor safeguard measures imposed during 2012. 
In 2012, with the aim of improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of the EU's trade defence instruments, DG Trade
continued work on the initiative concerning the Modernisation of the trade
defence instruments which had been launched in October 2011. 
As in previous years, this report provides
an overview of the Court cases relating to the trade policy instruments. In 2012,
the Court of Justice (COJ) and the General Court (GC) rendered 21 judgments in
total relating to the areas of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy. 
2012 was the fifth full year of activity
for the Hearing Officer in DG Trade, who became operational in April 2007. The
main task of the Hearing Officer is to guarantee the rights of defence in trade
proceedings before the European Commission. In doing so the Hearing Officer
also contributed to improved transparency in TDI activities.
The European Parliament's INTA Committee
continued to be informed about developments in the EU's trade defence
activities.
The relevant activities in the framework of
the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are also reported including dispute
settlement procedures initiated against the EU. 
The annexes to this report provide easy
access to the activities in table form.
This report is also available to the
general public with the following link. 
Internet Website :
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/tackling-unfair-trade/trade-defence/anti-dumping/
1.           Overview of the legislation
1.1.        Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
1.1.1.     The international framework
On an international level, unfair trading
practices such as dumping and the granting of subsidies were identified as a
threat to open markets as early as 1947, when the first GATT agreement was
signed. The agreement contained specific provisions allowing GATT members to
take action against these practices if they caused material injury to the
domestic industry of a GATT member. Even though, the beginning of the
disciplines dates back quite some time, world trade is currently still
distorted by unfair practices, making the instruments still relevant.
Since the beginning, considerable efforts
have been made to harmonise the rules relating to trade instruments. During the
last GATT round (the « Uruguay Round ») which led to the creation of
the WTO and the detailed Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements, much of the
attention was focused on the procedural and material conditions to be fulfilled
before measures can be adopted. The EU played an active role in the negotiation
of these relevant criteria which are reflected in its own legislation. The EU's
role is the more so important today as a number of new users take action
without the necessary rigor and restraint, affecting negatively also EU
operators. The role the EU plays as a prudent user has therefore also an
exemplary function at WTO level.
1.1.2.     The EU legislation
The EU’s anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
legislation was first enacted in 1968 and has since been modified several
times. The current basic texts, which form the legal basis of
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations in the EU, entered into force in
March 1996 and October 1997 respectively. These are in line with the
Anti-Dumping and Anti-Subsidy Agreements adopted during the GATT/WTO
negotiations. The basic texts are:
–              
Council Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 of 30
November 2009 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members
of the European EU – Codified Version[3]
–              
Council Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 of 11 June
2009 on protection against subsidized imports from countries not members of the
European EU – Codified Version[4].
These regulations will overall be referred
to as the "basic Regulation(s)". 
The Basic AD Regulation was amended in September
2012[5] and December 2012[6] to reflect rulings by
the WTO Dispute Settlement Board and the Court of Justice respectively. In
light of the Court of Justice Ruling in the Brosmann footwear case[7], it was considered
appropriate to codify the practice of restricting the examination of MET claims
to companies that were sampled. It was also necessary to modify the legal
conditions under which exporting producers in non-market economy countries
obtain an individual dumping margin to comply with the WTO ruling in the
Dispute Settlement[8]
case concerning fasteners from the People’s Republic of China. 
The EU legislation contains a number of
provisions aimed at ensuring a balanced application of the EU’s Anti-Dumping
and Anti-Subsidy rules on all interested parties. These provisions include the
“EU interest test” and the “lesser duty rule”, which go beyond the WTO
obligations.
The EU interest test is a public interest
clause and provides that measures can only be taken if they are not contrary to
the overall interest of the EU. This requires an analysis of all the economic
interests involved, including those of the EU industry, users, consumers and
traders of the product concerned. The EU interest test does not involve wider
aspects such as foreign or development policy considerations.
The lesser duty rule requires the measures
imposed by the EU to be lower than the dumping or subsidy margin, if such lower
duty rate is sufficient to remove the injury suffered by the EU industry. Such
a “no-injury” rate is determined by using the cost of production of the EU
industry and a reasonable profit margin; it reduces the anti-dumping measures
for individual exporting companies in almost half of the cases and is applied,
on a world-wide level, only by the EU on a regular basis.
1.2.        Safeguards
1.2.1.     The international framework
The principle of liberalisation of imports
was set under the GATT 1947 and strengthened under the 1994 WTO Agreements. As
safeguard measures consist of the unilateral withdrawal or suspension of a
tariff concession or of other trade liberalisation obligations formerly agreed,
they have to be considered as an exception to this principle. Article XIX GATT
1994 and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards do not only impose strict conditions
for the application of this "escape clause”, but also put in place a
multilateral control mechanism under the WTO Committee on Safeguards.
Under WTO rules, safeguard action has to be
viewed as a temporary defence measure that applies to all imports of the
product covered by a measure, irrespective of origin. As regards non-WTO
members, safeguard measures may be selective and apply to products originating
in a specific country. WTO Accession Protocols may also provide for such
selective safeguard mechanisms as is the case in the People's Republic of
China's Protocol of Accession. 
WTO safeguards should only be adopted after
a comprehensive investigation which provides evidence of the existence of a)
unforeseen developments leading to b) increased imports, c) the existence of a
serious injury for EU producers and d) a causal link between the imports
and the injury.
1.2.2.     The EU legislation
The above-mentioned principles are all
reflected in the relevant EU regulations, except for the “unforeseen
development requirement” (which is not in the EU law but has been confirmed as
a self-standing condition by WTO jurisprudence). Additionally, the adoption of
measures in the EU requires an analysis of all interests concerned, i.e. the
impact of the measures on producers, users and consumers. In other words,
safeguard action can only be taken when it is in the EU’s interest to do so.
The current EU safeguard instruments are covered by the following regulations:
–              
Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009[9] on the common rules of
imports – Codified Version
–              
Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94[10] on common rules for
imports from certain third countries and repealing Regulations (EEC) Nos
1765/82, 1766/82 and 3420/83. This Regulation was amended in 2003 when a
Transitional Product-Specific Safeguard Mechanism for imports originating in
the People’s Republic of China was adopted[11].
This Regulation ensures that Council Regulation (EC) No 519/94 is no longer
applicable to the People’s Republic of China;
–              
Council Regulation (EC) No 517/94[12] on common rules for
imports of textile products from certain third countries not covered by bilateral
agreements, protocols or other arrangements, or by other specific EU import
rules.
These regulations will overall be referred
to as the "basic safeguard Regulation(s)".
1.3.        Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline
services
Regulation No 868/2004[13] dealing with the
effect of subsidisation and unfair pricing for air services from third
countries which was adopted by the EP and the Council in 2004 requested the
Commission to prepare a methodology to assess unfair pricing practices. This complex
work, involving different services of the Commission as well as external
experts, is on-going. The resulting methodology should be both derived from the
significant EU experience in trade in goods and adapted to the highly specific
sector of the air-services.
2.           Basic concepts
2.1.        Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
2.1.1.     What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies -
the material conditions for the imposition of duties?
2.1.1.1.  Dumping
and subsidies
Dumping is traditionally defined as price
discrimination between national markets, or as selling below cost of
production, plus profit. The EU’s anti-dumping legislation defines anti-dumping
as selling a product in the EU at a price below its “normal value”. This
“normal value” is usually the actual sales price on the domestic market of the
exporting country. Therefore, a country is selling at dumped prices if the
prices in its home market are higher than its export prices (i.e. price
discrimination).
Where sales in the domestic market are not
representative, for instance because they have only been made in small
quantities, the normal value may then be established on another basis, such as
the sales prices of other producers on the domestic market or the cost of
production, plus profit. In the latter case, a company is selling at dumped
prices if its export prices are below the cost of production, plus profit.
A certain segregation of the market,
triggered by a variety of distortions, exists in the majority of the cases
where dumping occurs on a more than incidental basis. That segregation may be
caused, amongst other reasons, by government intervention. As a result,
exporters are shielded, at least to a certain degree, from international
competition on their domestic market.
Subsidies can have similar effects to sales
at dumped prices in that they allow exporters to operate from a distorted home
base. Subsidies involve a direct support from a government or a
government-directed private body which has the effect of conferring a benefit
to producers or exporters (e.g. grants, tax and duty exemptions, preferential
loans at below commercial rates, export promotion schemes, etc.), all aimed at
allowing the exporters to sell at low prices in the EU. Only subsidies which
are “specific”, i.e. targeted at individual companies or certain sectors of the
economy, can be subject to trade defence measures.
Both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures
are thus only second-best solutions in the absence of internationally agreed
and enforced competition rules.
2.1.1.2.  Material
injury and causation
For measures to be taken against these
unfair trading practices, it is not sufficient that companies are exporting
their products to the EU at dumped or subsidised prices. Measures can only be
taken if these exports cause material injury to EU producers.
Typical indicators of injury are that the
dumped and/or subsidised import volumes increase over a certain period and
import prices undercut the sales prices of the EU industry. As a consequence,
the latter is forced to decrease production volumes and sales prices thus
losing market shares, making losses or having to make employees redundant. In
extreme cases, exporters may try to eliminate viable EU producers by using a
predatory, below cost, pricing strategy. In any event, the injury analysis
requires that all relevant factors be taken into account before deciding
whether the EU industry is in fact suffering “material injury”.
A further condition for the imposition of
measures is the need for “a causal link”: the injury must be caused by
the dumping or the subsidy. This condition is often fulfilled when the injury
to the EU industry coincides with the increase in dumped and subsidised
imports. It is important to note that the dumped or subsidised imports do not
have to be the only cause of the injury.
2.1.1.3.  EU
interest
Finally, it has to be established whether
there are compelling reasons according to which measures would be contrary to
the overall interest of the EU. In this respect, the interests of all relevant
economic operators which might be affected by the outcome of the investigation
must be taken into account. These interests typically include those of the EU
industry, users, consumers and traders of the product concerned and the
analysis assesses the positive impact measures will have on some operators as
opposed to the negative impact on others. Measures should not be imposed only
if it can be clearly concluded that their negative impact would be
disproportionate,.
2.1.2.     Procedure
Investigations are carried out in accordance
with the procedural rules laid down in the basic Regulations. These rules
guarantee a transparent, fair and objective proceeding by granting significant
procedural rights to interested parties. In addition, the results of an
investigation are published in the Official Journal, and the EU is obliged to
justify its decisions in this publication. Finally, it is ensured that each
case is decided on its merits and the Commission does not hesitate to terminate
a case if the conditions to impose measures are not met.
Whereas each investigation is different
depending on the products and countries involved, all cases follow the same
procedural rules. However, certain preferential rules apply to any candidate
countries. The rules relating to a new case are summarised below.
Initiation
A case normally starts with a sufficiently
substantiated complaint from the EU industry manufacturing the same or a
similar product to the one referred to in the complaint. Then, the Commission
assesses whether the complaint contains sufficient evidence to allow for the
initiation of the case. A case is opened by a notice of initiation published in
the Official Journal. In this notice, all interested parties, including users,
exporting country authorities in anti-subsidy investigations in particular and,
where appropriate, consumer organisations are invited to participate and
co-operate in the proceedings. Detailed questionnaires are sent to producers in
the exporting countries, in anti-subsidy investigations also to the exporting country
authorities, and in the EU to the producers, traders (in particular importers)
and other interested parties, such as users. These questionnaires cover all
different conditions to be fulfilled, i.e. dumping/subsidy, injury, causation
and EU interest. The parties are also informed that they can request a hearing
and ask for access to the non-confidential files which will help them defend
their case.
The investigation up to the provisional
measures
Following receipt of the replies to the
questionnaire, investigations are carried out by Commission officials at the
premises of the co-operating parties.
The main purpose of these visits is to
verify whether the information given in the questionnaires is reliable. The
verified information is subsequently used to calculate or determine the dumping
margin and the injury factors, in particular the price undercutting margin and
injury elimination level, as well as for the EU interest analysis. The
respective calculations and analysis often involve the processing of thousands
of transactions, the complex examination of production costs and the assessment
of the economic situation of numerous economic operators.
The results of the calculations and other
findings are summarised in a working document, on the basis of which it is
decided - after consultation of the Member States in the Advisory Committee -
whether to impose provisional measures, whether to continue the investigation
without proposing duties or whether to terminate the proceedings. In either
eventuality, at this stage the decision is the Commission's responsibility.
The investigation up to the definitive
stage
Following the publication in the Official
Journal of a Commission regulation imposing provisional duties, interested
parties which so request receive a full disclosure which allows them to verify
the Commission’s findings and to submit comments. Comments can also be made at
a hearing. These provisional submissions and comments are taken into account
when a second, definitive, working document is prepared by the Commission.
After final disclosure, assessment of
comments of interested parties and consultation of the Member States on the
basis of the second working document, the Commission makes a proposal to the
Council whether or not to impose definitive measures. Another possibility is
that the Commission accepts undertakings offered by exporters, which undertake
to respect minimum prices. In the latter case, no duties are generally imposed
on the companies from which undertakings are accepted.
As set out above, throughout the process
and at various specific steps, the procedure - consisting e.g. of requests for
information, hearings, access to the file and disclosure – ensures that the
rights of defence of interested parties are fully respected in this quasi-judicial
process.
Unless the Council decides by a simple
majority not to adopt the Commission proposal for definitive measures, such
measures are imposed. The regulation imposing definitive duties, and deciding
on the collection of the provisional duties, is published in the Official
Journal.
In view of the findings made, it may also
be decided to terminate a case without the imposition of measures. The same
procedure (disclosure, comments, hearing, working document) as described above
applies. The termination of the case would generally be made by a Commission
Decision after consultation of the Member States.
Timing
The procedure described above is subject to
strict statutory time limits. A decision to impose provisional duties must be
taken within nine months of the initiation and the total duration of an
investigation is limited to fifteen months in anti-dumping cases and to
thirteen months in anti-subsidy cases. This leads to significant time
constraints, taking into account, inter alia, internal consultations and
the necessity to publish regulations and decisions in all EU languages at the
same time.
Anti-dumping or countervailing measures
will normally remain in force for five years, and may consist of duties or
undertakings concluded with exporters. Measures are taken on a countrywide
basis, but individual treatment, i.e. the application of a company-specific
duty, can be granted to exporters which have co-operated throughout the
investigation. During the five-year period, interested parties may, under
certain conditions, request a review of measures or the refund of anti-dumping
duties paid. Measures may also be suspended for a certain period, subject to
given criteria.
2.1.3.     Review of measures
The basic Regulations provide for
administrative reviews and distinguish between interim reviews, newcomer
reviews and expiry reviews. 
The expiry review is initiated at
the end of the five year life-time of the measures. Initiation of such a review
requires a request by the EU industry evidencing that the expiry of the
measures would lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury. Since
the amendment to the basic Regulations, expiry reviews initiated after 20 March
2004 are subject to strict deadlines, i.e. they shall normally be concluded
within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review, but in all cases be
concluded within 15 months.
During the five year life-time of measures,
the Commission may perform an interim review. Under the latter
procedure, the Commission will consider whether the circumstances with regard
to subsidy/dumping and injury have changed significantly or whether existing
measures are achieving the intended results in removing the injury. Since 20
March 2006, the deadline for concluding an interim review is set at 12 months,
but no later than 15 months.
Finally, the basic Regulations provide that
a review shall be carried out to determine individual margins for new exporters
in the exporting country concerned. Since 20 March 2006, the deadline for
conclusion of newcomer reviews is nine months. 
During these reviews, the main procedural
rules outlined in chapter 2.1.2 are also applicable.
2.1.4.     Judicial reviews
The procedural rights of the parties,
including hearings and access to non-confidential files, are respected in the course
of the proceeding, and a system of judicial review is in place to ensure their
correct implementation. The competence to review anti-dumping and anti-subsidy
cases lies with the General Court and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.
Furthermore, WTO members may recourse to the WTO dispute settlement mechanism.
2.2.        Safeguards
2.2.1.     What are safeguard measures?
Safeguard measures allow temporary
protection against the adverse effects of import surges. Under the EU
legislation[14]
implementing the WTO Safeguards Agreement, they can be applied under the
following conditions: safeguard measures may be imposed if, as a result of
unforeseen developments, a product is being imported into the EU in such
increased quantities and/or on such terms and conditions as to cause, or
threaten to cause, serious injury to EU producers of like or directly
competitive products. Safeguard measures may only be imposed to the extent and
for such time as may be necessary to prevent or remedy the injury. 
2.2.2.     Procedure
Investigations are carried out in
accordance with the procedural rules laid down in the basic safeguard
Regulations. These rules guarantee a transparent, fair and objective
proceeding. In addition, the results of safeguard investigations are published
in the Official Journal, and the EU is obliged to justify its decisions in this
publication.
Initiation
The Commission is informed by one or more
Member States should trends in imports of a certain product appear to call for
safeguard measures. This information must contain evidence available, of the
following criteria: a) the volume of imports, b) the price of imports, c)
trends in certain economic factors such as production, capacity utilisation,
stocks, sales, market share, prices, profits, employment, etc.. Where there is
a threat of serious injury, the Commission must also examine whether it is
clearly foreseeable that a particular situation is likely to develop into
actual injury.
This information is immediately passed on
by the Commission to all other Member States, at which stage consultations are
held within the Advisory Safeguard Committee. If there is sufficient evidence
to justify an investigation, the Commission publishes a notice of initiation in
the Official Journal within one month of receipt of the information and
commences the investigation, acting in co-operation with the Member States.
Provisional measures
Provisional measures may be imposed at any
stage of the investigation. They shall be applied in critical circumstances
where delay would cause damage which would be difficult to repair, making
immediate action necessary, and where a preliminary determination provides
clear evidence that increased imports have caused, or are threatening to cause,
serious injury.
The duration of the provisional measures
can, however, not exceed 200 days (i.e. six months).
Definitive measures
If, at the end of the investigation, the
Commission considers that definitive safeguard measures are necessary, it will
take the necessary decisions no later than nine months from the initiation of
the investigation, at which stage the results of the investigation are being
published in the Official Journal. In exceptional circumstances, this time
limit may be extended by a further maximum period of two months, provided a
notice is published in the Official Journal specifying the duration of the
extension and a summary of its reasons.
Safeguard measures shall be applied only to
the extent to prevent or remedy serious injury, thereby maintaining as far as
possible traditional trade flows. As to the form of the measures, the EU will
choose the measures most suitable in order to achieve these objectives. These
measures could consist of quantitative quotas, tariff quotas, duties, etc.
Duration and review of the measures
The duration of safeguard measures must be
limited to the period of time necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury and
to facilitate adjustments on the part of the EU producers, but should not
exceed four years, including the duration of the provisional measures, if any.
Under certain circumstances, extensions may be necessary but the total period
of application of safeguard measures should not exceed eight years.
If the duration of the measures exceeds one
year, the measures must be progressively liberalised at regular intervals
during the period of application. If the duration exceeds three years, the
Commission should seek consultations with the Advisory Safeguard Committee in
order to examine the effects of the measures, to determine the appropriateness
of further liberalisation and to ascertain that the application of the measures
is still necessary. Depending on the consultations, the measures may be revoked
or amended.
3.           TDI Modernisation 
The TDI
modernisation exercise was launched in October 2011 and significant progress in
order to move the project forward was made throughout the year 2012. In
particular, a public consultation was carried out from April to July 2012. 
Drawing from the over 300 replies to the
public consultation, the initiative was overall rather positively received by
stakeholders: e.g. any improvements regarding further increasing transparency,
or effectiveness and enforcement were welcomed by a majority of stakeholders.
Other ideas put forward, such as a three-weeks shipping clause or reimbursing
the duties collected during an expiry review investigation, in cases where the
duties are not prolonged, were more critically received, with certain groups of
stakeholders expressing their opposition.  Other issues that seemed problematic
for certain groups of stakeholders are ex-officio initiations in cases of
retaliation, or the non-application of the lesser duty rule in cases of
circumvention, fraud and subsidisation. 
The detailed analysis of the replies
received, carried out by the Commission services in 2012, provided important
input for the Commission proposal on modernisation which was adopted in April
2013.  
The work in 2012 on modernisation also drew
on the TDI evaluation study published in March 2012, feedback received during
the high level conference held in May 2012, and not least the Commission
services' extensive practice in the application of the instruments. On this
basis an impact assessment was carried out and presented to the impact
assessment board in December 2012. Following the green light from the board,
the Commission was able to proceed with the elaboration of the legislative
proposal, the communication and the guidelines. The main areas covered by the
initiative are transparency and predictability, fight against retaliation,
effectiveness and enforcement, facilitating cooperation, optimising review
practice and codification. 
In order to address certain concerns of
stakeholders, it was decided to slightly change the timetable, as compared to
what was indicated in last year's report (originally the legislative proposal
and communication was scheduled for end of 2012/beginning 2013 and the
guidelines by summer 2013.)  All three elements of the modernisation initiative
(Commission communication, the legislative proposal and the draft guidelines) were
released at the same time, as a package, in spring 2013. It was considered that
having all the information on the proposed legislative changes, changes in
practice and the content of guidelines at their disposal, would make it easier
for stakeholders to form an opinion. 
In addition it was felt that, taken as a
package, the overall aim of the modernisation exercise would also be more
clearly apparent. In addition to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
the instruments and any trade defence measures imposed, for the benefit of all
stakeholders concerned, the Commission also wants to send a signal to our
trading partners i.e. the EU will adapt when it is faced with new challenges
and the EU remains fully committed to free trade, provided it takes place under
fair conditions.   
After adoption of the pacakge in spring
2013, the legislative proposal is following the ordinary legislative procedure
in the Council and Parliament expected to continue throughout 2013/14. The
draft guidelines, also released in spring 2013, were subject to a public
consultation in 2013. The Commission aims at concluding the modernisation
exercise during the current legislature, i.e. in spring 2014 and works
constructively with the other institutions in order to achieve this goal. 
4.           Country-wide
market economy status (MES)
A normal
anti-dumping investigation can only be conducted if costs and prices are
reliable and the result of market forces. There are five criteria to determine
whether a country can be considered a full market economy for the purpose of
anti-dumping investigations (according to Article 2 (7) of the basis
antidumping Regulation). These criteria are: 
i.          a low degree of government
influence over the allocation of resources and decisions of enterprises,
whether directly or indirectly (e.g. public bodies), for example through the
use of state-fixed prices, or discrimination in the tax, trade or currency
regimes;
ii.         an absence of state-induced
distortions in the operation of enterprises linked to privatisation and the use
of non-market trading or compensation system;
iii.        the existence and
implementation of a transparent and non-discriminatory company law which
ensures adequate corporate governance (application of international accounting
standards, protection of shareholders, public availability of accurate company
information);
iv.        the existence and implementation
of a coherent, effective and transparent set of laws which ensure the respect
of property rights and the operation of a functioning bankruptcy regime;
v.         the existence of a genuine
financial sector which operates independently from the state and which in law
and practice is subject to sufficient guarantee provisions and adequate
supervision.
To obtain Market Economy Status for trade
defence investigations, all five criteria need to be fulfilled. 2012 saw the
continued evaluation of two of the six requests for country-wide MES from
China, Vietnam, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Mongolia and Belarus. Only Mongolia and
Vietnam provided further information information in support of their claims
throughout the year and their requests are at various stages of progress. The
remaining other four countries, China, Armeniam, Kazakhstan and Belarus did not
submit any relevant information that allowed further analysis of their
progress. Already in 2010 the consultations with the authorities of the
Republic of Belarus were put on hold due to the political situation in the
country. In June 2010 additional questions on further developments in their
progress towards MES were sent to Armenia. However, by the end of 2012 still no
new information had been sent to the Commission by Armenia. The other four
applicant countries pursued their MES applications and are at different stages
of progress in terms of meeting the five criteria for MES.
Companies from these applicant countries
have the possibility to request market economy treatment on an individual basis
in the context of anti-dumping investigations. 
4.1.        China
China is undoubtedly the most important
MES applicant country and the first of the six countries to have requested the
status.
The first preliminary assessment was
prepared in 2004 which concluded at that time that China fulfilled only one of
the five MES criteria i.e. the second criteria outlined above.
At several working group meetings since
then both parties discussed China's progress on the outstanding criteria. The
last MES report was shared with the Chinese authorities in 2008. Although at
several occasions the Chinese authorities agreed to have another working group
meeting on MES in 2012, they always cancelled the meeting. The Commission
remains willing to discuss further progress made by China towards MES, but it
is essential that the Chinese authorities engage in the exercise and deliver
the necessary data for the MES analysis by the Commission.  
4.2.        Vietnam
The EU-Vietnam MES
working group meeting took place in Vietnam in November 2012 at which a draft
MES report was discussed and the Vietnamese authorities replied to a long list
of questions from the Commission on outstanding issues related to the four
criteria that still need to be fulfilled. It was agreed that Vietnam would sent
the replies to additional questions raised during this meeting. The final MES
report is expected to be shared with the Vietnamese authorities in 2013.
4.3.        Armenia
After the results of the first assessment
report on Armenia's MES was shared with the Armenian authorities early 2010.
The Commission services followed this with a series of questions to the
Armenian authorities in June 2010 in order to have information on further
developments in their progress towards becoming a fully fledged market
economy.  By the end of 2012 still no new information had been sent to the
Commission from Armenia.   
4.4.        Kazakhstan
As a follow-up of DG Trade's assesment of
Kazakhstan's progress towards fulfilling the market economy status criteria in
2010, a Note Verbale was sent to the Kazakhstan authorities setting out the
main problems regarding the 5 MES criteria. Since then no reaction was received
from the Kazakhi authorities. While it was agreed already in 2010 to develop a
road map setting out the next steps to be taken on MES, no progress won such a
map was made in 2012. The Commission remains convinced that the next step
should be to jointly develop a roadmap setting out the actions to be taken in
order to achieve progress on this matter.  
4.5.        Mongolia
A working group meeting took place in Ulan-Bator
in September 2011 to verify the information received and ask additional
questions to clarify outstaniding issues. The information collected during the
working group meeting and the additional information received in December 2012
is being analysed and an MES report will be ready in 2013.
4.6.        Belarus
In 2012 no progress
was made on the MES file. The Commission had decided already in 2010 to put the
consultations with the authorities of the Republic of Belarus on hold due to
the political situation in the country. As soon as the situation in Belarus
changes the Commission is ready to continue the MES analysis.
5.           Information
and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts
5.1.        Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs)
The Trade Defence Helpdesk for SMEs was set up in December 2004 in
view of the complexity of TDI proceedings, especially for SME's, because of
their small size and their fragmentation. Its role is to address specific SME
questions and problems regarding TDIs, both of a general nature or
case-specific. A part of the TDI website is dedicated to SMEs, and refers to
the Trade Defence Helpdesk contact points. 
In 2012 these
contact points received many requests for information, from importers,
exporters and potential complainants/applicants. The number of queries remained
overall stable in comparison to the previous year. These requests, which were
dealt with promptly, concerned both the procedures and substance of TDI
proceedings.
5.2.        Bilateral
contacts/information activities – industry and third countries
Explaining the
legislation and practice of the EU's trade defence activity is an important
part of the work of the TDI services. 
The
Commission organized a training seminar on trade defence for officials from
third countries in 2012.  In addition, there were a number of bilateral
contacts dedicated to discussing various trade defence related topics with a
number of third countries including China, Korea, Morocco and Malaysia held in
2012.
There were also several
meetings with key stakeholder associations and companies in 2012, including
Business Europe and Eurocommerce.  These included a full one day seminar for
Business Europe in November 2012.  
6.           The
Hearing Officer
The primary role of the hearing officer
is to guarantee the rights of defence of interested parties and thereby
contribute to ensure that the rules are implemented in an objective and
transparent manner in trade proceedings. The latter refer to a number of trade
investigations conducted by the Commission, including all trade defence
proceedings.  
The rights of defence comprises a set of
rights described in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights as follows: the right
of every person (i) "to be heard, before any individual measure which
would affect him or her adversely is taken", (ii) "to have his or her
affairs handled impartially, fairly and within a reasonable time" and (iii)
"to have access to his or her file, while respecting the legitimate
interests of confidentiality and of professional and business secrecy".
In 2012, the role and the powers of the
Hearing Officer for DG Trade, who became operational in 2007, has been set out
in a formal mandate by a Decision of the President of the European Commission
of 29 February 2012 on the function and terms of reference of the hearing
officer in certain trade proceedings (OJ L 107/5, 19 April 2012), underpinning
the Commission’s commitment to guaranteeing due process in trade proceedings
and to improve the impartiality of the function. Since 2012, the Hearing
Officer is attached, for administrative purposes, to the Commissioner
responsible for trade policy, thus reinforcing the position's independence.
The terms of reference also lay out
detailed rules on hearings conducted by the hearing officer on all aspects of a
trade proceeding, from initiation to disclosure of final findings and
conclusion. Furthermore, the mandate grants the hearing officer decision making
powers in case of dispute on access to file, confidentiality of information in
the possession of the Commission and the granting of extensions of deadlines.
The Hearing Officer is empowered to raise with the Commissioner responsible for
trade policy and the Director General for Trade any concerns about the conduct
or content trade investigations.
The ever expanding trend of the intervention requests since the creation of the function of the Hearing
Officer in 2007 made another step in 2012 and increased sharply by more than
50% compared to 2011. In the reporting period, the Hearing
Officer had 132 intervention requests (81 in 2011), out of which 128 related to
TDI and concerned 41 TDI proceedings. The number of hearings also increased
significantly by 50% compared to 2011: 39 hearings were held (26 in 2011), out
of which 12 were multiparty hearings where altogether 43 interested parties
with similar interests allied in common hearings. 
The interventions were requested by exporting producers in third
countries, by the Union industry, by users and importers as well as by
Governments of third countries. The Hearing Officer intervened on issues
covering all stages of the investigation and made a number of recommendations
to the Commission services with an aim to strengthen the exercise of rights of
defence.  
The main issues that the Hearing Officer
faced in 2012 can be grouped in three categories (i) content and quality of
disclosure (ii) access to files and quality of non-confidential files and (iii)
disagreement with determinations, findings and conclusions. 
Content and quality of disclosures
The content and quality of disclosure is
one of the major subjects of intervention requests. The Hearing Officer
organised hearings and continued to recommend that the Services provide, as
detailed and as early as possible, disclosure documents in order to enable the
parties to exercise effectively their rights of defence. Where parties
complained about insufficient analysis of arguments and submissions, the
Hearing Officer ensured that the matter was clarified and adequately disclosed
in a detailed form or addressed in the relevant Regulation. As in the previous
years, requests for interventions relating to additional disclosure of specific
data and figures were made in a number of cases. Such interventions are usually
complex since an adequate balance between the obligation of the Commission not
to divulge business secrets and the right to information of interested parties
has to be found. In cases where the risk of breaching confidentiality rules by
disclosing more was considered too high, the Hearing Officer ensured that the
methodology used to arrive at the findings was explained in full detail. In
some cases the Hearing Office examined, in accordance with the terms of
reference, confidential information and informed the requesting interested
parties whether the information withheld from the party was relevant for its
rights of defence and, if so, whether the information was correctly reflected
in the findings and conclusions. 
Access to files – Quality of
non-confidential files
In principle, all interested parties
involved in an investigation are allowed access to the non-confidential file.
In some cases, parties questioned the meaningfulness and completeness of the
non-confidential file and requested the Hearing Officer's intervention. The
requests mainly related to the quality of non-confidential summaries of
complaints or questionnaire replies and to the need to apply consistent rules
to all parties. The Hearing Officer observed improvements in the overall
quality of the files after his interventions. In several cases, the Hearing
Officer was requested to examine claims of companies which did not register in
time as interested parties. Almost all of these parties were allowed to
register as interested parties and to exert the procedural rights that were
still available in view of the late registration. 
Disagreement with determinations,
findings and conclusions
Main subjects
of intervention requests were objections to determinations, findings and
conclusions.  In the majority of these cases parties disputed certain
determinations and decisions, e.g. initiation of a case or objected the
Commission’s findings or conclusions on certain aspects such as definition of
the Union industry, selection of a sample, MET decisions or conclusions with
regard to Union interest.. The Hearing Officer
organised hearings, ensured that parties were fully informed about procedural
rules and that comments and arguments of the parties were heard and replied to
in the disclosure document and the Regulation. Some cases were terminated or
findings were modified as a result of the arguments put forward. It is now
consistent practice that in the cases where the Commission informs a party of
its intention to declare that party as non-cooperating, the Hearing Officer
chairs a hearing if requested. Twelve hearings were organised following such
requests. 
In one case,
an SME which had applied to be sampled but was not selected asked the Hearing
Officer for advice concerning its rights.  
7.           General
overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures
The number of new investigations initiated
in 2012 decreased in comparison to the previous year, 19 compared to 21. The
number of definitive measures imposed decreased very significantly by comparison
to 2012 (3 as compared to 13) while the number of provisional measures imposed
in 2012 decreased by 1 in 2012 down from 10 in 2011. Below are details on new
investigations and review investigations.
7.1.        New investigations
At the end of 2012, the EU had 102
anti-dumping measures and 10 countervailing measures in force[15]. The anti-dumping
measures covered 60 products and 24 countries (see Annex O); the countervailing
measures covered 6 products and 7 countries (see Annex P). Of the measures, the
large majority was in the form of duties; however, in a number of cases,
undertakings were accepted.
Of the 102 anti-dumping measures in force
at the end of 2012 the main countries affected were China (47), India (7),
Malaysia and Thailand (6 each), Russia (5), Ukraine (4) Taiwan (3), Indonesia
(4) Korea (3)  and USA (2). Of the 10 anti-subsidy measures in place the
majority concern imports from India – 4 in total, with imports from Canada, China,
Iran, Pakistan, United Arab Emirates and USA all subject to 1 measure each. 
Regarding the  anti-dumping measures one
has to look at the trade volume of the products concerned, which varies
considerably depending on the sector concerned. The largest trade volumes are
often generated by high technology, such as electronics, which are high-value
products. It should be noted that in 2012, only 0.17%[16] of total imports into
the EU was affected by anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. Table 1 below
provides statistical information on the new investigations for the years 2008 –
2012.
TABLE
1
Anti-dumping
and anti-subsidy new investigations
during the period 1 January 2008 - 31 December 2012[17]
   || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 
 Investigations in progress at the beginning of the period || 20 || 26 || 25 || 24 || 21 
 Investigations initiated during the period || 20 || 21 || 18 || 21 || 19 
 Investigations in progress during the period || 42 || 47 || 43 || 45 || 40 
 Investigations concluded : -           imposition of definitive duty or acceptance of undertakings -           terminations[18] || 16 3 || 11 11 || 9 10 ||   13   11 ||   3   9 
 Total investigations concluded during the period || 19 || 22 || 19 || 24 || 12 
 Investigations in progress at the end of period || 26 || 25 || 24 || 21 || 28 
 Provisional measures imposed during the period || 5 || 10 || 13 || 10 || 9 
7.2.        Review investigations
Anti-dumping measures, including price
undertakings, may be subject, under the basic Regulation, to five different
types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 11(2)), interim reviews (Article
11(3)), newcomer investigations (Article 11(4)), absorption investigations
(Article 12) and circumvention investigations (Article 13). 
Also anti-subsidy measures may be subject,
under the basic Regulation, to five different types of reviews: expiry reviews
(Article 18), interim reviews (Article 19), absorption investigations (Article
19(3)), accelerated reviews (Article 20) and circumvention investigations
(Article 23).
These reviews continue to represent a major
part of the work of the Commission's TDI services. In the period from 2008 to
2012, a total of 149 review investigations were initiated. These review
investigations represented 60% of all investigations initiated in that period. 
In 2012, 37 reviews were initiated. Of
these, 14 were expiry reviews, 5 interim reviews, 1 newcomer reviews, 4 other
reviews and 13 circumvention investigations.
An overview of the review investigations in
2012 can be found in Annexes F to K. Table 2 provides statistical information
for the years 2008 – 2012.
TABLE
2
Reviews
of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations
during
the period 1 January 2008 - 31 December 2012[19]
   || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 
 Reviews in progress at the beginning of the period || 46 || 32 || 33 || 34 || 21 
 Reviews initiated during the period || 23 || 34 || 31 || 24 || 37 
 Reviews in progress during the period || 69 || 66 || 64 || 58 || 58 
 Total reviews concluded during the period[20] || 37 || 33 || 30 || 37 || 32 
 Reviews in progress at the end of the period || 32 || 33 || 34 || 21 || 26 
8.           Overview of activities in 2012
8.1.        New investigations
8.1.1.     Initiations
In 2012, 13 new anti-dumping
investigations, 6 new anti-subsidy investigations and no safeguard
investigations were initiated. The anti-dumping investigations involved 7
different products from 9 different countries. The anti-subsidy investigations
involve 5 products from 4 different countries. Details of these investigations
are given in Annex A. The country most affected by the anti-dumping
investigations is China with 4 investigations, Indonesia 2 investigations and 1
investigation each opened concerning Argentina, Thailand, Turkey, Taiwan,
F.Y.R.O.M., Ukraine, India. The main sector concerned by these new cases is iron
and steel. 
In the five-year period from 2008 to 2012, 99
investigations were initiated on imports from 24 countries. The main sectors
concerned by the investigations included iron and steel – 35 investigations,
chemical and allied – 27 investigations, other metals – 7 investigations and
electronics - 5 investigations, wood and paper – 2 investigations, other
mechanical engineering – 5 investigations. A breakdown of the product sectors
is given in Annex B(A).
The main countries concerned during the
period from 2008 to 2012 include the People's Republic of China with 38
investigations, India 10, USA 7, Thailand 5, Indonesia and Turkey 4 each, Malaysia
and Taiwan 3 each, Argentina, Belarus, Iran, Korea, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi
Arabia, Ukraine and U.A.E. with 2 each and Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil,
Kazakhstan, F.Y.R.O.M., Moldova and Russia with 1 each. A table showing all the
investigations initiated over the last five years broken down by country of
export is at Annex B(B).
The list of cases initiated in 2012 can be
found below, together with the names of the complainants. More information can
be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex A.
 Product – Type of investigation || Country of origin || Complainant 
 Ceramic tableware - AD || P.R. China || Cerami Unie 
 Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron - AD || P.R. China Thailand Indonesia || Defence Committee of the Tube or Pipe Cast Fittings, of Malleable cast Iron 
 Welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless - AD || F.Y.R.O.M. Turkey Ukraine || Defence Committee of the welded steel tubes industry of the EU 
 Stainless steel wires -AD || India || Eurofer 
 Biodiesel - AD || Argentina Indonesia || European Biodiesel Board 
 Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) - AD || P.R. China || EU Prosun 
 Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings - AD || P.R. China Taiwan || Defence  Committee of the Stainless Steel Butt-welding Fittings industry 
 Organic coated steel - AS || P.R. China || Eurofer 
 Bicycles - AS || P.R. China || European Bicycle Manufacturers Association 
 Stainless steel wires - AS || India || Eurofer 
 Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) - AS || P.R. China || EU Prosun 
 Biodiesel - AS || Argentina Indonesia || European Biodiesel Board 
8.1.2.     Provisional measures
In 2012, provisional duties were imposed in
8 anti-dumping proceedings and in 1 anti-subsidy measures proceeding. The AD
measures involved imports of 6 products and covering 4 countries, the
anti-subsidy concerning 1 country. As shown in Table 1 (see point 7.1), this
figure compares to 10 provisional measures imposed in 2011 and 13 in 2010.
The list of cases where provisional
measures were imposed during 2012 can be found below, together with the
measure(s) imposed. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal
to which reference is given in Annex C.
 Product || Originating from || Type[21] and level of measure 
 Aluminium radiators || P.R. China || AD Duty of 61.4% 
 Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel || Russia Turkey || AD Duty of 23.8% AD Duties ranging 2.9% - 12.1%; All others 16.7% 
 Aluminium Foil in small rolls || P.R. China || AD Duties ranging from 13% - 16.3% All others rate 35.4% 
 Organic coated steel products || P.R. China || AD Duties ranging from 13.2% - 55.3%; All others rate 57.8% 
 Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || P.R. China Thailand || AD Duties ranging 32.1% - 67.8% All others 67.8% 
 Ceramic tableware and kitchenware || P.R. China || AD Duties ranging from 23% - 31.2%; All others rate 58.8% 
 Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || India || AS Duties ranging from 3.2% - 13.6%; All others rate 16.5%   
8.1.3.     Details on individual cases 
Organic Coated Steel Products
originating in People’s Republic of China
In December 2011, the Commission initiated
an anti-dumping proceeding on imports of certain organic coated steel products
originating in the People's Republic of China on the basis of a complaint
lodged by Eurofer representing a major proportion Union industry.
The product concerned is certain organic
coated steel products ('OCS'), i.e. flat rolled products of non-alloy and alloy
steel consisting of two outer metal sheets with a stabilising core of
insulation material sandwiched between them, and excluding those products with
a final coating of zinc-dust and are covered under CN codes ex 7210 70 80, ex
7212 40 80, ex 7225 99 00, ex 7226 99 70.  The main application of the OCS is in
the construction industry, also for further processing in various products used
in construction (like sandwich panels, roofing, cladding, etc.) as well as home
appliance production (white and brown goods) or equipment for construction
(doors, radiators, lights, etc.). 
The investigation of dumping and injury
covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011 and the examination
of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1
January 2008 to the end of September 2011. 
Owing to the large number of Union
producers and also exporting producers, sampling was used in the investigation.
As regards the Union producers, the Commission selected a sample consisting of
six Union producers which accounted for 46 % of the Union production and 38 %
of the Union sales. As regards the exporting producers, the Commission, after
receiving inaccurate data from one producer and two others withdrawing their
co-operation the Commission finally decided to limit the sample to the two
exporting producers originally selected to form part of the sample and that had
the highest export volume to the Union. Their export volume accounted for more
than 30 % of total exports of the product to the EU in the investigation period
(IP). In view of the limited number of cooperating importers, sampling was not
used for this category.
Dumping
Three Chinese exporting producers,
including one that was included in the sample, requested market economy
treatment (MET) pursuant to Article 2(7) of the basic Regulation, or individual
treatment (IT) should the investigation establish that they did not meet the
conditions for MET. The other exporting producer in the sample requested IT
only. One exporting producer subsequently withdrew its request. 
As regards the remaining two cooperating
exporting producers in the PRC having requested MET, following a judgment by
the Court of Justice of February 2012 in the Brossman footwear case it was
decided to examine the claims of both the exporting producer which was included
in the sample (Zhangjiagang Panhua Steel Strip Co. Ltd and its related
companies) and the exporting producer which was not included in the sample
(Union Steel China and its related company). Neither of the two were found to
meet the criteria to be granted MET, because the cost of the major raw
material, hot-rolled steel coils, is significantly distorted due to State
interference in the steel market in the PRC and did not substantially reflect
market values, as required by the first criteria for MET.    
As a result of none of the Chinese
companies being granted MET the normal value for all Chinese exporting
producers was established on the basis of information received from the
producer in the analogue country, which was  Canada. The export prices were
based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned, in
accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. 
 The normal value and export prices were
compared on an ex-works basis. In order to ensure a fair comparison allowance
in the form of adjustments were made for differences where appropriate, in
respect of transport, insurance, handling and ancillary costs, packing, credit,
bank charges and commissions in all cases where justified.
A weighted average of the sampled exporting
producers’ dumping margins was calculated for the cooperating exporting
producers not selected in the sample. On this basis the provisional dumping
margin for the non- sampled exporting producers, expressed as a percentage of
the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid was 61,1 %. Given that cooperation
from the PRC was approximately 70 %, the country-wide dumping margin applicable
to all other exporters was established by using the highest dumping margin
established for representative product types of exporting producers, which was
provisionally established at 77,9 % of the CIF Union frontier price, duty
unpaid.
Injury and causation
The investigation showed that all injury
indicators relating to the economic situation of the Union industry
deteriorated or did not develop in line with consumption during the I.P. During
the period, in the context of  decreasing consumption, the volume of imports
from the PRC increased steadily and significantly. At the same time, the Union
industry sales volume decreased overall by 13 % and its market share dropped
from 59 % in 2008 to 56,7 % in the IP. Although consumption recovered by 20 %,
from 2009 to the IP, after the year of economic crisis affecting demand, the
Union industry market share was decreasing. The Union industry was unable to
regain the lost market due to the growth of the dumped imports from the PRC in
the EU market, which were constantly undercutting the prices of the Union
industry. In addition, the injury indicators related to the financial
performance of the Union industry, such as cash flow and profitability were
seriously affected meaning that the Union industry’s ability to raise capital
and invest was undermined. As a result it was concluded that the Union industry
suffered material injury. 
In calculating the injury margins it was
considered that a profit margin of 6,7 % of turnover could be regarded as an
appropriate minimum which the Union industry could have expected to obtain in
the absence of injurious dumping. On that basis, a non-injurious price was
calculated for the Union industry for the like product. The non-injurious price
was obtained by adding the above-mentioned profit margin of 6,7 % to the cost
of production. The injury margins found were all lower than the dumping margins
established. 
There was a substantial increase in the
volume and market share of the dumped imports originating in the PRC in the
period considered, especially from 2009 to the IP and these imports were
constantly undercutting the prices charged by the Union industry in the EU and
during the IP.  This increase coincided with the negative development in the
economic situation of the Union industry which worsened in the IP. Other known
factors which could have caused injury to the Union industry were also examined
in order to determine if the dumped imports were a cause of injury. The other
factors examined included imports from other sources, the export performance of
the EU industry, EU industry importing from the PRC itself, captive use and
captive sales at lower prices to related companies, the economic crisis and
structural overcapacity.  This examination revealed that these factors were not
such as to break the causal link established between the dumped imports from
the PRC and the injury suffered by the Union industry.
Union interest
In the context of the Union interest test,
the most active users and importers made joint written submissions and several
hearings were held in the course of the investigation. Their main arguments
regarding the imposition of measures related to the Competition situation on
the EU market, and fears regarding Shortage of supply. However based on the
information available concerning the Union interest, there were no compelling
reasons against the imposition of provisional measures. 
As a result, provisional anti-dumping
duties ranging between 13.2% and 57.8% were imposed on organic coated steel
originating in the People’s Republic of China in September 2012.  
An anti-subsidy investigation was also
initiaited on the same product originating in China in February 2012.  These
were the first simultaneaous anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations
initiated on a product originating in the People’s Republic of China. There
were no provisional anti-subsidy measures imposed in the case.  Both definitive
anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures were subsequently imposed on the product
originating in China in March 2013. 
 Ceramic tableware and kitcheware
In February 2012, the European Commission
initiated an anti-dumping proceeding on imports into the EU of ceramic tableware
and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China, on the basis of
a complaint lodged on behalf of EU representing more than 30 % of the total
Union production of ceramic tableware and kitchenware.
The product concerned was ceramic tableware
and kitchenware falling within CN codes 6911 10 00, ex 6912 00 10, ex 6912 00
30, ex 6912 00 50 and ex 6912 00 90. A number of requests for exclusions of
certain types of products were made. At provisional stage, all such claims were
rejected except the request to exclude ceramic knives from the product scope
which was accepted. 
The investigation of dumping and injury
covered the period from 1 January 2011 to 31 December 2011 and the examination
of the trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1
January 2008 to the end of December 2011. 
Owing to the large
number of Union producers and also exporting producers, sampling was used in
the investigation. As regards the Union producers the Commission selected a
sample which included seven Union producers covering all major product types
and located in six Member States, out of which two were SMEs, representing over
20 % of the estimated total Union production. As regards exporting producers in
the PRC the final sample selected included the five largest companies in terms
of export volume accounting for almost 20 % of the exports to the Union.  
Dumping
Ten  exporting
producers or groups (comprised of sixteen legal entities) of exporting
producers from the PRC requested market economy treatment (MET). However, none
of the companies was found to meet the criteria to be granted MET. In
particular, none of the exporting producers had a clear set of basic accounting
records or demonstrated that there were no significant distortions carried over
from the former non-market economy system. Some failed to show that business
decisions were made in response to market signals without State interference. 
In view of the fact that all requests for MET were denied, normal value for all
Chinese exporting producers was based on information received from a producer
in the analogue country, Brazil. 
As all cooperating
exporting producers made export sales to the Union directly to independent
customers, the export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable
for the product concerned. The comparison of normal value and export prices on
an ex-works basis was made with adjustments in respect of level of trade,
differences in physical characteristics and for other factors affecting price
comparability, including ‘branding’.  The dumping levels established ranged
from 17.6% to 58.8% at country wide level.
Injury/Causation
The investigation showed
that the injury indicators such as production volume, capacity, sales to
unrelated customers and employment deteriorated during the period considered.
In addition, the injury indicators relating to the financial performance of the
Union producers, such as profitability, investments and return on investments
also developed negatively during the period.  Productivity of the Union
industry increased over the period considered. However, this was mainly due to
significant efforts to compete against the highly present dumped Chinese
imports. It was provisionally concluded that the Union industry suffered
material injury within the meaning basic Regulation.
In calculating injury
margins a profit margin of 6 % of turnover was regarded as appropriate and which
the Union industry could have expected to obtain in the absence of injurious
dumping. On this basis, a non-injurious price was calculated for the Union
industry for the like product. The injury margins found were all higher than
the dumping margins found.  
The investigation
showed that the Union consumption decreased by 12 % over the period considered.
At the same time while the volume of dumped imports from China decreased by
about 9 %, their market share increased. Moreover, sales volume of the Union
industry decreased by 20% and market share dropped from 23% in 2008 to 20,9 %
in the IP.  It was concluded that the increase of the market share of dumped
imports from China at prices constantly undercutting those of the Union
industry had a determining role in the material injury suffered by the Union
industry. Other factors which were examined in the context of the causality
examination: the development of demand on the Union market and its
segmentation, the export performance of the Union industry, imports from other
countries of the product under investigation, the elimination of the import
quotas, anti-competitive practices on the Union market, differences in
production methods and the second-hand market. However the impact of none of
these factors was such as to have broken the causal link between the Chinese
imports and their impact on the EU industry. 
An examination of all
the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry,
importers and users of the product concerned, concluded that the imposition of
provisional anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic tableware and
kitchenware originating in China would be in the interest of the Union
industry.
As a result provisional
dumping duties were imposed in November 2012 at the level of the dumping
margins found.   The investigation continued and definitive measures were
imposed in May 2013. 
8.1.4.     Definitive
measures
During 2012, definitive duties were imposed
in 3 anti-dumping investigations and in no anti-subsidy cases. They involved
imports from the People’s Republic of China with 2 measures and India with 1.
The list of cases where definitive measures
were imposed during 2012 can be found below, together with the measure(s)
imposed. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which
reference is given in Annex D. 
 Product || Originating from || Type[22] and level of measure 
 Oxalic Acid || P.R. China India || China: AD Duties ranging from 14.6% to 37.7%: All others rate 52.2% India: AD Duties ranging from 22.8% to 31.5%: All others rate 43.6% 
 Aluminium Radiators || P.R. China || AD Duties ranging from 12.6% to 56.2%: All others rate 61.4% 
8.1.5.     Details on individual cases 
Aluminium
Radiators originating in People’s Republic
of China 
The investigation was initiated in August
2011, following a complaint lodged by the International Association of
Aluminium Radiator Manufacturers Limited Liability Consortium representing more
than 25 % of total Union production of aluminium radiators. The investigation
period (IP) ran from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 and injury was considered over
the period 1 January 2008 to the end of the IP. The product concerned was aluminium
radiators falling within CN codes, ex 7615 10 10, ex 7615 10 90, ex 7616 99 10
and ex 7616 99 90. Provisional anti-dumping duties were imposed in May 2012.
Dumping: Prior to the imposition of
provisional measures two Chinese exporting producers were selected in the
sample, accounting for 62% of export sales volume to the EU. Neither had
claimed market economy treatment in the investigation. Both claimed, and were
granted, individual treatment. Following the imposition of provisional measures
one additional Chinese exporter who had claimed individual examination applied
for MET and IT.  However, the company, Sira failed to meet the MET criteria but
did meet the criteria for IT.  In cases involving non-market economy countries,
for those companies who have not been granted MET, normal value is generally
determined on the basis of data from an analogue country. However, in this
proceeding no appropriate analogue country could be found and normal value was
therefore based on the prices paid or payable in the EU market. Given the size
and level of competition in the EU market, including also from imports, this
was considered an appropriate approach. The normal value of each product type
was based on the actual sales price (ex-works) for profitable sales and on a
constructed normal value for non profitable sales. 
As the sampled exporting producers made
export sales to the Union directly to independent customers in the Union, the
export prices were based on the prices actually paid or payable for the product
concerned. The comparison between normal value and export prices was made on an
ex-works level with allowances being made for certain costs including indirect
taxes, freight, insurance, packing, handling and credit costs. This resulted in
a dumping margins ranging between 23% and 70.8% for the cooperating companies
and 76.6% for all others.
Injury: Sampling was applied to the EU
producers with four companies out of the eight Union producers that were known
to produce the like product, selected on the basis of their sales volume, their
size and geographic location in the Union. They represented 66 % of the total
estimated Union production during the IP.
Imports of aluminium radiators from China
increased by 77 % over the period considered. The increase was continuous and
was sharpest between 2010 and the IP (+ 33%). Similarly, the market share held
by Chinese exporting producers also showed a steady increasing trend over the
period considered, passing from 13% in 2008 to 24% during the IP. The prices of
the dumped imports were found to undercut the European producers by on average
6.1%. 
The investigation showed that most of the
injury indicators regarding the economic situation of the Union industry
deteriorated or did not develop in line with consumption during the period
considered, in particular in the period from 2009 up to the end of the IP. The
Union industry sales volume decreased overall by 16% and its market share
dropped from 87% in 2008 to 76% in the IP. Even when consumption recovered by 9%
from 2009 to the IP, the Union industry market share continued to decrease
further. The Union industry was unable to regain the market share previously held,
due to the significant expansion of the dumped imports from the PRC in the
market. 
Causation: The coincidence in time between
the surge of dumped imports and the deterioration in the situation of the EU
industry was found to be a clear indication that the injury was caused by
dumped imports. The impact of a number of factors other than the dumped imports
were examined, including the effect of imports from third countries, the
economic crisis, the export performance of the sampled EU companies and an
increase in raw material prices. However, none of these could explain the
losses in market share, production and sales volume which occurred in 2009 to
the end of the investigation period. 
Union interest: There was no cooperation
from users in this investigation and despite the efforts of the Commission after
publication of provisional findings no users came forward. The Commission examined
the possible impact of measures on the main purchasers of aluminium radiators
which are large building companies, distributors and wholesalers, which resale
them to specialised chains or retailer shops for sales to smaller construction
companies or end users. Since the product concerned is usually part of large
projects, where its price is only a small portion of the total business costs,
it was considered that any resulting price increase as a result of measures
could be easily absorbed in the chain of downstream sales. It was therefore
concluded that the imposition of anti-dumping duties would be in the interest
of the Union industry.  Definitive measures were therefore imposed in November
2012, based on the level of the injury margins found.
8.1.6.     Investigations terminated without measures
In accordance with the provisions of the
respective basic Regulations, investigations may be terminated without the
imposition of measures if a complaint is withdrawn or if measures are
unnecessary (i.e. no dumping/no subsidies, no injury resulting there from,
measures not in the interest of the EU).  In 2012, 9 new proceedings (7
anti-dumping and 2 anti-subsidy) were terminated without measures, compared to
11 in 2011 and 10 in 2010. 
The list of cases which were terminated
without the imposition of measures during 2012 can be found in the following
table. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which
reference is given in Annex E.
 Product (type of investigation[23]) || Originating from || Main reason for termination 
 Vinyl acetate - AD || U.S.A. || Complaint withdrawn 
 Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof - AD || India || No causal link between dumped imports and injury to EU industry. 
 Sodium cyclamate - AD || P.R. China || Complaint withdrawn 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel - AD || Belarus || Complaint withdrawn 
 Certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics - AD || P.R. China || Complaint withdrawn 
 Tartaric acid- AD || P.R. China || Complaint withdrawn 
 Soy protein - AD || P.R. China || Lack of material injury and causal link. 
 Certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof - AS || India || No causal link between subsidised imports and injury to EU industry. 
 Bioethanol - AS || USA || Withdrawal of main scheme established in IP; De minimis subsidisation for remaining schemes 
              
8.1.7.     Details
on some individual cases
Sodium Cyclamate originating in the
People's Republic of China
In February 2011 the Commission initiated
an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of sodium cyclamate originating
in the People’s Republic of China following a complaint lodged by Productos Aditivos SA the sole producer in the
Union of sodium cyclamate, representing 100 % of the Union production of the product. 
By a letter of 17 January 2012, the complainant
formally withdrew its complaint. Since the Commission did not identify any
reason to indicate that termination would not be in the Union interest, it was
decided to terminate the proceeding. The investigation was terminated without
imposition of measures in April 2012. 
Certain stainless steel fasteners and
parts thereof originating in India 
The anti-subsidy investigation on imports
of stainless steel fasteners originating in India was initiated in May 2011 on
the basis of a complaint lodged by the European Industrial Fasteners Institute
(EIFI) on behalf of producers representing more than 25 % of total Union
production of the product. 
The investigation of subsidy and injury
covered the period from 1 April 2010 to 31 March 2011 while the examination of
trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January
2008 to the end of March 2011. 
Provisional countervailing measures were
imposed in February 2012. 
Following the imposition of provisional
countervailing duties, one of the co-operating Indian exporters, Viraj Profiles
Limited submitted detailed comments regarding the calculation of the Export
oriented units scheme (EOU) subsidy rate established which accounted for 2,73%
out of a total subsidy rate of 3,2 % for the company.  The calculation of the
subsidy amount was reexamined and resulted in Viraj’s total subsidy rate being 
definitively established at 0,7%, i.e. below the de minimis threshold. 
Viraj represented, in volume, 87% of Indian
exports to the Union. As a result only 13% of the Indian exports of the product
concerned to the Union during the IP were subsidised. These subsidised imports
had a market share of 2% in the IP.
While the investigation had established
that injury existed, the revised findings indicated that the limited import
volume of the subsidised imports from India, which had higher prices than the
non-subsidised imports, may have played only a very limited role, if any, in
the deterioration of the injurious situation of the Union industry.   As a
result, it was considered that a causal link between the subsidised imports
(which accounted  for a mere 13% of total imports a very limited market share
(2%) and with prices on average 12% higher than those of the non-subsidised
imports) and the injury suffered by the Union industry could not be
sufficiently established. As a result the anti-subsidy investigation was
terminated in May 2012 without the imposition of definitive measures and the
amounts secured under the provisional regulation were released.
Bioethanol originating in USA
In November 2011, the European Commission
initiated an anti-subsidy investigation on imports into the Union of bioethanol
originating in the United States of America (USA).  On the same day an
anti-dumping proceeding was also initiated on the same product from the USA. 
The AS proceeding was initiated following a
complaint lodged by the European Producers Union of Renewable Ethanol
Association (ePURE) representing more than 25% of the total Union production of
bioethanol. Prior to the initiation of the AS investigation consultations were
held between the EU and the US in November 2011. However no mutually agreed
solution was found.
The investigation of subsidisation and
injury covered the period from 1 October 2010 to 30 September 2011. The examination
of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from January
2008 to the end of the IP. 
There were a number of Federal and State
schemes investigated; Fuel mixture tax credits - Excise Tax/Income Tax credits;
Small producer income tax credit; Income tax credit for producers of cellulosic
bioethanol; The US Department of Agriculture Bioenergy Program; USDA Bioenergy
Program for Advanced Biofuels; USDA Biorefinery Assistance Program; USDA
Biomass Crop Assistance Program; USDA Rural Energy for America Program;
Department of Energy Biorefinery Project Grants; Illinois State Bioethanol
Incentives ; Illinois Biofuels Production Facility Grants; E85 Infrastructure
Grants; Iowa Alternate Energy Revolving Loan Program;) Biofuels Infrastructure
Grants; Minnesota State Bioethanol Incentives; Minnesota Cellulosic Ethanol
Investment Tax Credit; E85 Fueling Infrastructure Grants; Nebraska Ethanol
Production Tax Credit; South Dakota Ethanol Production Incentive. 
The investigation showed that all
investigated schemes except the Fuel mixture tax credits - Excise Tax/Income
Tax credits were negligible and not countervailable during the IP.  In relation
to the main subsidy scheme identified as countervailable in the IP, the
investigation showed that that scheme had expired in the end of 2011 and had
not been reintroduced. Given that the basic Regulation provides that no
measures shall be imposed if the subsidy or subsidies are withdrawn or when the
subsidies no longer confer any benefit on the exporters concerned, it was
considered that the imposition of definitive countervailing measures would not
be warranted.  As a result the investigation was terminated in December 2012.
Definitive anti-dumping measures on the product were imposed in February 2013. 
8.2.        Review investigations
8.2.1.     Expiry reviews
Article 11(2) and Article 18 of the basic
Regulations provide for the expiry of measures after five years, unless an
expiry review demonstrates that they should be maintained in their original
form.
In 2012, 13 anti-dumping measures and no
anti-subsidy measure expired automatically. The references for these measures
are set out in Annex N.
Since the expiry provision of the basic
Regulations came into force in 1985, a total of 486 measures have expired automatically.
8.2.1.1.  Initiations
The list of the expiry reviews initiated can
be found in the following table, together with the name of the complainant. It
should be noted that some expiry reviews may be carried out in parallel with
interim reviews, which allow the amendment of the duty rates. In such case,
these reviews are marked with an asterisk. More information can be obtained
from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex F.  
 Product (type of investigation AD or AS) || Originating from || Complainant 
 Ethanolamines – AD* || U.S.A. || BASF SE/AG, INEOS Oxide Ltd, Sasol Germany GmbH 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) - AD || India Indonesia Malaysia Taiwan Thailand || Polyethylene terephthalate committee of plastics Europe 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) -  AS || India || Polyethylene terephthalate committee of plastics Europe 
 Tungsten electrodes - AD || P.R. China || Eurometaux 
 Ironing boards – AD* || P.R. China Ukraine || Colombo New Scal S.p.A., Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd., Roerets 
 Sweet corn - AD || Thailand || Association Europeenne des Transformers de Mais Doux (AETMD) 
 Peroxosulphates (Persulphates) - AD || P.R. China || RheinPerChemie GmbH & Co. KG, United Initiators GmbH & Co. KG 
 Iron or steel ropes and cables - AD || Russia || The Liasion Committee of EU  Wire Rope Industries (EWRIS) 
 Dicyandiamide (DCD) - AD || P.R. China || AlzChem AG 
              
8.2.1.2.  Expiry reviews concluded
with confirmation of duties
During 2012, 9 expiry reviews were
concluded with confirmation of the duties for a further five years. 
The list of the cases which were concluded
with confirmation of duty during 2012, together with the result of the
investigation, can be found below. More information can be obtained from the
Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex F.
            

 Product || Originating from || Result of the investigation/ Type[24] and level of measure 
 Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || P.R. China Taiwan || Confirmation of duty AD duty of 11.4% to 12.2% All other companies 27.4% 
 Steel ropes and cables || P.R. China Ukraine Morocco (ext.) Moldova (ext.) Korea (Rep. of) (ext.) || Confirmation of duty P.R. China: AD duty of 64.3% Ukraine: AD duty of 51.8% 
 Tartaric acid || P.R. China || Confirmation of duty AD duty of 4.7% to 10.1% All other companies 34.9% 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || Russia Ukraine || Confirmation of duty Russia: AD duty of 24.1%-27.2%; All other companies 35.8% Ukraine: AD duty of 12.3%-25.7%; All other companies 25.7% 
 Lever arch mechanisms || P.R. China || Confirmation of duty AD duty of 27.1%; All others 47.4% 
 Chamois leather || P.R. China || Confirmation of duty AD duty of 58.9% 
8.2.1.3.  Details
on some individual cases concluded by confirmation of duty 
Stainless steel fasteners and parts
oriiginating in P.R. China and Taiwan 
In November 2005, definitive anti-dumping
duty duties were imposed on imports of certain stainless steel fasteners and
parts thereof (‘SSF’) originating in the People’s Republic of China, Indonesia,
Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam.  In  August 2010 a request for the initiation of
an expiry review (limited to the PRC and Taiwan) was lodged by the European
Industrial Fasteners Institute (‘EIFI’) representing a major proportion, in
this case more than 25 %, of the total Union production of SSF. The request was
based on the grounds that the expiry of the measures imposed on imports of SSF
originating in the countries concerned would be likely to result in a
continuation or recurrence of dumping and injury to the Union industry. The
expiry review was initiated in November 2010.  
The investigation period was from 1 October
2009 to 30 September 2010 (‘the review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’) and the
examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a
continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to
the end of the review investigation period.
Sampling was used in respect of the
Taiwanese exporters and EU producers. No Chinese companies co-operated.  
Recurrence of dumping
China: Owing to the lack of co-operation by
Chinese exporters, the findings on the likelihood of continuation or recurrence
of dumping had to be based on best facts available, in particular the Eurostat
data and the information submitted by the Union industry in the review request.
Official PRC exports statistics could not be used in this case as the product
concerned represents only a small fraction of the quantities reported in the
relevant Harmonised System Tariff positions.
Since there was no indication that export
prices from the PRC to the Union were different than in the request, it was
considered likely that dumping from the PRC had continued. As regards the
likelihood of the recurrence of dumping taking into account the existing spare
capacity in the PRC and the fact that imports of the product concerned into the
Union increased during the period considered despite the existence of
anti-dumping measures, there appeared to be an incentive for PRC exporting
producers to further increase their exports to the Union market at dumped
prices if the measures were allowed to lapse. 
Taiwan:  Despite initial indications of
co-operation from Taiwanese exporters it finally transpired that data from only
one exporter could be used.   As a result most of the findings concerning the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping had to be based on facts available,
in particular the data provided by the sole cooperating Taiwanese exporting
producer, one cooperating importer, Eurostat data and the information submitted
by the applicant in the review request. 
It was found that the cooperating exporter
continued to engage in dumping practices during the RIP with dumping amounting
to 22 %. As regards the remaining exporters, according to the review request
exports from Taiwan were allegedly dumped with margins ranging from 14 % to 50
%. Given there was no available information which would allow a different
conclusion the existence of dumping at the countrywide level was confirmed. 
As regards the likelihood of the recurrence
of dumping, the spare capacity in Taiwan and the attractiveness of the Union
market, there appeared to be an incentive for Taiwanese exporting producers to
increase their exports to the Union market at dumped prices if the measures
were allowed to lapse.
Injury and likelihood of continuation of
injury
The investigation found despite the existence
of anti-dumping measures, the situation of the Union industry remained
vulnerable continuing to make losses. Almost all injury indicators for the
Union producers – such as profitability, production and sales volumes
decreased, capacity and capacity utilisation dropped and were followed by a
decrease in employment and productivity levels deteriorated during the period
considered. Consequently, it could not be concluded that the situation of the
Union industry was secure. On this basis, it was concluded that the Union
industry, as a whole, remained in a vulnerable economic situation and continued
to suffer material injury. 
At the end of the RIP the efforts of the
Union industry to maintain sales volumes and a sufficient level of prices were
hampered by the increased presence of the dumped imports from the countries
concerned as well as low priced imports from other third countries. It was
therefore concluded that if the Union industry were to be exposed to increased
volumes of imports from the countries concerned at dumped prices, this would be
likely to result in a further deterioration of its situation.
Union interest
As regards the Union industry it was
considered that maintaining the measures would allow it to grow and improve its
situation. There was co-operation only from one importer who showed a healthy
profit in the period considered and no users came forward. In any event given
the marginal impact of SSF on the costs of downstream products, it was
concluded that the measures would not adversely impact the users industry.   As
a result there were no compelling reasons not to impose anti-dumping duties
against imports of stainless steel fasteners originating in the PRC and Taiwan the
anti-dumping measures were maintained in January 2012.
Steel ropes and cables originating in
P.R. China, Ukraine and South Africa
In August 1999, definitive anti-dumping
duty duties were imposed on imports of steel ropes and cables originating in
the People’s Republic of China, Ukraine and South Africa, which were further
continued after an expiry review in 2005. In 2004, following an
anti-circumvention investigation the measures applicable to Ukraine had been
extended to imports of the product from Moldova while the measures appliacle to
China were extended following similar investgiations to Morocco and Korea in
2004 and 2010 respectively.  In November 2010, the Commission initiated an
expiry review of the measures in place on the basis of a request received from
the Liaison Committee of European Union Wire Rope Industries (EWRIS) on behalf
of Union producers representing more than 60 %, of the total Union production
of SWR. 
The investigation period was from 1 October
2009 to 30 September 2010 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). and the
examination of the trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a
continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2007 to
the end of the review investigation period.
Neither the Chinese nor the Ukrainian
exporters were deemed to have co-operated as they did not complete
questionnaire replies in a satisfactory manner. One exporter in South Africa,
representing total exports of the product to the EU from that country completed
a questionnaire.  
Dumping and likely recurrence of dumping 
China: As was the case in the original
investigation, Turkey was used as the analogue country for the purpose of
establishing normal value. As a result, the weighted average domestic sales
price to unrelated customers by the cooperating producer in Turkey were used
for normal value. In the absence of co-operation from the Chinese exporters,
the export price was based on Eurostat data. Comparison was made with due
allowance for those factors deemed to affect price comparability which resulted
in a finding of significant dumping of 38%.
Ukraine: Given the lack of co-operation
from Ukraine, normal value was established on the basis of the information
found in the review request, which corresponded to prices paid or payable on
the domestic market of Ukraine by unrelated customers.   This was compared to
publicly available information regarding the export price with due allowance
for ocean freight and insurance in line with the review request. As a result, a
dumping margin of more than 80 % was established for the RIP. 
South Africa: Normal value was established
on the basis of the prices paid on the domestic market of South Africa by
unrelated customers as these were made in the ordinary course of trade and
representative. This normal value was compared to the actual prices of export
sales paid, which showed the existence of dumping amounting to 17%, which was
lower than the dumping margin of 38,6 % found in the original investigation. 
Regarding the likelihood of continuation of
dumping should the anti-dumping measures be repealed, spare capacities and
unused stocks as well as pricing and export strategies in different markets
were analysed. It was found that for both China and Ukraine dumping would
likely continue but, in the case of South Africa, the continuation of dumped
imports in significant quantities would not be likely.
Injury and likelihood of continuation of
injury
In order to examine the situation of the EU
industry sampling was applied owing to the large number of EU producers which
cooperated in the investigation.  The 3 sampled Union producers accounted for
40 % of the total Union production during the RIP. 
As regards the economic situation of the EU
industry although consumption decreased by 21 %, the industry managed to
maintain its market share, prices increased by 11 %, and stocks remained at a
reasonable level while production volume decreased less than consumption. The
industry was profitable throughout the period considered. As a result it was concluded
that the Union industry did not suffer material injury over the period
considered. 
However, as regards the likelihood of
recurrence of injury, the price undercutting of the Ukrainian and Chinese
exporters along with their ability to increase significantly the quantities
exported to the Union market, would in all likelihood have a downward effect on
prices in the EU with a consequent negative impact on the economic situation of
the Union industry. This would, in turn, result in a deterioration of EU
industry financial situation. As a result, it was concluded that the repeal of
the measures against imports originating in the PRC and Ukraine would in all
likelihood result in the recurrence of injury to the EU industry. However as
regards South Africa, their limited spare capacity along with the absence of
price undercutting led to the conclusion that the repeal of the measures on those
imports would in all likelihood not result in the recurrence of injury. 
As regards Union interest there were no
compelling reasons against the maintenance of the anti-dumping measures. 
As a result, In February 2012, the
anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of Steel ropes and cables
originating in the PRC and Ukraine were maintained, while those measures
relating to imports of the product from South Africa were repealed.
Tartaric Acid originating in P.R. China 
In January 2006, the Council imposed
definitive anti-dumping duties, ranging between 4,7 % and 34,9 %, on imports of
tartaric acid (TA) originating China.  On the basis of a request for an expiry
review from a number of EU producers representing more than 50 % of the total
Union production of TA, an expiry review was initiated in January 2011. 
The investigation period for dumping was
from the 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010 while the examination of the
likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1
January 2007 to 31 December 2010.  The product concerned is tartaric acid
currently falling within CN code ex 2918 12 00 (TARIC code 2918 12 00 90).
Dumping and likely recurrence of dumping 
For the two Chinese companies granted MET
in the original investigation, normal value was established on their respective
data. For one of the companies, normal value was based on prices paid on its
domestic market while, for the second, normal value had to be constructed since
the domestic sales were not sufficient to be considered representative.  For
the remaining Chinese companies normal value was based on information from the
analogue country, in this case, Argentina which had been used in the original investigation. 
For the two cooperating exporting producers, export prices were based on prices
actually paid by independent customers while, for all other producers export
price information was taken from imports statistics available in the Article
14(6) database.   The comparison of normal values and export prices showed
dumping margins at a slightly lower level than in the original investigation
for the two cooperating companies while the residual duty calculated showed a
significant level of dumping which was higher than in the original
investigation.
As regards the likelihood of continuation
of dumping in the absence of measures, it was concluded that, in view of the
continued dumping along with potential spare capacity in and the fact that the
Union market is the biggest market in the world with attractive level of
prices, the Chinese exporters would be likely to further increase their exports
to the Union at dumped prices.
Injury and likelihood of continuation of
injury
While the analysis of injury factors 
showed that the Union industry increased its production and sales during the
period considered the increase was against a background of increased demand
between 2007 and the RIP, which in effect resulted in the Union producers’
market share dropping by 7,3 percentage points to 68,8%.   The analysis also
showed an improvement regarding the economic situation of the Union industry
with the profitability, returns on investment and cash flows remaining
positive. As a result it was found that the Union industry had not suffered
material injury. However, the overall absence of material injury during the RIP
was considered in the light of other important injury indicators, which
developed negatively during the period considered, in particular sales prices,
loss of market share and employment. Therefore, the situation of the Union
industry was considered to be still vulnerable and in some aspects, far from
the levels that could be expected had it recovered fully from the injury found
in the original investigation.
As regards likelihood of recurrence of
injury it was concluded that the spare capacities for TA in China, combined
with the attractiveness of the Union market would in all likelihood lead
increased volumes of dumped imports from China which would exercise an even
stronger price pressure on the Union industry and cause material injury, in the
absence of measures.
Union interest 
As regards the Union interest it was
considered that maintaining the measures would allow the Union industry to
benefit and improve its vulnerable situation. There was no co-operation from
importers and users in the current investigation. As a result there were no
compelling reasons found not to impose anti-dumping duties against imports of
Tartaric Acid originating in the PRC and therefore the anti-dumping measures
were maintained in April 2012.
8.2.1.4.  Reviews
concluded by termination
During 2012, 4 expiry reviews were concluded by
termination. 
 Product || Originating from || Reason for termination 
 Steel ropes and cables || South Africa || No likelihood of recurrence of injury. 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || Croatia || No likelihood of recurrence of injury. 
 Plastic sacks and bags || P.R. China Thailand || Lack of conclusive evidence on injury. 
Details of some individual cases
Regarding the investigation, Steel ropes
and cables originating in South Africa  - details of the case are set out above
under para 8.2.1.3. 
8.2.2.     Interim reviews
Article 11(3) and Article 19 of the basic
Regulations provide for the review of measures during their period of validity
on the initiative of the Commission, at the request of a Member State or,
provided that at least one year has elapsed since the imposition of the
definitive measure, following a request containing sufficient evidence by an
exporter, an importer or by the EU producers. In carrying out the
investigations, it is being considered, inter alia, whether the
circumstances with regard to dumping/subsidization and injury have changed
significantly. Reviews can be limited to dumping/subsidization or injury
aspects.
During 2012, a total of 5 interim reviews
were initiated (4 anti-dumping and 1 anti-subsidy). 6 interim reviews were
concluded with amendment of duty or product scope, 4 were concluded without
amending the duties and 5 were concluded by terminating the measures. The list
of cases which were concluded during 2012 by amending the duties, together with
the result of the investigation, can be found below. It should be noted that
some interim reviews may be carried out in parallel with expiry reviews. In
such case, these reviews are marked with an asterisk. More information can be
obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex G.
 Product || Originating from || Result of the investigation/ Type[25] 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film* || India || Amendment of the duty for Ester Industries Ltd.  from 29.3% to 8.3% -  AD 
 Sodium cyclamate || P.R. China || Amendment of anti-dumping duty for GT Enterprise from 0,11 Eur/kg to 0,23 EUR/kg 
 Tartaric acid || P.R. China || Amendment of anti-dumping duties applicable for two exporting producers. 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || Ukraine || Amendment of anti-dumping duty for Interpipe from 17.7% to 13.8%. 
 PSC wires and strands || P.R. China || Clarification of the product definition. 
 Seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel || Russia || Amendment of anti-dumping duty for OAO companies from 27.2% to 28.7%. 
              
              
8.2.2.1.  Details on individual cases
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film
originating in India
In August 2001 the Council imposed
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET)
film originating, inter alia, in India ranging between 0 % and 62,6 % on
imports from individually named exporting producers, with a residual duty rate
of 53,3 %.  The duties were extended for a further period of five years
following an expiry review in November 2007.  Over the years a number of
amendments to the level of the duties have taken place with the most recent
prior to the review happening in May 2011. At the time the rate was adjusted to
take account of the expiry of the countervailing duty on the same product which
had been imposed in 2006.  As regards the applicant in the interim review
described here, Ester Industries Limited, the applicable duty rate was 29,3%.
In October 2010 a partial interim review
was initiated, limited in scope to the examination of dumping in respect of the
applicant, Ester Industries Limited.  The company had claimed that the
continued imposition of the measure at the level applicable at the time was no
longer necessary to offset injurious dumping as the circumstances on the basis
of which measures were imposed had changed and these changes were of a lasting
nature. 
The review investigation period was from 1
October 2009 to 30 September 2010.   The product concerned by the review was
polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film falling within CN codes ex 3920 62 19 and
ex 3920 62 90.
Normal value was based on the domestic
sales prices of those particular product types which were made in sufficient
quantities and in the ordinary course of trade. For the remaining product types
where domestic sales were not representative or not sold in the ordinary course
of trade, normal value was constructed. Export prices were based on prices
actually paid or payable for the product concerned as these sales were found to
have been made directly to independent customers in the EU.  The comparison of
normal value and export price revealed a dumping margin of 8.3%.
As regards the lasting nature of the
changes the investigation showed that Ester had taken a number of measures for
cost reduction and efficiency improvements, including modernisation and
building a new production line resulting in a substantial drop in the overhead
costs. The company also managed to considerably reduce freight costs due to
changes in its sourcing of raw materials. These cost reductions were considered
to be of a lasting nature.  As far as the export price was concerned, the
investigation showed a certain stability in Ester’s pricing policies over a
long period, between 2006 and 2010. Given the lasting nature of the changes
circumstances it was considered that the newly calculated dumping margin was
likely to be of a lasting nature. 
The dumping duty applicable to Ester
Industries Limited was duly revised downwards in January 2012. 
Sodium cyclamate originating in P.R.
China
In March 2004, the Council imposed
definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of sodium cyclamate originating in
the People’s Republic of China and Indonesia.  These duties were extended for a
further period of five years following an expiry review in June 2010. 
In 17 February 2011 a partial interim
review, limited to the examination of dumping for Golden Time Enterprise Co.,
Ltd (GT Enterprise), member of the Rainbow Rich group, was initiated. The
review was based on a request lodged by Productos Aditivos S.A., the sole Union
producer of sodium cyclamate and the complainant in the original investigation,
alleging that the measures were no longer sufficient to counteract the dumping
which is causing injury.
Dumping
The product under review is sodium
cyclamate, originating in the People’s Republic of China, currently falling
within CN code ex 2929 90 00. The investigation of dumping covered the period
from 1 January 2010 to 31 December 2010. As the Rainbow group consisted of two
production companies (one being GT Enterprise), one raw material supplier, one
company previously involved with the product concerned, but now dormant, and a
trader in Hong Kong, the review encompassed the activities of the full group.
The applicant requested market economy
treatment (MET). However it was found that GT Enterprise no longer met all MET
criteria. Furthermore, compared to the original investigation the Rainbow group
had been enlarged and restructured. The other companies within the group that
submitted claim forms could not demonstrate either that they met all MET
criteria. Where one related company associated with the production and sale of
the product concerned does not qualify for MET, MET cannot be granted to the
group of related companies. However, the group of companies did qualify for
individual treatment. 
In the absence of MET, normal value was
based on data from the analogue country, in this case, Indonesia. Normal value
was based on the prices paid or payable in the analogue market for the product
which was found to be made in the ordinary course of trade. This normal value
was compared to the export prices of the product when sold by a related trading
company to an independent buyer in the EU. A comparison of normal value with
the export price after necessary adjustments were made in respect of
differences in transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs and
credit cost, revealed a dumping margin of 14,2%. 
Lasting nature of changes. 
As regards whether the changes were of a
lasting nature as alleged in the review request, the investigation found that
the group was recently enlarged and reorganised with considerable investments
and there was no indication that this situation would change in the foreseeable
future.  As regards GT Enterprise, it was found that the company’s practice of
not keeping a clear set of accounting records audited in line with
international accounting standards was an established practice and there was
nothing to indicate that this would change in the future. In addition, the
company’s Articles of Association allowing for State influence had been in
force for a long period and there were no indications of their being amended in
the future. As a result it was considered that the non-MET status of the group
was going to continue for the foreseeable future. 
As regards export price, the investigation
showed the pricing policies of the group over a long period to be relatively
stable with the price of the product concerned charged to the EU and to other
third countries not differing significantly and following the same trend
between 2007 and the RIP.  As a result it was considered that the newly
calculated dumping margin would be likely to continue.  It was therefore concluded
that the application of the measure at its then existing level was no longer
sufficient to offset dumping.  
Given that the interim review was limited
to an examination of dumping by GT Enterprise and its related companies, no
individual injury margin could be established in the review. Therefore, the
dumping margin established in the review was compared to the injury margin
established in the original investigation. Since the latter was higher than the
dumping margin found in the review, the revised anti-dumping duty could only be
imposed for the group of companies concerned at the level of the dumping margin
found in the current review. 
The duties were amended and imposed in the
same form as the duties imposed by the original Implementing Regulation, in the
form of a specific amount per kilo. This resulted in an increased dumping
margin for the group of companies concerned, to a specific amount of EUR 0,23
per kilo, up from EUR 0,11 per kilo, being imposed in May 2012.  
Tartaric Acid originating in P.R. China
In January 2006, the Council imposed
definitive anti-dumping duties, ranging between 4,7% and 34,9%, on imports of
tartaric acid (TA) originating China.  An interim review of the measures was
initiated in July 2011 limited in scope to the examination of dumping as far as
two PRC exporting producers were concerned, namely Changmao Biochemical
Engineering Co. Ltd, Changzhou, and Ninghai Organic Chemical Factory, Ninghai.
The request for the review was made by a number of EU producers alleging that the
level of dumping duties in place was no longer sufficient to counteract
dumping, given that both companies should be denied market economy treatment
(MET), and that the changes were of a lasting nature. 
The investigation concerning dumping
covered the period from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011. The product concerned is
tartaric acid currently falling within CN code ex 2918 12 00 (TARIC code 2918
12 00 90).
Both companies named in the review request
claimed market economy treatment. However, for both companies MET was denied
under Criterion 1 of Article 2(7)(c) on the basis that the price of the basic
raw material, benzene, was distorted. In addition distortions were also found
in the price of the intermediate raw material, maleic anhydride.  These low
prices could not be explained by the companies. MET was also denied to one of
the two companies under Criteria 2 and 3 due to evidence of depressed land use
right prices and also overvaluation of the company’s assets for the purpose of
guaranteeing a loan from a State-owned bank.
Both companies did however meet the
requirements to be granted individual treatment entitling them individual
anti-dumping duties using their own export prices.
In the absence of MET, normal value for
tartaric acid was based on information from an analogue country, in this case
Argentina. Given that different production processes were used in the analogue
country and China the normal value was constructed from the cost of production
in Argentina taking into account the differences in production methods.   This
normal value was then compared to the export prices which were based on the
actual prices paid or payable by the first independent customer in the Union
for both PRC exporting producers. The dumping margins found were for Changmao
Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd, Changzhou 13,1% and Ninghai Organic Chemical
Factory, Ninghai 8,3%. 
It was considered that, given the reasons
for the denial of MET in the review investigation, the findings of the review
were of a lasting nature. Evidence showed that the distortion in the price of
benzene in the PRC was in existence prior to the RIP and there was no evidence
to show that the PRC government would remove these distortions.
One exporting producer in the PRC offered a
price undertaking. However, the product concerned was not suitable for a fixed
price undertaking due to the volatility of the export price. The price
undertaking was therefore refused. 
The anti-dumping duties in force concerning
imports of tartaric acid from the two exporters in question were duly amended
to reflect the finding of the review investigation in July 2012. 
Ferro-silicon originating in Russia
In February 2008, the Council imposed
definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of ferro-silicon originating in
Russia ranging between 17.8% and 22.7%. In October 2010 a partial interim
review was initiated following a request from a Russian exporting producer,
Joint Stock Company (JSC) Chelyabinsk Electrometallurgical Integrated Plant and
its related company Joint Stock Company (JSC) Kuznetsk Ferroalloy Works,
alleging that the dumping was lower than the current level of the measure and
that the changes were of a lasting nature.
The investigation period was from 1 October
2009 to 30 September 2010. The product concerned by the investigation was
ferro-silicon falling under the CN codes 72022100, 72022910 and 72022990. 
The investigation examined whether or not
the applicant had practiced dumping during the review investigation period. 
Normal value was based on the domestic sales prices of the product types which
were made in sufficient quantities and in the ordinary course of trade and
where this was not the case normal value was constructed. Export prices were
based on prices actually paid or payable for the product concerned to the first
independent customer in the EU with relevant adjustments as these sales were
found to have been made directly to independent customers in the EU.  The
comparison of normal value and export price with necessary adjustments revealed
a dumping margin of 8.3%.
As regards the claims that the changes were
of a lasting nature, the applicant cited changes to the export sales structure
of the group including exploration of new markets such as India, Asia and the
US as an indication of an expected drop in their level of exports to the EU. In
addition, they claimed that expected growth in the Russian market with its
increasing steel production along with higher prices to be obtained in other
export markets meant that even in the absence of AD measures they would have no
major incentive to export to the EU market. However, the applicant was unable
to provide sufficient proof of their claims and no conclusive independent data
regarding the expected developments in the Russian market was provided. In
addition the investigation had showed that while the dumping level had dropped,
the export prices to the EU in the investigation period were very volatile and
following trends in world prices. Consequently, the claims that the changes
were of a lasting nature were rejected.  As a result the review was terminated
in January 2012 without any amendment to the existing measures.  
8.2.3.      “Other” reviews
4 other reviews, not falling under Article
11(3) or Article 19 of the basic Regulations were initiated during 2012. In addition,
3 such reviews were concluded in the period.  
A list of the cases concerned is given in
Annex H which shows, in footnotes, the main issues concerned. More information
can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is given in the
Annex.
8.2.4.     New exporter reviews
As far as anti-dumping measures are
concerned, Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation allows for a review
("newcomer" review) to be carried out in order to determine
individual margins of dumping for new exporters located in the exporting
country in question which did not export the product during the investigation
period. 
Such parties have to show that they are
genuine new exporters, i.e. that they are not related to any of the exporters
or producers in the exporting country, which are subject to the anti-dumping
measures, and that they have actually started to export to the EU following the
investigation period, or that they have entered into an irrevocable contractual
obligation to export a significant quantity to the EU.
When a review for a new exporter is
initiated, the duties are repealed with regard to that exporter, though its
imports are made subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the basic
Regulation in order to ensure that, should the review result in a determination
of dumping in respect of such an exporter, anti-dumping duties may be levied
retroactively to the date of the initiation of the review.
As far as anti-subsidy measures are
concerned, Article 20 of the basic Regulation allows for a review
("accelerated" review) to be carried out in order to establish
promptly an individual countervailing duty. Any exporter whose exports are
subject to a definitive countervailing duty but who was not individually
investigated during the original investigation for reasons other than a refusal
to co-operate with the Commission can request such review.
In 2012, 1 new exporter review was
initiated. Since the Commission carried out the first reviews of this type in
1990, a total of 66 such investigations have been initiated. 2 new exporter
review were concluded during 2012 with an amendment/imposition of the duty. 
More information can be obtained from the
Official Journal to which reference is given in Annex I.
8.2.5.     Absorption investigations
Where there is sufficient information
showing that, after the original investigation period and prior to or following
the imposition of measures, export prices have decreased or that there has been
no or insufficient movement in the resale prices or subsequent selling prices
of the imported product in the EU, an "absorption" review may be
opened to examine whether the measure has had effects on the above-mentioned
prices. Dumping margins may as such be recalculated and the duty increased to
take account of such lower export prices. The possibility of
"absorption" reviews is included in Articles 12 and 19(3) of basic
Regulations.
In 2012, there
were no anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded. – Annex J.    
8.2.6.     Circumvention investigations
The possibility of investigations being
re-opened in circumstances where evidence is brought to show that measures are
being circumvented was introduced by Article 13 and Article 23 of the basic
Regulations.
Circumvention is defined as a change in the
pattern of trade between third countries and the EU which stems from a
practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic
justification other than the imposition of the duty. The duties may be extended
to imports from third countries of like products, or parts thereof, if
circumvention is taking place.
In 2012, 13 anti-circumvention
investigations were initiated. 2 such investigations were concluded with an
extension of the duty and 1 was terminated without extending the duty. More
information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is
given in Annex K.
Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres
originating in P.R. China
In August 2011 the
Council imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty of 62,9% on imports of certain
open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the People’s Republic of
China. In November 2011 the Commission initiated an anti-circumvention
investigation following a request by four Union producers of certain open mesh
fabrics of glass fibres. The request alleged that following the imposition of
the measures in force, a significant change in the pattern of trade involving
exports from the PRC and Malaysia to the Union occurred, for which there was
insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of
the measures in force. This change in the pattern of trade stemmed allegedly
from the transhipment of certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating
in the PRC via Malaysia.  The request also claimed that the remedial effects of
the measures were being undermined both in terms of quantity and price and that
the increased imports from Malaysia were at prices below the non-injurious
price established in the original investigation and that some were dumped. 
The investigation period was from 1 January
2008 to 30 September 2011. More detailed data were collected for the period 1
October 2010 to 30 September 2011to examine the alleged undermining of the
remedial effects of the measures in force and existence of dumping. The product
concerned was open mesh fabrics of glass fibres falling within CN codes ex 7019
51 00, and ex 7019 59 00.
There was no cooperation from the exporting
producers in China.  While three Malaysian exporters initially indicated they
would co-operate, one withdrew its co-operation and during their verification
visits the other two were found to have provided inaccurate and misleading
information.  As a result the Commission had to resort to best information
available in line with Article 18 of the Basic Regulation. Comext data was used
to determine overall import volumes from the PRC to the EU. PRC and Malaysian
national statistics were used for the determination of the overall exports from
PRC to Malaysia. Data were also cross-checked with detailed import and export
data that were provided by the customs authorities of Malaysia.
Circumvention
The investigation found that imports of the
product concerned from the PRC to the EU dropped dramatically subsequent to the
imposition of the provisional measures in February 2011 and the definitive
measures imposed in August 2011. On the other hand, total exports of the
product under investigation from Malaysia to the Union increased significantly
in 2011. Based on Comext, exports from Malaysia to the Union increased sharply
in the last year whereas they were at insignificant levels in previous years.
This trend was confirmed by the corresponding Malaysian statistics with regard
to exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres to the Union from Malaysia. It
was clear that in 2011, following the imposition of the measures, the imports
surged suddenly and to some extent replaced the exports from the PRC on the
Union market in terms of volume, which had decreased by 26%.  A dramatic
increase of exports of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres from the PRC to
Malaysia within the same period was also identified.  Some of these exports
were also found to have been misdeclared at the time of importation to Malaysia
under different codes than the ones covered by the investigation. 
As regards the production volumes in
Malaysia the investigation found that the three Malaysian companies which
cooperated initially had been established between November 2010 and March 2011
and had only started production and exports to the Union after the imposition
of the provisional measures in February 2011. Prior to then, there was no
production of open mesh fabrics of glass fibres in Malaysia.
The investigation did not bring to light
any cause or economic justification for these developments other than the
avoidance of the anti-dumping measures in force in the EU. 
As regards the undermining of the remedial
effect of the anti- dumping duty a comparison of the injury elimination level
established in the original investigation and the weighted average export
prices of the exports from Malaysia showed significant underselling.   As a
result it was concluded that the remedial effects of the measures were
undermined in terms of both quantities and prices by the imports from that
country.
As regards dumping by the Malaysian
exporters, the export prices from Malaysia (as reported in Comext) were
compared to the normal value established in the original investigation. This
normal value had been based data from an analogue country, Canada.  After
necessary adjustments including for differences in transport, insurance,
ancillary expenses, packing costs and bank charges dumping was found. 
The anti-circumvention investigation
therefore concluded that the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of
certain open mesh fabrics of glass fibres originating in the PRC were being circumvented
by transhipment from Malaysia. 
Extension of the measures
The three Malaysian companies that had
initially indicated they would co-operate in the investigation, requested that
they be exempt from any duties that would be extended to cover imports into the
EU from Malaysia. However, in view of the findings with regard to the changes
in the pattern of trade and transhipment practices as well as the misleading
information they provided, the exemptions as requested by the three companies
were not granted.
The duty applicable to imports of the
product concerned from China was extended to imports of the product from
Malaysia whether declared as originating in Malaysia or not in July 2012.  In
the regulation extending the measures, other producers in Malaysia, who did not
come forward in the proceeding and who did not export the product under
investigation to the Union in the investigation period, were given information
on how to apply for an exemption from the newly extended measures. 
8.3.        Safeguard
investigations
Safeguard measures have always been and
remain an instrument which the Commission would only apply in truly exceptional
circumstances. Indeed, they are only used where it is clear that, applying the
highest standards, such measures are necessary and justified because, due to
unforeseen circumstances, there has been a surge in imports and this has caused
or threatens to cause serious damage to the EU industry. 
The Commission expects the EU’s commercial
partners to follow a similarly strict approach. However, more and more
countries are adopting safeguard measures, often in circumstances which do not
appear to be entirely in line with Article XIX of the GATT 1994, the WTO
Agreement on Safeguards and other WTO rules. Consequently, the activities of
the Commission in relation to safeguards is more and more driven towards the
defence of the export interests of EU producers, if necessary at WTO level.
As regards conventional trade regimes, the
Commission has agreed within the various bilateral agreements to which it is a
party (Europe Agreements, Agreements with Mediterranean countries, Free Trade
Agreements with Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Chili, etc.) to introduce special
safeguard clauses, which apply to cases, which arise between the partners.
These clauses normally entail rights and obligations additional to those
arising under WTO safeguard rules (in particular special notification and
consultation procedures). In this regard, the Commission carefully monitors any
cases, which are initiated by partners with which it has a preferential trade
agreement.
In this context, on 4th August 2012 the
Commission received a request from the French authorities to introduce prior
surveillance concerning imports of cars from Korea, based on Article 6(2) of
the EU-Korea FTA implementing Regulation. According to the second paragraph of
Article 6, prior surveillance measures may be introduced "in the event
that there is a surge of imports of products falling into sensitive sectors
(including cars) concentrated in one or several Member States".
The request was carefully examined and it
was concluded that no measure should be introduced because the legal
requirements were not met. Indeed, even if there was a certain increase of
imports, there was no indication that such increase was concentrated in one or
several Member States.
The Commission remains vigilant and
continues its monitoring of Korean imports in the sensitive sectors as required
by the regulation menioned above.
There was no safeguard activitity by the EU
in 2012 and no measures were in place – Annex L. 
9.           Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures
Globalisation of trade led to greater
possibilities for circumventing or otherwise reducing the effectiveness of
anti-dumping and countervailing measures. To address this problem, throughout
2011 the TDI services continued their follow-up activities aimed at ensuring
that measures were effectively enforced. In the framework of an integrated
approach measures were considered in all their forms - duties and undertakings
– and synergy was sought between the TDI services and enforcement-oriented
services (OLAF, DG Taxud and customs authorities in Member States). 
9.1.        Follow-up of measures
The follow-up activities concerning
measures in force are centred on four main areas: (1) to pre-empt fraud, by
defining risk-related areas, alerting customs authorities and assessing the
feedback from customs and economic operators; (2) to monitor trade flows and
market developments; (3) to improve the effectiveness with the appropriate
instruments (new investigation, interim review, newcomer review, contact with
national administrations) and (4) to react to irregular practices by enhancing
the co-operation with enforcement-related services (OLAF and national customs)
and by initiating anti-absorption or anti-circumvention investigations.
9.2.        Monitoring of undertakings
Monitoring of undertakings forms part of
the enforcement activities, given that undertakings are a form of AD or CVD
measures. They are accepted by the Commission if it is satisfied that they can
effectively eliminate the injurious effects of dumping or subsidisation.
At the beginning of
2012, there were 18 undertakings in force. During 2012, the following changes
to the portfolio of undertakings took place: undertaking of one company  came
to an end due to the expiry/repeal of measures. Undertakings of two companies
were withdrawn as their monitoring would become unworkable and unpracticable.
This brings the total number of undertakings in force at the end of 2012 to 15.
10.         Refunds 
Articles 11(8) and 21(1) of the basic
Regulations allow importers to request the reimbursement of the relevant
collected duties where it is shown that the dumping/subsidy margin, on the
basis of which duties were paid, has been eliminated or reduced to a level
below that of the duty in force.
During 2012, 26 new
refund requests were submitted. At the end of 2012, 10 investigations were
on-going, covering 35 requests. In 2012, 26 Commission Decisions were adopted:
12 granting partial refund and 14 rejecting the refund requests. 8 requests
were withdrawn.
11.         Judicial
review: decisions given by the Court of Justice / Court of First Instance
11.1.      Overview of the judicial reviews in 2012.
In 2012, the General Court and the Court of
Justice rendered 22 judgments in total relating to the areas of anti-dumping or
anti-subsidy. 6 of the judgements of the Court of Justice concerned appeals
against the General Court. 
11.2.      Cases pending
A list of the anti-dumping/anti-subsidy cases
before the General Court and the Court of Justice still pending at the end of
2012 is given in Annex S (41 before the General Court and 8 before the Court of
Justice).
11.3.      New cases
23 new cases were lodged in 2012 (compared
to 16 in 2011, 13 in 2010, 17 in 2009 and 16 in 2008). 17 of these were lodged
before the General Court and 6 before the Court of Justice.
11.4.      Judgments rendered by the General Court
In 2012, the General Court rendered 13 judgments
relating to the areas of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy. Details of some of the
cases are set out below.
11.4.1.   Iron
or steel fasteners originating in China – T-150/09 Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners
Co. Ltd v. Council of the European Union – Judgment of 10 October 2012 (OJ C
366, 24.11.2012, p. 29)
The
applicant, a Chinese company which produces and exports iron and steel
fasteners to the European Union, sought an annulment of Regulation (EC) No
91/2009 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or
steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘contested
regulation’). 
In
support of its action, the applicant raised three pleas in law concerning
different aspects of Market Economy Treatment (MET) assessment under Article
2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation. 
First,
the applicant alleged infringement of the second subparagraph of Article
2(7)(c) of the basic regulation which provides that a determination whether a
producer is operating under market economy conditions shall be made within
three months of the initiation of the investigation. It is undisputed that in
the present case, the three-month time limit was exceeded. In this regard the
Court first established that non-compliance with the three-month time limit
does not automatically entail the annulment of the contested regulation and
that the three month period is intended, in particular, to ensure that the
question whether the producer meets the criteria for MET is not decided on the
basis of its effect on the calculation of the dumping margin. It further established
that, in the particular circumstances of the present case, characterised by
domestic prices of the major input being significantly below prices on other
international markets, the failure to comply with the three-month time limit
did not enable the Commission to decide whether the applicant should receive
MET depending on its effect on the calculation of the dumping margin.
Consequently, the first plea was rejected.
In
its second plea, the applicant claimed that by concluding that the cost of the
major input did not substantially reflect market values within the meaning of
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation, the Council made a manifest error of
assessment. The Court rejected this plea and confirmed that the institutions
did not make any manifest error of assessment in concluding that the prices
paid by the applicant for the major input, steel wire rod, did not
substantially reflect market values. 
The
applicant’s third plea, alleging a misinterpretation of Article 2(7)(b) and (c)
of the basic regulation, can be divided into three parts: the first alleging a
breach of the obligation to assess a MET claim at an individual
company-specific level, the second alleging infringement of the principle that
an unreasonable burden of proof should not be imposed and the third asserting
the relevance of adjustments under Article 2(5) of the basic regulation. Under
the first part of this plea the applicant in particular argued that
country-wide or industry-wide arguments cannot be used for determining the possible
grant of MET. Thus, the conclusion that prices of raw materials are distorted
because of country-wide government policies affecting the upstream market
cannot be used against the applicant. The Court rejected the argument
confirming that the institutions can take into account macro-economic
considerations in the MET assessment and verify the manner in which the prices
of major inputs are determined on the domestic market. The Court further
explained that refusal to grant MET cannot be based purely on macro-economic
considerations, but must be based on the finding, as in the present case, that
the costs of the major inputs of the company in question do not reflect market
values. Finally, the Court also rejected the applicant’s assertion that the
Council’s conclusion that the prices paid by the applicant for the major input
did not substantially reflect market values is incompatible with the
Commission’s finding, in the MET decision, that ‘no State interference was
found in the company’s setting of sales prices or quantities’ and that ‘there
is no direct State interference at the level of [the applicant]’. The Court
clarified that those are two separate conditions for obtaining MET and must be
examined separately. 
Under
the second part of the third plea the Court rejected the applicant’s allegation
that the burden of proof was unreasonable. The Court elaborated that it was for
the applicant to adduce evidence demonstrating that the costs of its major
input materials reflected market values and, if need be, following the MET
decision, that the differences found by the Commission between the prices of
raw materials were due to reasons other than State interference. In that
context, it was not necessary for the applicant to show that there was no State
interference in the upstream industry, but simply that the low purchase prices
for raw materials were justified. The Court also rejected the third part of
this plea and confirmed that it does not follow from the case law that a
company claiming MET should obtain MET if adjusting the costs of production
pursuant to Article 2(5) of the basic regulation would make it possible to use
company specific data to determine the normal value.
In
the light of the above findings the Court dismissed the action. The judgment is
currently under appeal.
11.4.2.   Iron
or steel fasteners originating in China – T-162/09 Adolf Würth GmbH & Co KG
(Künzelsau, Germany) and Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang) Co Ltd (Shenyang, China)
v. Council of the European Union – Judgment of 19 April 2012 (OJ C 165,
9.6.2012, p. 17–17)
The
applicants, a German company Adolf Würth GmbH & Co KG whose main business
is international trade of fasteners and assembly material and its subsidiary
Arnold Fasteners (Shenyang), exporting producer of fasteners, claimed to be
affected by the anti-dumping duties imposed by the Regulation (EC) No 91/2009
on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s
Republic of China (‘contested regulation’) and requested its annulment.
The
Court dismissed the action as inadmissible for the reason that none of the
applicants is individually and directly concerned by the contested regulation.
The
Court considered that according to consistent jurisprudence, Adolf Würth GmbH
& Co KG (‘Würth’) as an independent importer is not individually concerned
by a regulation imposing definitive measures. In particular, the Court
considered that the facts that Würth cooperated in the investigation and is
mentioned in one of the recitals are not sufficient to create right for it to request
the annulment of the regulation. The Court considered that Würth’s situation
(i.e. Würth claimed that it suffered very high costs because a significant part
of its imports were concerned by the contested regulation) is not sufficiently
different from those of any other importer of the product concerned in the
Union. 
As
for the second applicant, who claimed to be a new exporter, the Court first
noted that it did not request to be recognised as such in accordance with
Article 11(4) of the basic regulation and that it consequently cannot be
considered as such for the purpose of the Court proceeding. The Court also
noted that it did not cooperate in the initial investigation because it did not
come forward within the set deadlines. Furthermore, if it was not producing the
product concerned during the investigation period, its data were not taken into
account and it was not mentioned in the contested regulation. Finally, the
applicants never presented evidence that Arnold Fasteners’ production which allegedly
started after the conclusion of the investigation indeed comprises the product
concerned. 
Therefore,
the Court concluded that Arnold Fasteners is also not individually concerned by
the contested regulation.  The judgment has not been appealed.
11.4.3.   Iron
or steel fasteners originating in China – T-170/09 Shanghai Biaowu High-Tensile
Fasteners Co. Ltd and Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd v. Council of the
European Union – Judgment of 10 October 2012 (OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 30)
The
applicants, Shanghai Prime Machinery Co. Ltd and its subsidiary Shanghai Biaowu
High-Tensile Fasteners Co. Ltd (‘the applicants’), produce and export fasteners
to the European Union. They sought an annulment of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009
which imposed a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain iron or
steel fasteners originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the contested
regulation’). In support of their action they put forward eight pleas in law,
six of which concern the Market Economy Treatment (MET) rejection. Since some
of these pleas are very similar to the pleas raised in case T-150/09 summarised
above, only the pleas which are different are presented below.
The
applicants criticised the institutions’ interpretation of the first indent of
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation arguing that the requirement that
‘costs of major inputs substantially reflect market values’ means that account
must be taken of the values of the market where the company buys its inputs,
that is, in the present case, the price of steel wire rod on the Chinese
market. The Court confirmed the Council’s interpretation that the expression
‘market values’ appearing in the first indent of the first subparagraph of
Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation can only be understood as referring to
a market in which the determination of prices is not distorted by State
interference. 
The
applicants further complained that the institutions have misinterpreted Article
2(7)(b) and (c) of the basic regulation by denying MET to the Chinese companies
on the ground that their raw material suppliers do not operate under market
economy conditions. The Court also held that the institutions in the present
case did not err in law in any way in taking into account the fact that the
price of the major input, steel wire rod, did not reflect market values.
According to the Court, the criterion ‘costs of major inputs substantially
reflect market values’ is completely unambiguous and can only be understood to
refer to the market of inputs and not to the market of the product concerned. 
The
Court also rejected the applicants’ argument that in similar circumstances, the
MET may only be refused after having initiated an anti-subsidy procedure and
that therefore the institutions have infringed the provisions of Regulation No
2026/97. According to the Court such interpretation would render the criterion
set in the first indent of the first subparagraph of Article 2(7)(c) of the
basic regulation ineffective and must be rejected.    
The
applicants argued that the institutions should have made due adjustment of the
difference of input prices in China and India (the analogue country for this
investigation). The Court rejected the claim and observed that the price
differences must be established in the context of a single domestic market and
not with reference to other markets, such as the Chinese market. The Court
further observed that the adjustment may not be used to render Article 2(7)(a)
of the basic regulation ineffective. 
Finally,
the Court rejected the Applicants’ pleas alleging violation of statement of
reasons and of their rights of defence as unfounded.   
In
the light of above, the Court dismissed the action. The judgment has not been
appealed.
11.4.4.   Iron
or steel fasteners originating in China – T-172/09 Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd
and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts  v. Council of the European Union – Judgment of 10
October 2012 (OJ C 366, 24.11.2012, p. 30)
The
applicants, Gem-Year Industrial Co. Ltd and its subsidiary Jinn‑Well
Auto‑Parts (Zhejiang) Co. Ltd (‘the applicants’) are Chinese companies
which produce and export fasteners to the European Union. They sought an
annulment of Regulation (EC) No 91/2009 which imposed a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in the People’s
Republic of China (‘the contested regulation’). In support of their action they
put forward seven pleas in law.
In
their first plea the applicants contest the standing, claiming that the
complaint was supported by less than 25% of the total Union production of the
like product because the Union production was based on the Prodcom data from
Eurostat covering only 90% of Union production without taking into account a
10% margin of error. The Court rejected the plea stating explicitly that the
institutions were entitled to rely on the statistical data, since it was not
possible for them to determine the exact volume of Union production for the
like product. Moreover, the Court stated that even taking into account the
assessment favoured by the applicants with a 10% margin of error, the fact
remains that the representativeness of the complainant is approximately equal
to the 25% threshold referred to in Article 5(4) of the basic regulation.    
Secondly,
the applicants contested the product definition, challenging the very principle
of determining a single category made up of ‘fasteners’ and claiming that the
quality differences between the products within that category (in particular
between special and standard fasteners) prohibit them being included in the
same category. The Court concluded the institutions legitimately included
special fasteners in the definition of ‘the product concerned’, since they took
into account the intrinsic cost differences between standard and special
fasteners in the dumping calculation. This conclusion was not undermined by the
applicants’ argument that those products are not interchangeable.
In
their third plea, the applicants challenged the injury findings. First, the
applicants claimed that the institutions relied solely on a single factor based
on the reduction of the Union industry’s market share to conclude that a
significant injury had been suffered by that industry. The Court concluded
that, contrary to what the applicants claim, the institutions did not rely
solely on the reduction of the Union industry’s market share. Accordingly, and
without there being any need to ascertain whether the institutions might have
been entitled to establish the occurrence of injury to the Union industry on
the basis of a single factor, this part of the plea was rejected as having no
factual basis. Second, the Court concluded that there is no contradiction in
the grounds of the contested regulation and that the institutions did not make
any manifest error of assessment in inferring from the difference in
profitability levels between the actual and expected profit margin that
significant injury had been suffered by the Union industry. 
The
fourth and fifth pleas in law concern the interpretation of Article 2(7)(c) of
the basic regulation and are similar to the pleas described in cases T-150/09
and T-170/09 above. The Court rejected both pleas and stated that Article
2(7)(c) of the basic regulation requiring that the ‘costs of major inputs
substantially reflect market values’ is completely unambiguous and that
therefore it is not possible to interpret it in light of Paragraph 15 of the
Protocol on the Accession of the China as requested by the applicants.
The
applicants’ sixth plea was rejected because according to the Court the applicants
cannot legitimately invoke a breach by the institutions of their duty to
examine carefully all relevant aspects of the case if they do not refer in
their argument to precise evidence which had been disclosed to the
institutions.
Finally,
the seventh plea, alleging infringement of Regulation No 2026/97, which is
identical to the plea raised in case T-170/09 above, was also rejected.      
In
the light of the above findings the Court dismissed the action.  The judgment
is currently under appeal.
11.4.5.   Ironing
boards originating in the People’s Republic of China produced by Since Hardware
(Guangzhou) Co., Ltd - T-156/11 - Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd v Council
of the European Union – Judgment of 18 September 2012 
The applicant, Since Hardware (Guangzhou)
Co., Ltd, sought the annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No
1243/2010 of 20 December 2010 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of ironing boards originating in the People’s Republic of China
produced by Since Hardware (Guangzhou) Co., Ltd. following a new investigation
limited to one company who was found not to be dumping in the original
investigation. The applicant was subject to a duty rate of 35. 8%. The
applicant put forward three pleas in law in support of its application. 
First the applicant claimed that Articles
5(9), 9(3), 9(6) and 17 of the basic regulation have been breached since a new
investigation cannot be opened against a single company but should opened
against one or more countries and all producers therein. 
The Court held that the wording of the
basic regulation does not prevent the initiation of company-specific
investigations especially in circumstances such as the ones of the present case
where it was alleged that a producer who was not dumping in the original
investigation has started dumping which was causing injury to the Union
industry. The Court also confirmed that the Council was allowed to impose
anti-dumping duties on the specific company for a period shorter than 5 years
so that they can expire at the same time as the original measures. This was
deemed permissible in order to avoid any possible discrimination and to allow
for a simultaneous review of both the original and the company-specific
measures.
Secondly the applicant claimed that Article
3, paragraphs (2), (3) and (5) of the basic regulation have been breached
because anti-dumping measures were imposed without having established that the
Union industry suffered injury during the investigation period. 
The Court upheld the Council's claim that
when the EU industry is already protected by anti-dumping measures on imports
from the other exporters from the same country, it was reasonable to focus the
injury analysis on the relevant injury indicators, as opposed to examining all
injury indicators as would be done in a country-wide new investigation. 
Finally, the applicant contested the MET
findings and claimed breaches of Article 2(7)(c) of the basic regulation and of
principles relating to the burden of proof and general principles of law. In
particular, the applicant claimed that the decision was taken in accordance
with the effect it might have on the dumping margin in breach of Article
2(7)(c) of the basic regulation given that the Commission had all the
information necessary to find out what effect the rejection of MET would have
on the dumping margin. In the same context, the applicant claimed that the
burden imposed on the applicant to prove that it functions in a market economy
was excessive and in breach of general principles of law. 
The Court held, in line with its constant
jurisprudence, that not all breaches of the deadline in Article 2(7)(c)
automatically led to the annulment of the contested regulation. For the
contested regulation to be annulled, the applicant must show that had the
deadline not been breached, the Council could have adopted a different
regulation more favourable to the applicant. The Court also held that it could
not be excluded that in certain cases even when the deadline in Article 2(7)(c)
was not breached, the Commission still had sufficient information to know what
the impact of the MET determination would have been on the dumping margin of a
company. In this case the Commission was able to know the effect of the MET
determination on the dumping margin before the expiry of the deadline since it
had all the necessary data in its possession. Finally, the Court rejected the
applicant's claim that the burden imposed on the applicant to prove that it
functions in a market economy was excessive because the applicant could not
prove that the steel market in China was not subject to significant state
interference. It reaffirmed that the burden of proof lies with the company
claiming MET.
In the light of the above findings, the
Court dismissed the action. The judgment has not been appealed.
11.4.6.   Certain
polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab
Emirates – T-555/10 – JBF RAK LLC v Council of the European Union – Judgment of
24 May 2012 
The applicant, JBF RAK LLC, sought the annulment
of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September 2010
imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the
provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate
originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, applying to the
applicant a duty of EUR 42.34 per tonne of polyethylene terephthalate. The
applicant relied on four pleas in support of its action.
In its first plea, the applicant alleged
that the Council violated Article 15(1) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation
insofar as it disregarded the fact that imports of raw materials consigned from
the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia were not subject to import duties and, thus, erred
in calculating the subsidy margin. In particular the applicant claimed that the
Council did not take into consideration the existence of a customs union
between the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) members and the impact of such
customs union on the amount of countervailable subsidies. In its second plea,
the applicant alleged that the Council violated Article 30(5) of the basic
anti-subsidy regulation insofar as it refused to take into account certain
representations made by the applicant. In its third plea, the applicant alleged
that the Council violated Article 11(8) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation
insofar as it failed to examine the accuracy of the information presented. In
its last plea the applicant alleged that the Council violated the principle of
sound administration insofar as it adopted the contested regulation without
taking into consideration all the information available to it.
The Court dismissed the first two pleas
since the documentation submitted by the applicant to demonstrate that the
transactions from the Saudi Arabian supplier were of Saudi Arabian origin did
not contain the original documents, some were not submitted even in copy,
contained contradictions and were submitted at a very late stage of the
administrative procedure. The Court considered that the Commission and the
Council were entitled to conclude, without making an error of assessment, that
the evidence did not show that the raw material purchased had been imported
duty free and therefore the applicant did not show that there were errors in
the Council’s calculation of the amount of countervailable subsidy. 
As regards the third plea, the Court held
that Article 11(8) did not prevent the Commission from verifying the
information in the way it deems most appropriate and not solely by means of a
verification visit. It further held that, contrary to what the applicant
claimed, it was not apparent from the contested regulation that the information
and evidence were rejected on the mere ground that they had been submitted
after the verification visit. Since the verification visit had already taken
place when those comments were submitted to the Commission, the Commission
examined whether they were borne out by the documents which it already had at
its disposal and by the new evidence annexed to those new comments. On this
basis it concluded that the evidence was insufficient, incomplete and
contradictory. Therefore, the Commission and the Council fulfilled the
obligation under Article 11(8) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation. On the
basis of the arguments relating to the first three pleas, the Court rejected
the last plea.
In the light of the above findings, the
Court dismissed the action. The judgment has not been appealed.
11.4.7.   Certain
polyethylene terephthalate originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab
Emirates – T-556/10 – Novatex Ltd v Council of the European Union – Judgment of
11 October 2012
The applicant, Novatex Ltd, sought the
annulment of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 857/2010 of 27 September
2010 imposing a definitive countervailing duty and collecting definitely the
provisional duty imposed on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate
originating in Iran, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, applying to the
applicant a duty of EUR 42.02 per tonne of polyethylene terephthalate. The
applicant relied on two pleas in support of its action.
In its first plea the applicant alleged
that the Council violated Article 3 of the basic anti-subsidy regulation,
interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO Agreement on
Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, by erroneously concluding that the Final
Tax Regime (FTR) which applied to revenue arising from the sale of exported
products was a scheme which foregone government revenue and, consequently,
constituted a financial contribution and that the FTR invariably conferred
benefit to the applicant. In particular, it maintained that the Council failed
to take into account the assessment order issued by the Deputy Commissioner of
income tax concerning the revision of its tax declaration for 2008. That revision
involved a modification of the amount shown in line 74 of its income tax
declaration of the amount of the net export profit and led to the conclusion
that it would not have paid tax if the said net export profits had been subject
to the NTR.
The Court held that Article 3(1) of the
basic anti-subsidy regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the FTR must
be assessed by reference to a relevant normative benchmark. In this case, the
Court concluded that the relevant normative benchmark in order to assess
whether the FTR constituted a financial contribution was the Normal Tax Regime
(NTR) which was applicable to revenue arising from the sale of products on the
national market. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied on the WTO
Appellate Body’s view that it was necessary to compare what was legitimately
comparable. The Court found that the tax regime on revenue from domestic sales
of a product and that from export sales of the same product appeal to be
legitimately comparable. The fact that the method of levying the tax
(retrospectively in the case of the NTR, at source in the case of the FTR) and
the basis of the assessment (35% of the profit on domestic sales in the case of
the NTR, 1% of export sales turnover in the case of the FTR) were different did
not mean that the two taxation regimes could not be compared. What sufficed was
that the comparison was legitimate. Possible differences between the tax
regimes on the basis of those two factors did not however in themselves suffice
to render any comparison between those regimes illegitimate. Otherwise, the
provisions of the basic anti-subsidy regulation and the Agreement on Subsidies
and Countervailing Measures might be easily circumvented by creating different
systems of taxation on those bases alone. Moreover, the possibility that the
FTR could have given rise to a higher tax than that which the undertaking would
have paid under the NTR in the case where the undertaking suffered losses on
its export sales but had a very high turnover but a reduced profit margin was
irrelevant. Article 3(1) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation did not have to
be interpreted as requiring the institutions to envisage all hypotheses of
application of the measure in question and that they could not conclude that a
subsidy exists where, on one of the hypotheses, the measure concerning export
sales did not give rise to a tax lower than that levied under the regime for
domestic sales. What mattered was that the measure in question actually
established a countervailing subsidy during the investigation period. However,
the Court considered that the Commission and the Council should have taken into
account the fact that line 74 of the 2008 tax return had been revised following
the assessment of the Deputy Commissioner of income tax and the confirmatory
decision of the Commissioner of income tax.
In its second plea the applicant alleged
that the Council violated Articles 3(2) and 6(b) of the basic anti-subsidy
regulation, interpreted in accordance with the relevant provision of the WTO
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, by using the applicable
commercial rate prevailing during the investigation period, as found on the
State Bank of Pakistan website, rather than the commercial rate prevailing at
the time the loan was contracted by the applicant. 
The Court held that it could not be
inferred either from Article 6(4) of the basic anti-subsidy regulation or from
Article 14 of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures or from
the decision-making practice of the WTO that the appropriate interest rate
should have been the rate available on the market at the time when the loans
were contracted. The Court further held that in the circumstances of a loan
granted by the public authorities in the form of a system of flexible financing
(characterised by the possibility for the recipient of the loan to borrow the
whole or part of the sum placed at its disposal when it wished and  in
accordance with its needs) which applied in particular during the investigation
period, it was in conformity with Article 6(b) of the basic anti-subsidy
regulation to consider that the commercial interest rate which must have been
taken into account was that in force during the investigation period rather
than the rate in force at the time when the system of flexible financing was
contracted. It thus dismissed the second plea.
The Court annulled Article 1 of the
contested regulation in so far as it concerned the applicant and in so far as
the definitive countervailing duty for imports of certain types of polyethylene
terephthalate into the European Union exceeded that applicable in the absence
of the error concerning the amount indicated in line 74 of the 2008 tax return.

The judgment has not been appealed.
11.5.      Judgments
rendered by the Court of Justice
In
2012, the Court of Justice rendered 9 judgments
relating to the area of anti-dumping. 6 of those judgments concerned appeals
against the judgments of the General Court. In addition the Court of Justice
rendered 3 judgments in reply to requests for a preliminary ruling. Details of
some of the cases are set out below.
              11.5.1.           Certain
prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the
People’s Republic of China – C-338/10 GLS Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH– Judgment
of 22 March 2012 (OJ C 133, 5.5.2012, p. 5)
Grünwald
Logistik Service GmbH, an importer of preserved mandarins from China into the
European Union, brought an action before the national court in Germany
(‘Finance Court, Hamburg’), contesting the validity of Council Regulation (EC)
No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and
collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain
prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc. ‘product concerned’)
originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘definitive regulation’). The
national court stayed the proceedings and referred the question about the
validity of the definitive regulation to the Court of Justice for a preliminary
ruling.
The
Finance Court, Hamburg asked, in essence, whether the definitive regulation is
invalid inasmuch as the Commission determined the normal value of the product
concerned on the basis of the prices actually paid or payable for a like
product in the European Union, without taking all the requisite care to
determine that value on the basis of the prices paid for that same product in a
market economy third country, contrary to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic
regulation.
The
Court held that Eurostat statistics available at the time of the investigation
suggest that products similar to the product concerned are produced in market
economy third countries in quantities which are not insignificant. Therefore,
it was the duty of the Commission to examine on its own initiative whether one
of those countries could constitute an analogue country for the purposes of
Article 2(7)(a) of the basic regulation. 
The
Court clarified that the Commission was not entitled to confine itself to
sending a single questionnaire to two Thai companies and conclude, because they
did not reply, that it was impossible to determine the normal value on the
basis of prices charged in a market economy third country. The Thai companies’
refusal to cooperate therefore in no way relieved the Commission of the task of
examining the relevant data relating to other market economy third countries. 
The
objective of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic regulation of seeking to find an
analogue country where the price for a like product is formed in circumstances
which are as similar as possible to those in the country of export would be
jeopardised if the concept of ‘reliable information made available’, within the
meaning of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic regulation, were restricted to
information provided by the complainant in its complaint or to the information
supplied subsequently by the parties concerned in the context of the
investigation. The Commission has an obligation to consider on its own
initiative all the information available.
The
Court also noted that the definitive regulation simply states that calculating
the normal value on the basis of prices in the Union was the only reasonable
basis, and fails to set out the grounds on which none of the market economy
third countries, other than Thailand, could be selected as an analogue country,
from which it is apparent that the Union institutions failed to examine with
due care the information to be obtained from the data of the Eurostat
statistics.
 
On
those grounds the Court ruled that the definitive regulation is invalid. 
11.5.1.   Steel
wire ropes and cables originating in India – C-552/10 P Usha Martin Ltd–
Judgment of 22 November 2012 (OJ C 26, 26.1.2013, p. 2)
The
appellant, Usha Martin Ltd, a company governed by Indian law which manufactures
steel wire ropes and exports them, inter alia, to the European Union, asked the
Court of Justice to set aside the judgment of the General Court of the European
Union in Case T-119/06 Usha Martin v. Council and Commission (‘the judgment
under appeal’), by which the General Court dismissed the action for annulment
of Commission Decision 2006/38/EC of 22 December 2005 amending Decision
1999/572/EC accepting undertakings offered in connection with the anti-dumping
proceedings concerning imports of steel wire ropes and cables originating,
inter alia, in India, and Council Regulation (EC) No 121/2006 of 23 January
2006 amending Regulation (EC) No 1858/2005 imposing a definitive anti-dumping
duty on imports of steel ropes and cables originating, inter alia, in India (OJ
2006 L 22, p. 1).
By
its single ground of appeal, the appellant submitted that the General Court was
wrong to hold that breach of an undertaking is in itself sufficient to trigger
its withdrawal and that, since such withdrawal was equivalent to the imposition
per se of anti-dumping duties, to which the principle of proportionality does
not apply, it follows that the lawfulness of the withdrawal of acceptance of an
undertaking cannot, as such, be called into question by reference to that
principle.
The
Court held that it is apparent from the judgment under appeal that the
appellant never contested the Commission’s finding that it had (i) failed to
report to the Commission the sales of the product concerned that were not
covered by the undertaking and (ii) included in Undertaking Invoices sales of
the product concerned not covered by the undertaking. The General Court was
therefore entitled to find that the appellant had failed to comply with the
terms of the undertaking. The Court ruled that given that it is common ground
between the parties that the appellant failed to comply with its undertaking as
regards both its obligation to submit quarterly reports on sales of the product
concerned not covered by the undertaking and its obligation not to issue
Undertaking Invoices for products not covered by the undertaking and, as a
consequence, the assessment as to whether there had been a breach of a primary
obligation attaching to the undertaking cannot be regarded as incorrect, the
Commission was entitled to withdraw acceptance of the undertaking and did not,
in so doing, infringe the principle of proportionality. That being so, the
Commission was also required, under Article 8(9) of the basic regulation, to
impose a definitive anti-dumping duty on the appellant.
Consequently,
the Court dismissed the appeal. 
11.5.2.   Glyphosate
originating in the People’s Republic of China – C-337/09 P Council v. Zhejiang
Xinan – Judgment of 19 July 2012 (OJ C 295, 29.9.2012, p. 2)
The
Council sought to set aside the judgment of 17 June 2009 in Case T‑498/04
Zhejiang Xinan Chemical Industrial Group v. Council, (‘the judgment under
appeal’) by which the General Court had annulled the Council Regulation (EC) No
1683/2004 of 24 September 2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on
imports of glyphosate originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘the
contested regulation’), in so far as it concerns Zhejiang Xinan Chemical
Industrial Group Co. Ltd (‘Xinanchem’).
 
The
Court of Justice confirmed the ruling of the General Court. It considered that
the mere fact that the State held the biggest block of shares in the company
and the State shareholder appointed the Board of Directors, most of whom were
State or State-linked officials by itself cannot be equated to 'significant
State interference' required under the first Market Economy Treatment (MET)
criterion as laid down in Article 2(7)(c) first indent of the basic regulation.
The Court of Justice also confirmed that the Commission and the Council are
entitled to take account of the fact that Xinanchem is State-controlled in
terms of company law in their assessment. Furthermore, according to the Court,
in the context of a non-market economy country, the fact that a company
established in that country is de facto controlled by State shareholders raises
serious doubts as to whether the company’s management is sufficiently
independent of the State to be able to take decisions regarding prices, costs
and inputs autonomously and in response to market signals. Moreover, the Court
stated that even if a company has taken decisions in response only to market
signals, if the State had interfered with the operation of market forces, e.g.
if it interfered directly with the price of raw materials or labour, this would
preclude the granting of MET to the company in question. 
However,
although the burden of proof that it operates under market economy conditions
falls on the producer, the Council and the Commission are required to examine
evidence submitted by the producer in order to determine whether that evidence
is sufficient to show that the producer satisfies conditions set in Article
2(7)(c) of the basic regulation.    
Finally,
the Court of Justice also upheld the General Court's finding that there was no
evidence that the export price stamping mechanism by the China Chamber of
Commerce Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers and Exporters (CCCMC) (a
prerequisite of exporting) had been imposed by the State, but rather that the
price was set by glyphosate producers who were members of the CCCMC and that it
had not entailed any actual restriction on Xinanchem's exports. It could thus
not amount to significant State interference.
In
the light of the above, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal.  
12.         Activities in the framework of the World Trade Organization
(WTO)
12.1.      Dispute settlement in the field of anti-dumping,
anti-subsidy and safeguards
12.1.1.   Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedure
The WTO provides for a rigorous procedure
for the settlement of disputes between WTO Members concerning the application
of the WTO agreements. The procedure is divided into two main stages. The first
stage, at the level of the WTO Members concerned, consists of a bilateral
consultation. Upon failure of the consultation, the second stage can be opened
by requesting the WTO Dispute Settlement Body to establish a panel. WTO
Members, other than the complaining and defending party, with an interest in a
given case, can intervene as "third parties" before the panel. The
panel issues a report, which can be appealed before the Appellate Body (AB)
(each appeal being heard by three members of a permanent seven-member body set
up by the Dispute Settlement Understanding). Both the panel report and the
report by the Appellate Body are adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)
unless the latter rejects the report by unanimity.
The findings of a panel or Appellate Body
report have to be implemented by the WTO Member whose measures have been found
to be inconsistent with the relevant WTO Agreements. If the complaining WTO Member
is not satisfied with the way the reports are implemented, it can ask for the
establishment of a so-called “implementation panel”. Here too, appeal against
the findings of the panel is possible.
It should be noted that the anti-dumping,
anti-subsidy and safeguards measures are among the most popular subject matters
in WTO dispute settlement. 
12.1.2.   Dispute settlement procedures against the Union
European Union — Anti-Dumping Measures
on Imports of Certain Fatty Alcohols from Indonesia (DS442)
On 27 July 2012, Indonesia requested
consultations with the European Union with respect to the imposition of
definitive and provisional anti-dumping measures by the European Union on the
importation of fatty alcohols and with respect to certain aspects of the investigation
underlying these measures.
In May 2013, Indonesia requested the
establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 May 2013, the DSB deferred the
establishment of a panel.
At its meeting on 25 June 2013, the DSB
established a panel. India, Korea and the United States reserved their third
party rights. Subsequently, Malaysia, Thailand and Turkey reserved their third
party rights.
12.2.      Other WTO activities
The Negotiating
Group on Rules held a formal meeting on 29 February 2012.  The sole
purpose of the meeting was to confirm the appointment of H.E. Mr. Wayne McCook
(Jamaica) the Chairperson-Designate by the Group. 
Subsequently, the Technical Group, a
subgroup of the negotiating group, was convened twice (in February and April
2012).
In parallel to these activities,
participation by the Commission services in the regular work of the
Anti-dumping, Subsidies and Countervailing and Safeguards Committees continued.
The Committees met twice in regular sessions to review notifications and raise
issues of special interest.  In the Subsidies and Countervailing Committee
meetings the EU’s New and full subsidy notifiaction which had been made in 2011
contined to be reviewed. This involved addressing many questions raised by
other WTO memebers on the substance of the notifiaction, which covered all
subsidies granted at EU level as well as by the EU’s  Member States.   The
informal technical group on Anti-dumping met a number of times during 2012. 
13.         Conclusion
Overall the level of activity in 2012 over
2011 decreased when based on the initiation of new cases – 19 as compared to 21.
 While there was a drop in the number of anti-dumping cases initiated over the
previous year of almost a quarter, the number of anti-subsidy cases increased
by a half from 4 to 6. There was also a slight decrease in the number of cases
terminated without the imposition of measures down 2 to 9 in 2011. 2012 saw the
number of reviews initiated increase significantly from 24 in 2011 to 37 in 2012.
 2012 saw a large increase also in the number of anti-circumvention cases
initiated from 3 the previous year to 13 in 2012. As with the previous year’s
reporting there was no safeguard activity in the EU. 
The Modernisation of the Trade Defence
instruments exercise, which had been launched in the autumn of 2011 continued
during 2012.  The work focussed on developing the Commission’s proposal by
drawing on the results of a public consultation as well as an evaluation study
on the EU's trade defence as well as the Commission’s own experience in administering
the instruments. 
The TDI services also continued their
information role through organising seminars aimed at third country officials
and held a number of bilateral contacts with industry. 
LIST OF
ANNEXES
 ANNEX A || New investigations initiated during the period 1 January – 31 December 2012 A.  Anti-dumping investigations B.  Anti-subsidy investigations 
 ANNEX B || New investigations initiated A.  by product sector during the period 2008 – 2012 (31 December) B.  by country of export during the period 2008 – 2012 (31 December) 
 ANNEX C || New investigations concluded by the imposition of provisional duties during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012 A.  Anti-dumping investigations B.  Anti-subsidy investigations 
 ANNEX D || New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012 A.  Anti-dumping investigations B.  Anti-subsidy investigations 
 ANNEX E || New investigations terminated without imposition of measures during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012 A.  Anti-dumping investigations B.  Anti-subsidy investigations 
 ANNEX F || Expiry reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 December 2012 
 ANNEX G || Interim reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 December 2012 
 ANNEX H || Other reviews concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012 
 ANNEX I || New exporter reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 December 2012 A.  Anti-dumping investigations B. Anti-subsidy investigations 
 ANNEX J || Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012 
 ANNEX K || Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012 
 ANNEX L || Safeguard investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012 
 ANNEX M || Undertakings accepted or repealed during the period 1 January – 31 December 2012 
 ANNEX N || Measures which expired during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012 
 ANNEX O || Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2012 A.  Ranked by product B.  Ranked by country 
 ANNEX P || Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2012 A.  Ranked by product B.  Ranked by country 
 ANNEX Q || Undertakings in force on 31 December 2012 A.  Ranked by product B.  Ranked by country 
 ANNEX R || Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2012 : A.  New investigations (ranked by product) B.  Review investigations (ranked by product) C.  Ranked by country (new & review investigations) 
 ANNEX S || Court cases A. Court cases pending before the Court of Justice and the General Court on 31 December 2012 B. Judgments, orders and other decisions rendered by the Court of Justice and the General Court on 31 December 2012 
 ANNEX T || Safeguard and surveillance measures in force on 31 December 2011 
ANNEX A
New
investigations initiated
during the period 1 January – 31 December 2012
A.        Anti-dumping
investigations (chronological by date of publication)
 Product || Country of origin || OJ Reference 
 Ceramic tableware || P.R. China || C 44 16.02.2012 p. 22 
 Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || P.R. China Thailand Indonesia || C 44 16.02.2012 p. 33 
 Welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless || F.Y.R.O.M. Turkey Ukraine || C 96 31.03.2012 p. 13 
 Stainless steel wires || India || C 240 10.08.2012 p. 6 
 Biodiesel || Argentina Indonesia || C 260 29.08.2012 p. 8 
 Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) || P.R. China || L 269 06.09.2012 p. 5 
 Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings || P.R. China Taiwan || C 342 10.11.2012 p. 2 
B.        Anti-subsidy
investigations (chronological by date of publication)
 Product || Country of origin || OJ Reference 
 Organic coated steel || P.R. China || C 52 22.02.2012 p. 4 
 Bicycles || P.R. China || C 122 27.04.2012 p. 9 
 Stainless steel wires || India || C 240 10.08.2012 p. 15 
 Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) || P.R. China || C 340 08.11.2012 p. 13 
 Biodiesel || Argentina Indonesia || C 342 10.11.2012 p. 12 
ANNEX B
A.        New
investigations initiated by product sector during the period 2008 – 2012
 Product sector || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 
 Chemical and allied || 0 || 9 || 7 || 11 || - 
 Textiles and allied || - || 3 || - || - || - 
 Wood and paper || - || - || 2 || - || - 
 Electronics || - || 1 || 2 || - || 2 
 Other mechanical engineering || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 || 1 
 Iron and Steel || 11 || 4 || 3 || 6 || 11 
 Other metals || 5 || 1 || - || 1 || - 
 Other || 3 || 2 || 3 || 2 || 5 
   || 20 || 21 || 18 || 21 || 19 
 Of which           anti-dumping || 18 || 15 || 15 || 17 || 13 
                         anti-subsidy || 2 || 6 || 3 || 4 || 6 
B.        New
investigations initiated by country of export during the period 2008 – 2012
 Country of origin || 2008 || 2009 || 2010 || 2011 || 2012 
 Argentina || 0 || 0 || 0 || 0 || 2 
 Armenia || 1 || - || - || - || - 
 Australia || - || - || - || - || - 
 Belarus || 1 || - || - || 1 || - 
 Bosnia & Herzegovina || - || - || 1 || - || - 
 Brazil || 1 || - || - || - || - 
 China (People's Republic of) || 6 || 7 || 10 || 8 || 7 
 Croatia || - || - || - || - || - 
 Egypt || - || - || - || - || - 
 Guatemala || - || - || - || - || - 
 Hong Kong || - || - || - || - || - 
 India || - || 2 || 3 || 3 || 2 
 Indonesia || - || - || 1 || - || 3 
 Iran || - || 2 || - || - || - 
 Japan || - || - || - || - || - 
 Kazakhstan || - || - || - || 1 || - 
 Korea (Rep. of) || 1 || 1 || - || - || - 
 F.Y.R.O.M. || - || - || - || - || 1 
 Malaysia || - || 2 || 1 || - || - 
 Moldova (Rep. of) || 1 || - || - || - || - 
 Norway || - || - || - || - || - 
 Oman || - || - || - || 2 || - 
 Pakistan || - || 2 || - || - || - 
 Philippines || - || - || - || - || - 
 Russia || - || - || - || 1 || - 
 Saudi Arabia || - || - || - || 2 || - 
 South Africa || - || - || - || - || - 
 Taiwan || 1 || 1 || - || - || 1 
 Thailand || 1 || 2 || 1 || - || 1 
 Turkey || 2 || - || - || 1 || 1 
 Ukraine || 1 || - || - || - || 1 
 U.A.E. || - || 2 || - || - || - 
 U.S.A. || 4 || - || 1 || 2 || - 
 Vietnam || - || - || - || - || - 
   || 20 || 21 || 18 || 21 || 19 
ANNEX C
New
investigations concluded by the imposition of provisional duties
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
A.       Anti-dumping
investigations (chronological by date of publication)

 Product || Country of origin || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 Aluminium radiators || P.R. China || Commission Regulation (EU) No 402/2012 10.05.2012 || L 124 11.05.2012 p. 17 
 Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel || Russia Turkey || Commission Regulation (EU) No 699/2012 30.07.2012 corrected by L 250, 15.09.2012, p. 20 || L 203 31.07.2012 p. 37 
 Aluminium Foil in small rolls || P.R. China || Commission Regulation (EU) No 833/2012 17.07.2012 || L 251 18.09.2012 p. 29 
 Organic coated steel products || P.R. China || Commission Regulation (EU) No 845/2012 18.07.2012 || L 252 19.09.2012 p. 33 
 Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || P.R. China Thailand || Commission Regulation (EU) No 1071/2012 14.11.2012 || L 318 15.11.2012 p. 10 
 Ceramic tableware and kitchenware || P.R. China || Commission Regulation (EU) No 1072/2012 14.11.2012 || L 318 15.11.2012 p. 28 
B.       Anti-subsidy
investigations (chronological by date of publication)
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || India || Commission Regulation (EU) No 115/2012 09.02.2012 || L 38 11.02.2012 p. 6 
ANNEX D
New
investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties
during the period 1 January – 31 December 2012
A.       Anti-dumping
investigations (chronological by date of publication)
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 Oxalic acid || P.R. China India || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 325/2012 12.04.2012 || L 106 18.04.2012 p. 1 
 Aluminium radiators || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1039/2012 29.10.2012 || L 310 09.11.2012 p. 1 
B.       Anti-subsidy
investigations (chronological by date of publication)
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
ANNEX E
New
investigations terminated without the imposition of measures
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
A.       Anti-dumping
investigations (chronological by date of publication)
 Product || Country of origin || Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Vinyl acetate || U.S.A. || Commission Dec. No 2012/24/EU 11.01.2012 || L 8 12.01.2012 p. 36 
 Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || India || Commission Dec. No 2012/163/EU 22.03.2012 || L84 23.03.2012 p. 36 
 Sodium cyclamate || P.R. China || Commission Dec. No 2012/185/EU 04.04.2012 || L 99 05.04.2012 p.33 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || Belarus || Commission Dec. No 2012/247/EU 08.05.2012 || L 121 08.05.2012 p. 36 
 Certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics || P.R. China || Commission Dec. No 2012/265/EU 22.05.2012 || L 131 22.05.2012 p. 7 
 Tartaric acid || P.R. China || Commission Dec. No 2012/289/EU 04.06.2012 || L 144 05.06.2012 p. 43 
 Soy protein || P.R. China || Commission Dec. No 2012/343/EU 27.06.2012 || L 168 28.06.2012 p. 38 
B.       Anti-subsidy
investigations (chronological by date of publication)
 Product || Country of origin || Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Certain stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || India || Commission Dec. No 2012/278/EU 24.05.2012 || L 134 24.05.2012 p. 31 
 Bioethanol || USA || Commission Dec. No 2012/825/EU 20.12.2012 || L 352 21.12.2012 p. 70 
ANNEX F
Expiry
reviews initiated or concluded
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
(chronological by date of publication)
 Initiated 
 Product || Country of origin || OJ Reference 
 Ethanolamines || U.S.A. || C 18 21.01.2012 p. 16 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || India Indonesia Malaysia Taiwan Thailand || C 55 24.02.2012 p. 4 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || India || C 55 24.02.2012 p. 14 
 Tungsten electrodes || P.R. China || C 71 09.03.2012 p. 23 
 Ironing boards || P.R. China Ukraine || C 120 25.04.2012 p. 9 
 Sweet corn || Thailand || C 175 19.06.2012 p.22 
 Peroxosulphates (Persulphates) || P.R. China || C 305 10.10.2012 p. 15 
 Iron or steel ropes and cables || Russia || C 330 27.10.2012 p. 5 
 Dicyandiamide (DCD) || P.R. China || C 349 15.11.2012 p. 10 
 Concluded: confirmation of duty 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || P.R. China Taiwan || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 2/2012 04.01.2012 || L 5 07.01.2012 p. 1 
 Steel ropes and cables || P.R. China Ukraine Morocco (ext.) Moldova (ext.) Korea (Rep. of) (ext.) || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 102/2012 27.01.2012 || L 36 09.02.2012 p. 1 
 Tartaric acid || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 349/2012 24.04.2012 || L 110 24.04.2012 p. 3 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || Russia Ukraine || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 585/2012 26.06.2012 || L 174 04.07.2012 p. 5 
 Lever arch mechanisms || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 796/2012 30.08.2012 || L 238 04.09.2012 p. 5 
 Chamois leather || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1153/2012 03.12.2012 || L 334 06.12.2012 p. 31 
 Concluded: termination and repeal of the measures 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Steel ropes and cables || South Africa || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 102/2012 27.01.2012 || L 36 09.02.2012 p. 1 
 (Tartaric acid[26] || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 332/2012 13.04.2012 || L 108 20.04.2012 p. 1) 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || Croatia || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 585/2012 26.06.2012 || L 174 04.07.2012 p. 5 
 Plastic sacks and bags || P.R. China Thailand || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 627/2012 10.07.2012 || L 182 13.07.2012 p. 6 
              
ANNEX G
Interim
reviews initiated or concluded
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
(chronological by date of publication)
 Initiated 
 Product || Country of origin || OJ Reference 
 Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts || P.R. China || C 41 14.02.2012 p. 14 
 Bicycles || P.R. China || C 71 09.03.2012 p. 10 
 Ethanolamines || U.S.A. || C 103 11.04.2012 p.8 
 Ironing boards || Ukraine || C 166 12.06.2012 p. 3 
 Stainless steel bars and rods (AS) || India || C 239 09.08.2012 p. 2 
 Concluded: amendment of duty 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) film || India || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 13/2012 06.01.2012 || L 8 12.01.2012 p. 17 
 Sodium cyclamate || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 398/2012 07.05.2012 || L 124 11.05.2012 p. 1 
 Tartaric acid || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 626/2012 26.06.2012 || L 182 13.07.2012 p. 1 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || Ukraine || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 795/2012 28.08.2012 || L 238 04.09.2012 p. 1 
 PSC wires and strands || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 986/2012 22.10.2012 || L 297 26.10.2012 p.1 
 Seamless steel pipes, of iron or steel || Russia || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1269/2012 21.12.2012 || L 357 28.12.2012 p. 1 
 Concluded: termination without amendment of duty 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Ferro-silicon || Russia || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 60/2012 16.01.2012 || L 22 25.01.2012 p. 1 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || India || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 559/2012 26.06.2012 || L 168 28.6.2012 p. 6 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || India || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 560/2012 26.06.2012 || L 168 28.06.2012 p. 14 
 Plastic sacks and bags || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 627/2012 10.07.2012 || L 182 13.07.2012 p. 6 
 Concluded: termination and repeal of measures 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Furfuraldehyde || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 541/2012 21.06.2012 || L 165 26.06.2012 p. 4 
ANNEX H
Other
reviews initiated or concluded
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
(chronological by date of publication)
 Initiated 
 Product || Country of origin || OJ Reference 
 Ironing boards[27] || P.R. China || C 63 02.03.2012 p. 10 
 Iron or steel fasteners[28] || P.R. China || C 160 06.06.2012 p. 19 
 Citrus fruits[29] || P.R. China || C 175 19.06.2012 p. 19 
 Ethanolamines[30] || USA || C 314 18.10.12 p. 12 
 Concluded: confirmation/amendment of duty 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Ceramic tiles[31] || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 567/2012 26.06.2012 || L 169 29.06.2012 p. 11 
 Iron or steel fasteners2 || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 924/2012 04.10.2012 || L 275 10.10.2012 p. 1 
 Ironing boards5 || P.R. China || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 987/2012 22.10.2012 || L 297 26.10.2012 p. 5 
ANNEX I
New
exporter reviews initiated or concluded
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
(chronological by date of publication)
A.       Anti-dumping
investigations
 Initiated 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Taiwan || Council Reg. (EU) No 653/2012 17.07.2012 || L 188 18.07.2012 p. 8 
 Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Steel ropes and cables || P.R. China (Korea (Rep. of)) || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 558/2012 26.06.2012 || L 168 28.06.2012 p. 3 
 Iron or steel fasteners || P.R. China (Malaysia) || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 693/2012 25.07.2012 || L 203 31.07.2012 p. 23 
 Concluded: termination 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
B.       Anti-subsidy
investigations ("accelerated" investigations)
 Initiated 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
 Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
 Concluded: termination 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
ANNEX J
Anti-absorption
investigations initiated or concluded
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
(chronological by date of publication)
 Initiated 
 Product || Country of origin || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
 Concluded with increase of duty 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
 Concluded without increase of duty / termination 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
ANNEX K
Anti-circumvention
investigations initiated or concluded
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
(chronological by date of publication)
 Initiated 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres || P. R. China (Thailand Taiwan) || Commission Reg. (EU) No 437/2012 23.05.012 || L 134 24.05.2012 p. 12 
 Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || P. R. China (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines) || Commission Reg. (EU) No 502/2012 13.06.2012 || L 153 14.06.2012 p. 8 
 Lighters || P. R. China (Vietnam) || Commission Reg. (EU) No 548/2012 25.06. 2012 || L 165 26.06.2012 p. 37 
 Silicon metal (silicon) || P. R. China (Taiwan) || Commission Reg. (EU) No 596/2012 05.07. 2012 || L 176 06.07.2012 p. 50 
 Bicycles || P. R. China (Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia) || Commission Reg. (EU) No 875/2012 25.09. 2012 || L 258 26.09.2012 p. 21 
 Aluminium foil in big rolls || P. R. China || Commission Reg. (EU) No 973/2012 22.10. 2012 || L 293 23.10.12 p. 28 
 Molybdenum wires || P. R. China || Commission Reg. (EU) 1236/2012 19.12. 2012 || L 350 20.12.2012 p. 51 
 Concluded with extension of duty 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Molybdenum wires || P. R. China (Malaysia) || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 14/2012 09.01.2012 || L 8 12.01.2012 p. 22 
 Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres || P. R. China (Malaysia) || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 672/2012 16.07.2012 || L 196 24.07.2012 p. 1 
 Concluded without extension of duty / termination 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Molybdenum wires || P. R. China (Switzerland) || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 14/2012 09.01.2012 || L 8 12.01.2012 p. 22 
 Exemptions granted and/or rejected 
 Product || Country of origin (consigned from) || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
ANNEX L
Safeguard
investigations initiated and concluded
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
(chronological by date of publication)
 New investigations initiated 
 Product || Country of origin || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
 New investigations terminated without imposition of measures 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
 Issue of licences 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
 New investigations initiated 
 Product || Country of origin || Date of expiry 
 None ||   ||   ||   
ANNEX M
Undertakings
accepted or repealed
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
(chronological by date of publication)
 Undertakings accepted 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
 Undertakings withdrawn or repealed 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 Citric Acid || P.R. China || Commission Dec. No. 2012/501/EU 7 September 2012 || L 244, 8.9.2012, p. 27 
 Ammonium nitrate || Russia || Commisison Dec. No. 2012/629/EU 10 October 2012 || L 277, 11.10.2012, p. 8 
 Undertakings which expired/lapsed 
 Product || Country of origin || Original measure (s) & OJ Reference || OJ Reference 
 Ammonium nitrate || Ukraine || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 512/2010 (L 150 16.6.2010, p. 24) L 150, 16.06.2010 || C 171 16.06.2012 
ANNEX N
Measures
which expired / lapsed
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2012
(chronological by date of publication)
A.       Anti-dumping
investigations (chronological by date of publication)
 Product || Country of origin || Original measure & OJ Reference || OJ Reference 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Korea (Rep. of) || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 (L 59, 27.2.2007, p. 1) corrected by L 215, 18.8.2007, p. 27 || C 57, 25.02.2012, p. 10 
 Frozen strawberries || P.R. China || Council Reg. (EC) No 407/2007 (L 100, 17.4.2007, p. 1) || C 110 17.04.2012 p. 7 
 Ammonium nitrate || Ukraine || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 512/2010 (L 150, 16.6.2010, p. 24) || C 171 16.06.2012 p. 25 
 Saddles || P.R. China || Council Reg. (EC) No 691/2007 (L 160, 21.6.2007, p. 1) || C 180 21.06.2012 p. 14 
 Peroxosulphates (Persulphates) || Taiwan USA || Council Reg. (EC) No 1184/2007 (L 265, 11.10.2007, p. 1) || C 307 11.10.2012 p. 26 
 Polyethylene terephthalate film (PET film) || India Brazil Israel || Council Regulation (EC) No 1292/2007 (L 288, 06.11.2007, p. 1) || C 336 06.11.2012 p. 19 
 Silico-manganese (including ferro- silico-manganese) || P.R. China Kazakhstan || Council Regulation (EC) No 1420/2007 (L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 5) || C 375 05.12.2012 p. 17 
 Gas-fuelled, non-refillable pocket flint lighters and certain refillable pocket flint lighters || P.R. China Taiwan || Council Regulation (EC) No 1458/2007 (L 326, 12.12.2007, p. 1) || NoE C 382 12.10.2012 p. 12 
B.       Anti-subsidy
investigations (chronological by date of publication)
 Product || Country of origin || Original measure & OJ Reference || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
ANNEX O
Definitive
anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2012
A.
Ranked by product (alphabetical)
 Product || Origin || Measure || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 Aluminium foil || Armenia Brazil P.R. China   Brazil || Duties       Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 925/2009 24.09.2009   Commission Dec. No 2009/736/EC 05.10.2009 || L 262 06.10.2009 p. 1   L 262 06.10.2009 p. 50 
 Aluminium radiators || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1039/2012 29.10.2012 || L 310 09.11.2012 p. 1 
 Aluminium road wheels || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 964/2010 25.10.2010 || L 282 28.10.2010 p. 1 
 Ammonium nitrate || Russia || Duties                                             Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 658/2002 15.04.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 945/2005 21.06.2005 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 661/2008 08.07.2008 corrected by L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 59 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 662/2008 08.07.2008 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 989/2009 19.10.2009 Commission Dec. No 2008/577/EC 04.07.2008 corrected by L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 59 || L 102 18.04.2002 p. 1 L 160 23.06.2005 p. 1 L 185 12.07.2008 p. 1 L 185 12.07.2008 p. 35 L 278 23.10.2009 p. 1 L 185 12.07.2008 p. 43 
 Barium carbonate || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1175/2005 18.07.2005 corrected by L 181, 04.07.2006, p. 111 as maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 831/2011 16.08.2011 || L 189 21.07.2005 p. 15 L 214, 19.08.2011 p. 1 
 Bicycles || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1524/2000 10.07.2000 and extended to bicycle parts by Council Reg. (EC) No 71/97 10.01.97 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1095/2005 12.07.2005 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 171/2008 25.02.2008 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 990/2011 03.10.2011   || L 175 14.07.2000 p. 39 L 16 18.01.97 p. 1 L 183 14.07.2005 p. 1 L 55 28.02.2008 p. 1   L 261 06.10.2011 p.2 
 Bicycle parts (extension to bicycles) || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 71/97 10.01.97 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1095/2005 12.07.2005 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 171/2008 25.02.2008 || L 16 18.01.97 p. 1   L 183 14.07.05 p. 1   L 55 28.02.08 p. 1 
 Biodiesel || U.S.A. Canada (ext.) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 599/2009 07.07.2009 and extended to imports consigned from Canada by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 444/2011 05.05.2011 || L 179 10.07.2009 p. 26 L 122 11.05.2011 p. 12 
 Candles, tapers and the like || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 393/2009 11.05.2009 || L 119 14.05.2009 p. 1 
 Cargo scanning systems || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 510/2010 14.06.2010 || L 150 16.06.2010 p. 1 
 Ceramic tiles || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 917/2011 12.09.2011 as last amended by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 567/2012 26.06.2012 || L 238 15.09.2011 p. 1 OJ L 169 29.06.2012 p. 11 
 Chamois leather || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1338/2006 08.09.2006 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1153/2012 03.12.2012 || L 251 14.09.2006 p. 1 L 334 06.12.2012 p. 31 
 Citric acid || P.R. China || Duties       Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 1193/2008 01.12.2008 Commission Dec. No 2008/899/EC 02.12.2008 corrected by C 346, 26.11.2011, p. 7 and 8, corrected by C 3, 06.01.2012, p. 10 and 11, corrected by C 64, 03.03.2012, p. 25, corrected by C 74, 13.03.2012, p. 16 || L 323 03.12.2008 p. 1 L 323 03.12.2008 p. 62 
 Coated fine paper || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 451/2011 06.05.2011 || L 128 14.05.2011 p. 1 
 Coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 239/2008 17.03.2008 || L 75 18.03.2008 p. 22 
 Dicyandiamide || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1331/2007 13.11.2007 || L 296 15.11.2007 p. 1 
 Dihydromyrcenol || India || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 63/2008 21.01.2008 || L 23 26.01.2008 p. 1 
 Ethanolamines || U.S.A. || Duties (2 years) || Council Reg. (EC) No 1583/2006 23.10.2006 as maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 54/2010 19.01.2010 || L 294 25.10.2006 p.2 L 17 22.01.2010 p. 1 
 Fasteners (iron or steel) || P.R. China Malaysia (ext.) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 91/2009 26.01.2009 and extended to such imports consigned from Malaysia by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 723/2011 18.07.2011 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 693/2012 25.07.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 924/2012 04.10.2012 || L 29 31.01.2009 p. 1 L 194 26.07.2011 p. 6 L 203 31.07.2012 P. 23 L 275 10.10.2012, p. 1 
 Fatty alcohols and their blends || India Indonesia Malaysia || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1138/2011 08.11.2011 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1241/2012 11.12.2012 || L 293 11.11.2011 p. 1 L 352 21.12.2012 p. 1 
 Ferro-silicon || P.R. China Egypt Kazakhstan Russia || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 172/2008 25.02.2008 || L 55 28.02.2008 p. 6 
 Glass fibres (certain open mesh fabrics) || P.R. China Malaysia (ext) || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 791/2011 03.08.2011 and extended to such imports consigned from Malaysia by Council Reg. (EC) No 672/2012 16.07.2012 || L 204 09.08.2011 p. 1 L 196 24.07.2012 p. 1 
 Glass fibre products (continuous filament) || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 248/2011 09.03.2011 || L 67 15.03.2011 p. 1 
 Graphite electrode systems || India || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1629/2004 13.09.2004 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1354/2008 18.12.2008 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1186/2010 13.12.2010 || L 295 18.09.2004 p. 10   L 350 30.12.2008 p. 24   L 332 16.12.2010 p. 17 
 Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts || P.R. China Thailand (ext) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1174/2005 18.07.2005 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 684/2008 17.07.2008 and extended to such imports consigned from Thailand by Council Reg. (EC) No 499/2009 11.06.2009 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1008/2011 10.10.2011 || L 189 21.07.2005 p. 1   L 192 19.07.2008 p. 1       L 151 16.06.2009 p. 1   L 268 13.10.2011 p.1 
 Ironing boards || P.R. China Ukraine || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 452/2007 23.04.2007, as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 77/2010 19.01.2010 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 270/2010 29.03.2010 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 580/2010 29.06.2010, and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1241/2010 20.12.2010 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 987/2012 22.10.2012 || L 109 26.04.2007 p. 12 L 24 28.01.2010 p. 1   L 84 31.03.2010 p. 13 L 168 02.07.2010 p. 12 L 338 22.12.2010 p. 8 L 297 26.10.2012 p. 5 
   || P.R. China (Since Hardware) || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1243/2010 20.12.2010 || L 338 22.12.2010 p. 22 
 Lever arch mechanisms || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1136/2006 24.07.2006 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 796/2012 30.08.2012 || L 205 27.07.2006 p. 1 L 238 04.09.2012 p. 5 
 Lighters (non-refillable and refillable) || P.R. China Taiwan || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1458/2007 12.12.2007 || L 326 12.12.2007 p. 1 
 Manganese dioxides || South Africa || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 221/2008 10.03.2008 || L 69 13.03.2008 p. 1 
 Melamine || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 457/2011 10.05.2011 || L 124 13.05.2011 p. 2 
 Molybdenum wires || P.R. China Malaysia (ext.) || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 511/2010 14.06.2010 and extended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 14/2012 12.01.2012 || L 150 16.06.2010 p. 17   L 8 12.01.2012 p. 22 
 Monosodium glutamate || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1187/2008 27.11.2008 || L 322 02.12.2008 p. 1 
 Okoumé plywood || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1942/2004 02.11.2004 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 82/2011 31.01.2011 || L 336 12.11.2004 p. 4   L 28 02.02.2011 p. 1 
 Oxalic acid || P.R. China India || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 325/2012 12 April 2012 || L 106 18.04.2012 p. 1 
 Peroxosulphates || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1184/2007 09.10.2007 || L 265 11.10.2007 p. 1 
 Polyester yarn (high tenacity) || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1105/2010 29.11.2010 || L 315 01.12.2010 p. 1 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || India Indonesia Malaysia Taiwan Thailand India Indonesia || Duties Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 22.02.2007 corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 and amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 906/2011 02.09.2011 Commission Dec. (EC) No 745/2000 29.11.2000 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 1 L 232 09.09.2011 p. 19 L 301  30.11.2000 p. 88 
   || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1467/2004 13.08.2004 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 2167/2005 20.12.2005 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1030/2010 17.11.2010 || L 271 19.08.2004 p. 1 L 345 28.12.2005 p. 11 L 300 17.11.2010 p. 1 
 Powdered activated carbon (PAC) || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1011/2002 10.06.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 931/2003 26.05.2003 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 649/2008 08.07.2008 || L 155 14.06.2002 p. 1 L 133 29.05.2003 p. 36 L 181 10.07.2008 p. 1 
 PSC wires and strands || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 383/2009 05.05.2009 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 986/2011 22.10.2012 || L 118 13.05.2009 p. 1 L 297 26.10.2012 p.1 
 Ring binder mechanisms || Thailand || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 792/2011 05.08.2011 || L 204 09.08.2011 p.11 
   || P.R. China Vietnam (ext.) Laos (ext.) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 2074/2004 29.11.2004 extended to imports from Vietnam by Council Reg. (EC) No 1208/2004 28.06.2004 and extended to imports from Laos by Council Reg. (EC) No 33/2006 09.01.2006 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 818/2008 13.08.2008 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 157/2010 22.02.2010 || L 359 04.12.2004 p. 11 L 232 01.07.2004 p. 1 L 7 12.01.2006 p. 1 L 221 19.08.2008 p. 1 L 49 26.02.2010 p. 1 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || Russia Ukraine || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 954/2006 27.06.2006 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 812/2008 11.08.2008 and Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 540/2012 21.06.2012 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 795/2012 28.08.2012 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 5 21.12.2012 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 585/2012 26.06.2012 || L 175 29.06.2006 p. 4 L 220 15.08.2008 p. 1 L 165 26.06.2012 p. 1 L 238 04.09.2012 p. 1 L 357, 28.12.2012 p. 1 L 174 04.07.2012 p. 5 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of iron or steel || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 926/2009 24.09.2009 || L 262 06.10.2009 p. 19 
 Seamless pipes and tubes, of stainless steel || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1331/2011 14.12.2011 || L 336 20.12.2011 p. 6 
 Silicon metal || P.R. China Korea (Rep. of) (ext.) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 398/2004 02.03.2004 extended to imports of silicon consigned from Korea (Rep. of) by Council Reg. (EC) No 42/2007 15.01.2007 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 467/2010 25.05.2010 || L 66 04.03.2004 p. 15 L 13 19.01.2007 p. 1   L 131 29.05.2010 p. 1 
 Sodium cyclamate || P.R. China Indonesia || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 435/2004 08.03.2004 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 492/2010 03.06.2010 and amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 398/2012 07.05.2012 || L 72 11.03.2004 p. 1 L 140 08.06.2010 p. 2 L 124 11.05.2012 p. 1 
 Sodium gluconate || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 965/2010 25.10.2010 || L 282 28.10.2010 p. 24 
 Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || P.R. China Taiwan || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1890/2005 14.11.2005 corrected by L 256, 02.10.2007, p. 31 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 2/2012 04.01.2012 || L 302 19.11.2005 p. 1 L 5 07.01.2012 p. 1 
 Steel ropes and cables || P.R. China Ukraine Korea (Rep. of) (ext.) Moldova (Rep. of) (ext.) Morocco (ext.)   || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1858/2005 08.11.2005 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1459/2007 10.12.2007 extended as concerns Ukraine to such imports consigned from Moldova (Rep. of) by Council Reg. (EC) No 760/2004 22.04.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Morocco by Council Reg. (EC) No 1886/2004 25.10.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Korea (Rep. of) by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 400/2010 26.04.2010 corrected by L 332, 15.12.2011 and corrected by L 140, 30.05.2012, p. 74 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 102/2012 27.02.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 558/2012 26.06.2012 || L 299 16.11.2005 p. 1 L 326 12.12.2007 p. 18 L 120 24.04.2004 p. 1 L 328 30.10.2004 p. 1 L 117 11.05.2010 p. 1 L 36 09.02.2012 p. 1 L 168 28.06.2012 p. 3 
   || Russia || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1279/2007 30.10.2007 corrected by L 96, 15.04.2009, p. 39 || L 285 31.10.2007 p. 1 
 Sulphanilic acid || P.R. China India       India || Duties       Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 1339/2002 22.07.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 123/2006 23.01.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1000/2008 13.10.2008 Commission Dec. No 2006/37/EC 05.12.2005   || L 196 25.07.2002 p. 11 L 22 26.01.2006 p. 5 L 275 16.10.2008 p. 1 L 22 26.01.2006 p. 52 
 Sweet corn (prepared or preserved, in kernels) || Thailand || Duties               || Council Reg. (EC) No 682/3007 18.06.2007 corrected by L 252 of 27.09.2007, p. 7 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 954/2008 25.09.2008 and by Council Reg. (EC) No 847/2009 15.09.2009   || L 159 20.06.2007 p. 14 L 260 30.09.2008 p. 1 L 246 18.09.2009 p. 1 
 Synthetic fibre ropes || India || Duties (3 years) || Council Reg. (EC) No 1736/2004 08.10.2004 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1242/2010 20.12.2010 || L 311 08.10.2004 p. 1   L 338 22.12.2010 p. 10 
 Tartaric acid || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 130/2006 23.01.2006 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 150/2008 18.02.2008 and by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 332/2012 13.04.2012 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 349/2012 16.04.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 626/2012 26.06.2012 || L 23 27.01.2006 p. 1 L 48 22.02.2008 p. 1 L 108 20.04.2012 p. 1 L 110 24.04.2012 p. 3 L 182 13.07.2012 p. 1 
 Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA) || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1631/2005 03.10.2005 amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 855/2010 27.09.2010 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1389/2011 || L 261 07.10.2005 p. 1 L 254 29.09.2010 p.1 L 346 30.12.2011 p. 6 
 Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel || P.R. China Thailand Taiwan (ext.) Indonesia (ext.) Sri Lanka (ext.) Philippines (ext.) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 964/2003 02.06.2003 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1496/2004 18.08.2004 and extended as concerns China to imports consigned from Indonesia by Council Reg. (EC) 2052/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from Sri Lanka by Council Reg. (EC) No 2053/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from the Philippines by Council Reg. (EC) No 655/2006 27.04.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 803/2009 27.08.2009 || L 139 06.06.2003 p. 1 L 275 25.08.2004 p. 1 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 4 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 9 L 116 29.04.2006 p. 1   L 233 04.09.2009 p. 1 
   || Korea (Rep. of) Malaysia || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1514/2002 19.08.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 778/2003 06.05.2003 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1001/2008 13.10.2008 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 363/2010 26.04.2010 || L 228 24.08.2002 p. 1 L 114 08.05.2003 p. 1   L 275 16.10.2008 p. 18   L 107 29.04.2010 p. 1 
 Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 2268/2004 22.12.2004 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1275/2005 25.07.2005 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 287/2011 21.03.2011 || L 395 31.12.2004 p. 56 L 202 03.08.2005 p. 1   L 78 24.03.2011 p. 1 
 Tungsten electrodes || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 260/2007 09.03.2007   || L 72 13.03.2007 p. 1 
 Welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel || Thailand Ukraine || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1697/2002 23.09.2002 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1256/2008 19.12.2008   || L 259 27.09.2002 p. 8   L 343 19.12.2008 p. 1 
 Welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel || Belarus P.R. China Russia || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1256/2008 16.12.2008 || L 343 19.12.2008 p. 1 
 Wire rod || P.R. China || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 703/2009 27.07.2009 || L 203 05.08.2009 p. 1 
 Zeolite A powder || Bosnia and Herzegovina || Duties       Undertakings || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 464/2011 11.05.2011   Commission Dec. No 2011/279/EU 13.05.2011 || L 125 14.05.2011 p. 1   L 125 14.05.2011 p. 26 
B.
Ranked by country (alphabetical)
 Origin || Product || Measure || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 Armenia || Aluminium foil || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 925/2009 24.09.2009 || L 262 06.10.2009 p. 1 
 Belarus || Welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1256/2008 16.12.2008 || L 343 19.12.2008 p. 1 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina || Zeolite A powder || Duties       Undertakings || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 464/2011 11.05.2011   Commission Dec. No 2011/279/EU 13.05.2011 || L 125 14.05.2011 p. 1   L 125 14.05.2011 p. 26 
 Brazil || Aluminium foil || Duties       Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 925/2009 24.09.2009 Commission Dec. No 2009/736/EC 05.10.2009 || L 262 06.10.2009 p. 1   L 262 06.10.2009 p. 50 
 Canada || Biodiesel (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 599/2009 07.07.2009 and extended to imports consigned from Canada by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 444/2011 05.05.2011 || L 179 10.07.2009 p. 26     L 122 11.05.2011 p. 12 
 P.R. China || Aluminium foil || Duties       Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 925/2009 24.09.2009 Commission Dec. No 2009/736/EC 05.10.2009 || L 262 06.10.2009 p. 1   L 262 06.10.2009 p. 50 
   || Aluminium radiators || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1039/2012 29.10.2012 || L 310 09.11.2012 p. 1 
   || Aluminium road wheels || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 964/2010 25.10.2010 || L 282 28.10.2010 p. 1 
   || Barium carbonate || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1175/2005 18.07.2005 corrected by L 181, 04.07.2006, p. 111 as maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 831/2011 16.08.2011 || L 189 21.07.2005 p. 15 L 214, 19.08.2011 p. 1 
   || Bicycles || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1524/2000 10.07.2000 and extended to bicycle parts by Council Reg. (EC) No 71/97 10.01.97 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1095/2005 12.07.2005 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 171/2008 25.02.2008 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 990/2011 03.10.2011 || L 175 14.07.2000 p. 39 L 16 18.01.97 p. 1 L 183 14.07.2005 p. 1   L 55 28.02.2008 p. 1   L 261 06.10.2011 p.2 
   || Bicycle parts || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 71/97 10.01.97 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1095/2005 12.07.2005 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 171/2008 25.02.2008 || L 16 18.01.97 p. 1 
   || Candles, tapers and the like || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 393/2009 11.05.2009 || L 119 14.05.2009 p. 1 
   || Cargo scanning systems || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 510/2010 14.06.2010 || L 150 16.06.2010 p. 1 
   || Ceramic tiles || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 917/2011 12.09.2011 || L 238 15.09.2011 p. 1 
   || Chamois leather || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1338/2006 08.09.2006 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1153/2012 03.12.2012 || L 251 14.09.2006 p. 1 L 334 06.12.2012 p. 31 
   || Citric acid || Duties Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 1193/2008 01.12.2008 Commission Dec. No 2008/899/EC 02.12.2008 corrected by C 346, 26.11.2011, p. 7 and 8, corrected by C 3, 06.01.2012, p. 10 and 11, corrected by C 64, 03.03.2012, p. 25, corrected by C 74, 13.03.2012, p. 16 || L 323 03.12.2008 p. 1 L 323 03.12.2008 p. 62 
   || Coated fine paper || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 451/2011 06.05.2011 || L 128 14.05.2011 p. 1 
   || Coke of coal in pieces with a diameter of more than 80 mm || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 239/2008 17.03.2008 || L 75 18.03.2008 p. 22 
   || Dicyandiamide || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1331/2007 13.11.2007 || L 296 15.11.2007 p. 1 
   || Fasteners (iron or steel) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 91/2009 26.01.2009 and extended to such imports consigned from Malaysia by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 723/2011 18.07.2011 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 693/2012 25.07.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 924/2012 04.10.2012 || L 29 31.01.2009 p. 1 L 194 26.07.2011 p. 6 L 203 31.07.2012 P. 23 L 275 10.10.2012, p. 1 
   || Ferro-silicon || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 172/2008 25.02.2008 || L 55 28.02.2008 p. 6 
   || Glass fibres (certain open mesh fabrics) || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 791/2011 03.08.2011 and extended to such imports consigned from Malaysia by Council Reg. (EC) No 672/2012 16.07.2012 || L 204 09.08.2011 p. 1 L 196 24.07.2012 p. 1 
   || Glass fibre products (continuous filament) || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 248/2011 09.03.2011 || L 67 15.03.2011 p. 1 
   || Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1174/2005 18.07.2005 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 684/2008 17.07.2008 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1008/2011 10.10.2011 || L 189 21.07.2005 p. 1   L 192 19.07.2005 p. 1   L 268 13.10.2011 p.1 
   || Ironing boards || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 452/2007 23.04.2007, as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 77/2010 19.01.2010 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 270/2010 29.03.2010 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 580/2010 29.06.2010, and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1241/2010 20.12.2010 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 987/2012 22.10.2012 || L 109 26.04.2007 p. 12 L 24 28.01.2010 p. 1   L 84 31.03.2010 p. 13 L 168 02.07.2010 p. 12 L 338 22.12.2010 p. 8 L 297 26.10.2012 p. 5 
   || Ironing boards (Since Hardware) || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1243/2010 20.12.2010 || L 338 22.12.2010 p. 22 
   || Lever arch mechanisms || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1136/2006 24.07.2006 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 796/2012 30.08.2012 || L 205 27.07.2006 p. 1 L 238 04.09.2012 p. 5 
   || Melamine || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 457/2011 10.05.2011 || L 124 13.05.2011 p. 2 
   || Molybdenum wires || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 511/2010 14.06.2010 and extended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 14/2012 12.01.2012 || L 150 16.06.2010 p. 17   L 8 12.01.2012 p. 22 
   || Monosodium glutamate || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1187/2008 27.11.2008 || L 322 02.12.2008 p. 1 
   || Okoumé plywood || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1942/2004 02.11.2004 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 82/2011 31.01.2011 || L 336 12.11.2004 p. 4   L 28 02.02.2011 p. 1 
   || Oxalic acid || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 325/2012 12 April 2012 || L 106 18.04.2012 p. 1 
   || Peroxosulphates || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1184/2007 09.10.2007   || L 265 11.10.2007 p. 1 
   || Polyester yarn (high tenacity) || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1105/2010 29.11.2010 || L 315 01.12.2010 p. 1 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1467/2004 13.08.2004 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 2167/2005 20.12.2005 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1030/2010 17.11.2010 || L 271 19.08.2004 p. 1 L 345 28.12.2005 p. 11   L 300 17.11.2010 p. 1 
   || Powdered activated carbon (PAC) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1011/2002 10.06.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 931/2003 26.05.2003 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 649/2008 08.07.2008 || L 155 14.06.2002 p. 1 L 133 29.05.2003 p. 36   L 181 10.07.2008 p. 1 
   || PSC wires and strands || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 383/2009 05.05.2009 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 986/2011 22.10.2012 || L 118 13.05.2009 p. 1 L 297 26.10.2012 p.1 
   || Ring binder mechanisms || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 2074/2004 29.11.2004 extended to imports from Vietnam by Council Reg. (EC) No 1208/2004 28.06.2004 and extended to imports from Laos by Council Reg. (EC) No 33/2006 09.01.2006 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 818/2008 13.08.2008 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 157/2010 22.02.2010 || L 359 04.12.2004 p. 11 L 232 01.07.2004 p. 1 L 7 12.01.2006 p. 1   L 221 19.08.2008 p. 1   L 49 26.02.2010 p. 1 
   || Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 926/2009 24.09.2009 || L 262 06.10.2009 p. 19 
   || Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1331/2011 14.12.2011 || L 336 20.12.2011 p. 6 
   || Silicon metal || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 398/2004 02.03.2004 extended to imports of silicon consigned from Korea (Rep. of) by Council Reg. (EC) No 42/2007 15.01.2007 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 467/2010 25.05.2010   || L 66 04.03.2004 p. 15 L 13 19.01.2007 p. 1 L 131 29.05.2010 p. 1 
   || Sodium cyclamate || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 435/2004 08.03.2004 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 492/2010 03.06.2010 and amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 398/2012 07.05.2012 || L 72 11.03.2004 p. 1 L 140 08.06.2010 p. 2 L 124 11.05.2012 p. 1 
   || Sodium gluconate || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 965/2010 25.10.2010 || L 282 28.10.2010 p. 24 
   || Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1890/2005 14.11.2005 corrected by L 256, 02.10.2007, p. 31 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 2/2012 07.01.2012 || L 302 19.11.2005 p. 1 L 5 07.01.2012 p. 1 
   || Steel ropes and cables || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1858/2005 08.11.2005 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1459/2007 10.12.2007 extended as concerns Ukraine to such imports consigned from Moldova (Rep. of) by Council Reg. (EC) No 760/2004 22.04.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Morocco by Council Reg. (EC) No 1886/2004 25.10.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Korea (Rep. of) by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 400/2010 26.04.2010 corrected by L 332, 15.12.2011 and corrected by L 140, 30.05.2012, p. 74 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 102/2012 27.02.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 558/2012 26.06.2012 || L 299 16.11.2005 p. 1 L 326 12.12.2007 p. 18 L 120 24.04.2004 p. 1 L 328 30.10.2004 p. 1 L 117 11.05.2010 p. 1 L 36 09.02.2012 p. 1 L 168 28.06.2012 p. 3 
   || Sulphanilic acid || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1339/2002 22.07.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 123/2006 23.01.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1000/2008 13.10.2008 || L 196 25.07.2002 p. 11 L 22 26.01.2006 p. 5   L 275 16.10.2008 p. 1 
   || Tartaric acid || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 130/2006 23.01.2006 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 150/2008 18.02.2008 and by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 332/2012 13.04.2012 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 349/2012 16.04.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 626/2012 26.06.2012 || L 23 27.01.2006 p. 1 L 48 22.02.2008 p. 1 L 108 20.04.2012 p. 1 L 110 24.04.2012 p. 3 L 182 13.07.2012 p. 1 
   || Trichloroisocyanuric acid || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1631/2005 03.10.2005 and maintained by  Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1389/2011 || L 261 07.10.2005 p. 1   L 346 30.12.2011 p. 6 
   || Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 964/2003 02.06.2003 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1496/2004 18.08.2004 and extended as concerns China to imports consigned from Indonesia by Council Reg. (EC) 2052/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from Sri Lanka by Council Reg. (EC) No 2053/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from the Philippines by Council Reg. (EC) No 655/2006 27.04.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 803/2009 27.08.2009 || L 139 06.06.2003 p. 1 L 275 25.08.2004 p. 1 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 4 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 9 L 116 29.04.2006 p. 1   L 233 04.09.2009 p. 1 
   || Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 2268/2004 22.12.2004 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1275/2005 25.07.2005 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 287/2011 21.03.2011 || L 395 31.12.2004 p. 56 L 202 03.08.2005 p. 1   L 78 24.03.2011 p. 1 
   || Tungsten electrodes || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 260/2007 09.03.2007 || L 72 13.03.2007 p. 1 
   || Welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1256/2008 16.12.2008 || L 343 19.12.2008 p. 1 
   || Wire rod || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 703/2009 27.07.2009 || L 203 05.08.2009 p. 1 
 Egypt || Ferro-silicon || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 172/2008 25.02.2008 || L 55 28.02.2008 p. 6 
 India || Dihydromyrcenol || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 63/2008 21.01.2008   || L 23 26.01.2008 p. 1 
   || Fatty alcohols and their blends || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1138/2011 08.11.2011 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1241/2012 11.12.2012 || L 293 11.11.2011 p. 1 L 352 21.12.2012 p. 1 
   || Graphite electrode systems || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1629/2004 13.09.2004 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1354/2008 18.12.2008 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1186/2010 13.12.2010 || L 295 18.09.2004 p. 10   L 350 30.12.2008 p. 24   L 332 16.12.2010 p. 17 
   || Oxalic acid || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 325/2012 ||   
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Duties Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 22.02.2007 corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 1 
   || Sulphanilic acid || Duties       Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 1339/2002 22.07.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 123/2006 23.01.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1000/2008 13.10.2008 Commission Dec. No 2006/37/EC 05.12.2005 || L 196 25.07.2002 p. 11 L 22 26.01.2006 p. 5   L 275 16.10.2008 p. 1 L 22 26.01.2006 p. 52 
   || Synthetic fibre ropes || Duties (3 years) || Council Reg. (EC) No 1736/2004 08.10.2004 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1242/2010 20.12.2010 || L 311 08.10.2004 p. 1   L 338 22.12.2010 p. 10 
 Indonesia || Fatty alcohols and their blends || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1138/2011 08.11.2011 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1241/2012 11.12.2012 || L 293 11.11.2011 p. 1 L 352 21.12.2012 p. 1 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Duties Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 22.02.2007 corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 1 
   || Sodium cyclamate || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 435/2004 08.03.2004 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 492/2010 03.06.2010 and amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 398/2012 07.05.2012 || L 72 11.03.2004 p. 1 L 140 08.06.2010 p. 2 L 124 11.05.2012 p. 1 
   || Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 964/2003 02.06.2003 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1496/2004 18.08.2004 and extended as concerns China to imports consigned from Indonesia by Council Reg. (EC) 2052/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from Sri Lanka by Council Reg. (EC) No 2053/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from the Philippines by Council Reg. (EC) No 655/2006 27.04.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 803/2009 27.08.2009 || L 139 06.06.2003 p. 1 L 275 25.08.2004 p. 1 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 4 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 9 L 116 29.04.2006 p. 1   L 233 04.09.2009 p. 1 
 Kazakhstan || Ferro-silicon || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 172/2008 25.02.2008 || L 55 28.02.2008 p. 6 
 Korea (Rep. of) || Silicon metal (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 398/2004 02.03.2004 extended to imports of silicon consigned from Korea (Rep. of) by Council Reg. (EC) No 42/2007 15.01.2007 || L 66 04.03.2004 p. 15 L 13 19.01.2007 p. 1 
   || Steel ropes and cables (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 1858/2005 08.11.2005 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1459/2007 10.12.2007 extended as concerns Ukraine to such imports consigned from Moldova (Rep. of) by Council Reg. (EC) No 760/2004 22.04.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Morocco by Council Reg. (EC) No 1886/2004 25.10.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Korea (Rep. of) by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 400/2010 26.04.2010 corrected by L 332, 15.12.2011 and corrected by L 140, 30.05.2012, p. 74 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 102/2012 27.02.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 558/2012 26.06.2012 || L 299 16.11.2005 p. 1 L 326 12.12.2007 p. 18 L 120 24.04.2004 p. 1 L 328 30.10.2004 p. 1 L 117 11.05.2010 p. 1 L 36 09.02.2012 p. 1 L 168 28.06.2012 p. 3 
   || Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1514/2002 19.08.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 778/2003 06.05.2003 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1001/2008 13.10.2008 || L 228 24.08.2002 p. 1 L 114 08.05.2003 p. 1   L 275 16.10.2008 p. 18 
 Laos || Ring binder mechanisms (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 2074/2004 29.11.2004 extended to imports from Vietnam by Council Reg. (EC) No 1208/2004 28.06.2004 and extended to imports from Laos by Council Reg. (EC) No 33/2006 09.01.2006 and maintained by Council Impl.Reg. (EU) No 157/2010 22.02.2010   || L 359 04.12.2004 p. 11 L 232 01.07.2004 p. 1 L 7 12.01.2006 p. 1   L 49 26.02.2010 p. 1 
 Malaysia || Fasteners (iron or steel) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 91/2009 26.01.2009 and extended to such imports consigned from Malaysia by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 723/2011 18.07.2011 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 693/2012 25.07.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 924/2012 04.10.2012 || L 29 31.01.2009 p. 1 L 194 26.07.2011 p. 6 L 203 31.07.2012 P. 23 L 275 10.10.2012, p. 1 
   || Fatty alcohols and their blends || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1138/2011 08.11.2011 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1241/2012 11.12.2012 || L 293 11.11.2011 p. 1 L 352 21.12.2012 p. 1 
   || Glass fibres (certain open mesh fabrics) || Duties (ext.) || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 791/2011 03.08.2011 and extended to such imports consigned from Malaysia by Council Reg. (EC) No 672/2012 16.07.2012 || L 204 09.08.2011 p. 1 L 196 24.07.2012 p. 1 
   || Molybdenum wires || Duties (ext.) || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 511/2010 14.06.2010 and extended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 14/2012 12.01.2012 || L 150 16.06.2010 p. 17   L 8 12.01.2012 p. 22 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 22.02.2007 corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 1 
   || Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1514/2002 19.08.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 778/2003 06.05.2003 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1001/2008 13.10.2008 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 363/2010 26.04.2010 || L 228 24.08.2002 p. 1 L 114 08.05.2003 p. 1 L 275 16.10.2008 p. 18 L 107 29.04.2010 p. 1 
 Moldova (Rep. of) || Steel ropes and cables (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 1858/2005 08.11.2005 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1459/2007 10.12.2007 extended as concerns Ukraine to such imports consigned from Moldova (Rep. of) by Council Reg. (EC) No 760/2004 22.04.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Morocco by Council Reg. (EC) No 1886/2004 25.10.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Korea (Rep. of) by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 400/2010 26.04.2010 corrected by L 332, 15.12.2011 and corrected by L 140, 30.05.2012, p. 74 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 102/2012 27.02.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 558/2012 26.06.2012 || L 299 16.11.2005 p. 1 L 326 12.12.2007 p. 18 L 120 24.04.2004 p. 1 L 328 30.10.2004 p. 1 L 117 11.05.2010 p. 1 L 36 09.02.2012 p. 1 L 168 28.06.2012 p. 3 
 Morocco || Steel ropes and cables (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 1858/2005 08.11.2005 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1459/2007 10.12.2007 extended as concerns Ukraine to such imports consigned from Moldova (Rep. of) by Council Reg. (EC) No 760/2004 22.04.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Morocco by Council Reg. (EC) No 1886/2004 25.10.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Korea (Rep. of) by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 400/2010 26.04.2010 corrected by L 332, 15.12.2011 and corrected by L 140, 30.05.2012, p. 74 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 102/2012 27.02.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 558/2012 26.06.2012 || L 299 16.11.2005 p. 1 L 326 12.12.2007 p. 18 L 120 24.04.2004 p. 1 L 328 30.10.2004 p. 1 L 117 11.05.2010 p. 1 L 36 09.02.2012 p. 1 L 168 28.06.2012 p. 3 
 Philippines || Tube or pipe fittings, of iron or steel (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 964/2003 02.06.2003 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1496/2004 18.08.2004 and  extended as concerns China to imports consigned from Indonesia by Council Reg. (EC) 2052/2004 22.11.2004 and  to imports consigned from Sri Lanka by Council Reg. (EC) No 2053/2004 22.11.2004 and  to imports consigned from the Philippines by Council Reg. (EC) No 655/2006 27.04.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 803/2009 27.08.2009 || L 139 06.06.2003 p. 1 L 275 25.08.2004 p. 1 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 4 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 9 L 116 29.04.2006 p. 1   L 233 04.09.2009 p. 1 
 Russia || Ammonium nitrate || Duties                                   Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 658/2002 15.04.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 945/2005 21.06.2005 and  maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 661/2008 08.07.2008, corrected by L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 59, as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 989/2009 19.10.2009   Commission Dec. No 2008/577/EC 04.07.2008 corrected by L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 59 || L 102 18.04.2002 p. 1 L 160 23.06.2005 p. 1   L 185 12.07.2008 p. 1       L 278 23.10.2009 p. 1   L 185 12.07.2007 p. 43 
   || Ferro-silicon || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 172/2008 25.02.2008 as last maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 60/2012 16.01.2012 || L 55 28.02.2008 p. 6   L 22 25.01.2012 p. 1 
   || Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 954/2006 27.06.2006 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 812/2008 11.08.2008 and Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 540/2012 21.06.2012 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 795/2012 28.08.2012 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 5 21.12.2012 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 585/2012 26.06.2012 || L 175 29.06.2006 p. 4 L 220 15.08.2008 p. 1 L 165 26.06.2012 p. 1 L 238 04.09.2012 p. 1 L 357, 28.12.2012 p. 1 L 174 04.07.2012 p. 5 
   || Steel ropes and cables || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1279/2007 30.10.2007 corrected by L 96, 15.04.2009, p. 39   || L 285 31.10.2007 p. 1 
   || Welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1256/2008 16.12.2008 || L 343 19.12.2008 p. 1 
 South Africa || Manganese dioxides || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 221/2008 10.03.2008 || L 69 13.03.2008 p. 1 
 Sri Lanka || Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 964/2003 02.06.2003 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1496/2004 18.08.2004 and extended as concerns China to imports consigned from Indonesia by Council Reg. (EC) 2052/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from Sri Lanka by Council Reg. (EC) No 2053/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from the Philippines by Council Reg. (EC) No 655/2006 27.04.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 803/2009 27.08.2009   || L 139 06.06.2003 p. 1 L 275 25.08.2004 p. 1 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 4 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 9 L 116 29.04.2006 p. 1   L 233 04.09.2009 p. 1 
 Taiwan || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 22.02.2007 corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 1 
   || Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1890/2005 14.11.2005 corrected by L 256, 02.10.2007, p. 31 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 2/2012 07.01.2012   || L 302 19.11.2005 p. 1     L 5 07.01.2012 p.1 
   || Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 964/2003 02.06.2003 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1496/2004 18.08.2004 and extended as concerns China to imports consigned from Indonesia by Council Reg. (EC) 2052/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from Sri Lanka by Council Reg. (EC) No 2053/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from the Philippines by Council Reg. (EC) No 655/2006 27.04.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 803/2009 27.08.2009 || L 139 06.06.2003 p. 1 L 275 25.08.2004 p. 1 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 4 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 9 L 116 29.04.2006 p. 1   L 233 04.09.2009 p. 1 
 Thailand || Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 1174/2005 18.07.2005 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 684/2008 17.07.2008 extended to such imports consigned from Thailand by Council Reg. (EC) No 499/2009 11.06.2009 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1008/2011 10.10.2011 || L 189 21.07.2005 p. 1   L 192 19.07.2008 p. 1       L 151 16.06.2009 p. 1   L 268 13.10.2011 p.1 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 22.02.2007, corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 1 
   || Ring binder mechanisms || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 792/2011 05.08.2011 || L 204 09.08.2011 p. 1 
   || Sweet corn (prepared or preserved, in kernels) || Duties           || Council Reg. (EC) No 682/3007 18.06.2007 corrected by L 252 of 27.09.2007, p. 7, as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 954/2008 25.09.2008 and by Council Reg. (EC) No 847/2009 15.09.2009 || L 159 20.06.2007 p. 14   L 260 30.09.2008 p. 1 L 246 18.09.2009 p. 1 
   || Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 964/2003 02.06.2003 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1496/2004 18.08.2004 and extended as concerns China to imports consigned from Indonesia by Council Reg. (EC) 2052/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from Sri Lanka by Council Reg. (EC) No 2053/2004 22.11.2004 and to imports consigned from the Philippines by Council Reg. (EC) No 655/2006 27.04.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 803/2009 27.08.2009   || L 139 06.06.2003 p. 1 L 275 25.08.2004 p. 1 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 4 L 355 01.12.2004 p. 9 L 116 29.04.2006 p. 1   L 233 04.09.2009 p. 1 
   || Welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1697/2002 23.09.2002 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1256/2008 19.12.2008 || L 259 27.09.2002 p. 8   L 343 19.12.2008   p. 1 
 Ukraine || Ironing boards || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 452/2007 23.04.2007, as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 77/2010 19.01.2010 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 270/2010 29.03.2010 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 580/2010 29.06.2010, and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1241/2010 20.12.2010 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 987/2012 22.10.2012 || L 109 26.04.2007 p. 12 L 24 28.01.2010 p. 1   L 84 31.03.2010 p. 13 L 168 02.07.2010 p. 12 L 338 22.12.2010 p. 8 L 297 26.10.2012 p. 5 
   || Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 954/2006 27.06.2006 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 812/2008 11.08.2008 and Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 540/2012 21.06.2012 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 795/2012 28.08.2012 and Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No L 317, 5.12.2007, p. 5 21.12.2012 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 585/2012 26.06.2012 || L 175 29.06.2006 p. 4 L 220 15.08.2008 p. 1 L 165 26.06.2012 p. 1 L 238 04.09.2012 p. 1 L 357, 28.12.2012 p. 1 L 174 04.07.2012 p. 5 
   || Steel ropes and cables || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1858/2005 08.11.2005 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1459/2007 10.12.2007 extended as concerns Ukraine to such imports consigned from Moldova (Rep. of) by Council Reg. (EC) No 760/2004 22.04.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Morocco by Council Reg. (EC) No 1886/2004 25.10.2004 and extended as concerns China to such imports consigned from Korea (Rep. of) by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 400/2010 26.04.2010 corrected by L 332, 15.12.2011 and corrected by L 140, 30.05.2012, p. 74 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EC) No 102/2012 27.02.2012 as last amended by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 558/2012 26.06.2012 || L 299 16.11.2005 p. 1 L 326 12.12.2007 p. 18 L 120 24.04.2004 p. 1 L 328 30.10.2004 p. 1 L 117 11.05.2010 p. 1 L 36 09.02.2012 p. 1 L 168 28.06.2012 p. 3 
   || Welded tubes and pipes, of iron or non-alloy steel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1697/2002 23.09.2002 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1256/2008 16.12.2008 || L 259 27.09.2002 p. 8   L 343 19.12.2008 p. 1 
 U.S.A. || Biodiesel || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 599/2009 07.07.2009 and extended to imports consigned from Canada by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 444/2011 05.05.2011 || L 179 10.07.2009 p. 26     L 122 11.05.2011 p. 12 
   || Ethanolamines || Duties (2 years) || Council Reg. (EC) No 1583/2006 23.10.2006 as maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 54/2010 19.01.2010 || L 294 25.10.2006 p.2 L 17 22.01.2010 p. 1 
 Vietnam || Ring binder mechanisms (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 2074/2004 29.11.2004 extended to imports from Vietnam by Council Reg. (EC) No 1208/2004 28.06.2004 and extended to imports from Laos by Council Reg. (EC) No 33/2006 09.01.2006 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 157/2010 22.02.2010 || L 359 04.12.2004 p. 11 L 232 01.07.2004 p. 1 L 7 12.01.2006 p. 1   L 49 26.02.2010 p. 1 
ANNEX P
Definitive
anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2012
A.
Ranked by product (alphabetical)
 Product || Origin || Measure || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 Biodiesel (AS) || U.S.A. Canada (ext.) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 598/2009 07.07.2009 and extended to imports consigned from Canada Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 443/2011 05.05.2011 || L 179 10.07.2009 p. 1     L 122 11.05.2011 p. 1 
 Coated fine paper (AS) || P.R. China || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 452/2011 06.05.2011 || L 128 14.05.2011 p. 18 
 Graphite electrode systems (AS) || India || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1628/2004 13.09.2004 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1354/2008 18.12.2008 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1185/2010 13.12.2010 || L 295 18.09.2004 p. 4   L 350 30.12.2008 p. 24   L 332 16.12.2010 p. 1 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) || India || Duties         Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 193/2007 22.02.2007 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1286/2008 16.12.2008   Council Reg. (EC) No 193/2007 22.02.2007 corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 34   L 340 19.12.2008 p. 1   L 59 27.02.2007 p. 34   
   || Iran Pakistan U.A.E. || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 857/2010 27.09.2010 || L 254 29.09.2010 p. 10 
 Stainless steel bars and rods (AS) || India || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 405/2011 19.04.2011 || L 108 28.04.2011 p. 3 
 Sulphanilic acid (AS) || India || Duties         Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 1338/2002 22.07.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 123/2006 23.01.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1010/2008 13.10.2008 Commission Dec. No 2006/37/EC 05.12.2005 || L 196 25.07.2002 p. 1 L 22 26.01.2006 p. 5 L 276 17.10.2008 p. 3 L 22 26.01.2006 p. 52 
B.
Ranked by country (alphabetical)
 Origin || Product || Measure || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 Canada || Biodiesel (AS) (ext.) || Duties (ext.) || Council Reg. (EC) No 598/2009 07.07.2009 and extended to imports consigned from Canada Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 443/2011 05.05.2011 || L 179 10.07.2009 p. 1     L 122 11.05.2011 p. 1 
 P.R. China || Coated fine paper (AS) || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 452/2011 06.05.2011 || L 128 14.05.2011 p. 18 
 India || Graphite electrode systems (AS) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1628/2004 13.09.2004 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1354/2008 18.12.2008 and maintained by Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 1185/2010 13.12.2010   || L 295 18.09.2004 p. 4   L 350 30.12.2008 p. 24   L 332 16.12.2010 p. 1 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) || Duties         Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 193/2007 22.02.2007 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 1286/2008 19.12.2008   Council Reg. (EC) No 193/2007 22.02.2007 corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 34   L 340 19.12.2008 p. 1   L 59 27.02.2007 p. 34 
   || Stainless steel bars and rods (AS) || Duties || Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 405/2011 19.04.2011 || L 108 28.04.2011 p. 3 
   || Sulphanilic acid (AS) || Duties       Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 1339/2002 22.07.2002 as last amended by Council Reg. (EC) No 123/2006 23.01.2006 and maintained by Council Reg. (EC) No 1010/2008 13.10.2008 Commission Dec. No 2006/37/EC 05.12.2005 || L 196 25.07.2002 p. 11 L 22 26.01.2006 p. 5 L 276 17.10.2008 p. 3 L 22 26.01.2006 p. 52 
 Iran || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1289/2006 277.08.2006 || L 254 29.09.2010 p. 10 
 Pakistan || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1289/2006 277.08.2006 || L 254 29.09.2010 p. 10 
 U.A.E. || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 1289/2006 277.08.2006 || L 254 29.09.2010 p. 10 
 U.S.A. || Biodiesel (AS) || Duties || Council Reg. (EC) No 598/2009 07.07.2009 and extended to imports consigned from Canada Council Impl. Reg. (EU) No 443/2011 05.05.2011 || L 179 10.07.2009 p. 1     L 122 11.05.2011 p. 1 
ANNEX Q
Undertakings
in force on 31 December 2012
A.
Ranked by product (alphabetical)
 Product || Origin || Measure || Regulation N° || OJ Reference 
 Aluminium foil || Brazil || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2009/736/EC 05.10.2009 || L 262 06.10.2009 p. 50 
 Ammonium nitrate || Russia || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2008/577/EC 04.07.2008 corrected by L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 59 and amended by  L 277, 11.10.2012, p. 8 || L 185 12.07.2008 p. 43 
 Citric acid || P.R. China || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2008/899/EC 02.12.2008 corrected by C 346, 26.11.2011, p. 8 and by C 3, 06.01.2012, p. 11, corrected by C 64, 03.03.2012, p. 25, corrected by C 74, 13.03.2012, p. 16 amended by L 244, 08.09.2012, p. 27 || L 323 03.12.2008 p. 62   
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || India Indonesia || Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 22.02.2007 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 1 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) || India || Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 193/2007 22.02.2007 corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 34 
 Sulphanilic acid (AD + AS) || India || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2006/37/EC 05.12.2006 || L 22 26.01.2006 p. 52 
 Zeolite A powder || Bosnia and Herzegovina || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2011/279/EU 13.05.2011 || L 125 14.05.2011 p. 26 
B.
Ranked by country (alphabetical)
 Origin || Product || Measure || Regulation N° || Publication 
 Bosnia and Herzegovina || Zeolite A powder || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2011/279/EU 13.05.2011 || L 125 14.05.2011   p. 26 
 Brazil || Aluminium foil || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2009/736/EC 05.10.2009 || L 262 06.10.2009   p. 50 
 P.R. China || Citric acid || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2008/899/EC 02.12.2008 corrected by C 346, 26.11.2011, p. 8 and by C 3, 06.01.2012, p. 11, corrected by C 64, 03.03.2012, p. 25, corrected by C 74, 13.03.2012, p. 16 || L 323 03.12.2008 p. 62 
 India || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 22.02.2007 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 1 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) || Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 193/2007 22.02.2007 corrected by L 215, 18.08.2007, p. 27 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 34 
   || Sulphanilic acid (AD + AS) || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2006/37/EC 05.12.2006 || L 22 26.01.2006 p. 52 
 Indonesia || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Undertakings || Council Reg. (EC) No 192/2007 22.02.2007 || L 59 27.02.2007 p. 1 
 Russia || Ammonium nitrate || Undertakings || Commission Dec. No 2008/577/EC 04.07.2008 corrected by L 339, 22.12.2009, p. 59 || L 185 12.07.2008   p. 43 
ANNEX R
Anti-dumping
& anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2012
A. New
investigations (ranked by product - in alphabetical order)
 Product || AD/AS || Origin || Type || OJ Reference 
 Aluminium foil || AD.582 || P.R. China || Initiation Prov. duties || C 371 20.12.2011, p. 4 L 251 18.09.2012 p. 29 
 Bicycles || AS.589 || P.R. China || Initiation || C 122 27.04.2012, p. 9 
 Biodiesel || AD.593 || Argentina Indonesia || Initiation || C 260 29.08.2012 p. 8 
 Biodiesel (AS) || AS.595 || Argentina Indonesia || Initiation || C 342 10.11.2012 p. 12 
 Bioethanol || AD.580 || U.S.A. || Initiation || C 345 25.11.2011, p. 7 
 Ceramic tableware || AD.586 || P.R. China || Initiation Prov. duties || C44 16.02.2012, p. 22 L 318 15.11.2012 p. 28 
 Organic coated steel products || AD.584 || P.R. China || Initiation Prov. duties || C 373 21.12.2011, p. 16 L 252 19.09.2012 p. 33 
 Organic coated steel products (AS) || AS.587 || P.R. China || Initiation || C52 22.02.2012, p. 4 
 Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) || AD.590 || P.R. China || Initiation || L 269 06.09.2012, p. 5 
 Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) (AS) || AS.594 || P.R. China || Initiation || C 340 08.11.2012 p. 13 
 Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings || AD.596 || P.R. China Taiwan || Initiation || C 342 10.11.2012 p. 2 
 Stainless steel wires || AD.591 || India || Initiation || C 240 10.08.2012 p. 15 
 Stainless steel wires (AS) || AS.592 || India || Initiation || C 240 10.08.2012 p. 6 
 Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || AD.585 || P.R. China Thailand Indonesia || Initiation Prov. duties (P.R. China, Thailand) || C 44 16.02.2012, p. 33 L 318 15.11.2012 p. 10 
 Tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel || AD.579 || Russia Turkey || Initiation Prov. duties || C 320 01.11.2011, p. 4 L 203 31.07.2012 p. 37 
 Welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless || AD.588 || F.Y.R.O.M. Turkey Ukraine || Initiation || C 96 31.03.2012 p. 13 
 White phosphorous || AD.583 || Kazakhstan || Initiation || C 369 17.12.2011 p. 19 
B.
Review investigations (ranked by product - in alphabetical order)
 Product || R. No || Origin || Type of review || OJ Reference 
 Aluminium foil in big rolls || R.565 || P.R. China || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 293 23.10.12 p. 28 
 Bicycles || R.546 || P.R. China || Full interim review || C 71 09.03.2012, p. 10 
 Bicycles || R.563 || P.R. China (Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, Tunisia) || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 258 26.09.2012 p. 21 
 Citrus fruits || AD.524a || P.R. China || Reopening || C 353 03.12.2011, p. 15 
 Citrus fruits || AD.524b || P.R. China || Reopening Registr. of imports || C 175 19.06.2012, p. 19 L 169 29.06.2012 p. 50 
 Dicyandiamide (DCD) || R.564 || P.R. China || Expiry review || C 349 15.11.2012 p. 10 
 Ethanolamines || R.541 || U.S.A. || Expiry review || C 18 21.01.2012, p. 16 
 Ethanolamines || R.544 || U.S.A. || Partial interim review || C 103 11.04.2012 p.8 
 Ethanolamines || R460a || U.S.A. || Reopening || C 314 18.10.12 p. 12 
 Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts || R.545 || P.R. China || Partial interim review || C 41 14.02.2012, p. 14 
 Iron or steel ropes and cables || R.559 || Russia || Expiry review || C 330 27.10.2012 p. 5 
 Ironing boards || R.549 || P.R. China Ukraine || Expiry review || C 120 25.04.2012 p. 9 
 Ironing boards || R.553 || Ukraine || Partial interim review || C 166, 12.06.2012, p. 3 
 Lighters || R.555 || P. R. China (Vietnam) || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 165 26.06.2012, p. 37 
 Molybdenum wires || R.560 || P. R. China || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 350 20.12.2012 p. 51 
 Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres || R.554 || P.R. China (Taiwan Thailand) || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 134 24.05.2012, p. 12 
 Peroxosulphates (Persulphates) || R.566 || P.R. China || Expiry review || C 305 10.10.2012 p. 15 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || R.542 || India Thailand Taiwan Indonesia Malaysia || Expiry review || C55 24.02.2012, p. 4 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) || R.550 || India || Expiry review || C55 24.02.2012, p. 14 
 Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || R.557 || Taiwan || New exporter review || L 188, 18.07.2012, p. 8 
 Silicon metal (silicon) || R.556 || P.R. China (Taiwan) || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 176, 06.07.2012, p. 50 
 Stainless steel bars and rods (AS) || R.558 || India || Partial interim review || C 239, 09.08.2012, p. 2 
 Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || R.535 || P. R. China (Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines) || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 153, 14.06.2012, p. 8 
 Sweet corn || R.552 || Thailand || Expiry review || C 175 19.06.2012 p.22 
 Tungsten electrodes || R.547 || P.R. China || Expiry review || C 71 09.03.2012, p. 23 
C.
Ranked by country (new and review investigations) (alphabetical)
 Origin || Product R. No || Type || OJ Reference 
 Argentina || Biodiesel || New investigation || C 260 29.08.2012 p. 8 
   || Biodiesel || New investigation || C 342 10.11.2012 p. 12 
 P.R. China || Aluminium foil || New investigation || C 371 20.12.2011, p. 4 
   || Aluminium foil in big rolls || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 293 23.10.12 p. 28 
   || Bicycles || New investigation || C 122 27.04.2012, p. 9 
   || Bicycles || Full interim review || C 71 09.03.2012, p. 10 
   || Ceramic tableware || New investigation Prov. duties || C44 16.02.2012, p. 22 L 318 15.11.2012 p. 28 
   || Citrus fruits || New investigation   || C 353 03.12.2011, p. 15 
   || Citrus fruits || Reopening || C 175 19.06.2012, p. 19 
   || Dicyandiamide (DCD) || Expiry review || C 349 15.11.2012 p. 10 
   || Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts || Partial interim review || C 41 14.02.2012, p. 14 
   || Ironing boards || Expiry review || C 120 25.04.2012, p. 9 
   || Molybdenum wires || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 350 20.12.2012 p. 51 
   || Organic coated steel products || New investigation || C 373 21.12.2011, p. 16 
   || Organic coated steel products (AS) || New investigation || C52 22.02.2012, p. 4 
   || Peroxosulphates (Persulphates) || Expiry review || C 305 10.10.2012 p. 15 
   || Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) || New investigation || L 269 06.09.2012, p. 5 
   || Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components) || New investigation || C 340 08.11.2012 p. 13 
   || Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings || New investigation || C 342 10.11.2012 p. 2 
   || Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || New investigation Prov. duties || C 44 16.02.2012, p. 33 L 318 15.11.2012 p. 10 
   || Tungsten electrodes || Expiry review || C 71 09.03.2012, p. 23 
 F.Y.R.O.M. || Welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless || New investigation || C 96 31.03.2012 p. 13 
 India || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Expiry review || C55 24.02.2012, p. 4 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) || Expiry review || C55 24.02.2012, p. 14 
   || Stainless steel bars and rods (AS) || Partial interim review || C 239, 09.08.2012, p. 2 
   || Stainless steel wires || New investigation || C 240 10.08.2012 p. 15 
   || Stainless steel wires (AS) || New investigation || C 240 10.08.2012 p. 6 
 Indonesia || Bicycles || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 258 26.09.2012 p. 21 
   || Biodiesel || New investigation || C 260 29.08.2012 p. 8 
   || Biodiesel || New investigation || C 342 10.11.2012 p. 12 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Expiry review || C55 24.02.2012, p. 4 
   || Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || New investigation || C 44 16.02.2012, p. 33 
 Kazakhstan || White phosphorous || New investigation || C 369 17.12.2011, p. 19 
 Malaysia || Bicycles || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 258 26.09.2012 p. 21 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Expiry review || C55 24.02.2012, p. 4 
   || Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 153 14.06.2012, p. 8 
 Philippines || Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 153 14.06.2012, p. 8 
 Russia || Iron or steel ropes and cables || Expiry review || C 330 27.10.2012 p. 5 
   || Tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel || Initiation Prov. duties || C 320 01.11.2011, p. 4 L 203 31.07.2012, p. 37 
 Sri Lanka || Bicycles || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 258 26.09.2012 p. 21 
 Taiwan || Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 134 24.05.2012, p. 12 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Expiry review || C55 24.02.2012, p. 4 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || New exporter review || L 188, 18.07.2012, p. 8 
   || Silicon metal (silicon) || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 176, 06.07.2012, p. 50 
 Thailand || Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 134 24.05.2012, p. 12 
   || Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) || Expiry review || C55 24.02.2012, p. 4 
   || Stainless steel fasteners and parts thereof || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 153 14.06.2012, p. 8 
   || Sweet corn || Expiry review || C 175 19.06.2012 p.22 
   || Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron || New investigation Prov. duties || C 44 16.02.2012, p. 33 L 318 15.11.2012 p. 10 
 Tunisia || Bicycles || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 258 26.09.2012 p. 21 
 Turkey || Tube and pipe fittings of iron or steel || Initiation Prov. duties || C 320 01.11.2011, p. 4 L 203 31.07.2012, p. 37 
   || Welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless || New investigation || C 96 31.03.2012, p. 13 
 Ukraine || Ironing boards || Expiry review || C 120 25.04.2012 p. 9 
   || Ironing boards || Partial interim review || C 166, 12.06.2012, p. 3 
   || Welded tubes, pipes and hollow profiles of square or rectangular cross-section, of iron other than cast iron or steel other than stainless || New investigation || C 96 31.03.2012, p. 13 
 U.S.A. || Bioethanol || New investigation || C 345 25.11.2011, p. 7 
   || Ethanolamines || Expiry review || C 18 21.01.2012, p. 16 
   || Ethanolamines || Partial interim review || C 103 11.04.2012, p.8 
   || Ethanolamines || Reopening || C 314 18.10.12 p. 12 
 Vietnam || Lighters || Anti-circumvention investigation || L 165 26.06.2012, p. 37 
ANNEX S
Court
cases
A. Court cases pending before the Court of Justice of
the European Union and the General Court on 31 December 2012
 Court of Justice 
 C-195/11 P || Commission v Zhejiang Xinshiji Foods and Hubei Xinshiji Foods (appeal against judgment in T-122/09) 
 C-638/11 P || Council v Gul Ahmed Textile Mills (appeal against judgment in T-199/04) 
 C-595/11 || Steinel Vertrieb GmbH (preliminary ruling) 
 C-10/12 P || ENRC Marketing AG and JSC TNC Kazchrome v Council (appeal against judgment in T-192/08) 
 C-13/12 P || Chelyabinskij electrometalurgicheskij kombinat and Kuznetskie Ferrosplavy v Council (appeal against judgment in T-190/08) 
 C-15/12 P || Dashiqiao Sanqiang Refractory Materials v Council and Commission (appeal against judgment in T-423/09) 
 C-667/11 || Paltrade v Pristanishte Varna (preliminary ruling) 
 C-374/12 || Valimar v Nachalnik na Mitnitsa Varna (preliminary ruling) 
 General Court 
 T-84/07 || Eurochem v Council 
 T-469/07 || Philips Lighting Poland SA and Philips Lighting BV v Council 
 T-459/07 || Hangzhou Duralamp Electronics Co,. Ltd v Council 
 T-234/08 || EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) v Council 
 T-235/08 || Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh OAO v Council 
 T-459/08 || EuroChem Mineral and Chemical Company OAO (EuroChem MCC) v Council 
 T-536/08 || Huvis v Council 
 T-537/08 || Cixi Jiangnan Chemical Fiber and others v Council 
 T-512/09 || Rusal Armenal v Council 
 T-528/09 || Hubei Xinyegang v Council 
 T-118/10 || Acron OAO v Council 
 T-134/10 || FESI v Council 
 T-153/10 || Schneider Espana de Informatica SA v Commission 
 T-191/10 || Greenwood Houseware (Zhuhai) Ltd and Others v Council 
 T-582/10 || Acron OAO and Dorogobuzh v Council 
 T-304/11 || Alumina d.o.o. v Council 
 T-385/11 || BP Products North America v Council 
 T-407/11 || SRF Ltd. v Council 
 T-443/11 || Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) v Council 
 T-444/11 || Gold East Paper (Jiangsu) and Gold Huasheng Paper (Suzhou Industrial Park) v Council 
 T-445/11 || Charron Inox and Almet v Commission 
 T-551/11 || BSI v Council 
 T-557/11 || Elsid and others v Commission 
 T-596/11 || Bricmate AB v. Council 
 T-633/11 || Guangdong Kito Ceramics and others v Council 
 T-643/11 || Crown Equipment (Suzhou) and Crown Gabelstapler v Council 
 T-6/12 || Godrej Industries Ltd and V V F Ltd v Council 
 T-26/12 || PT Musim Mas v Council 
 T-28/12 || PT Ecogreen Oleochemicals and others v Council 
 T-73/12 || Einhell v Commission 
 T-74/12 || Mecafer v Commission 
 T-75/12 || NuAir Polska v Commission 
 T-76/12 || NuAir Compressors and Tools v Commission 
 T-81/12 || BECO v Commission 
 T-88/12 || Charron Inox and Almet v Council 
 T-169/12 || CHEMK and KF v Council 
 T-310/12 || Yuanping Changyuan Chemicals v Council 
 T-431/12 || Distillerie Bonollo SpA v Council 
 T-432/12 || VTZ and others v Council 
 T-442/12 || Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Council 
 T-466/12 || RFA International v Commission 
B. Judgments, orders or other decisions rendered in
2012
 Court of Justice 
 C-249/10 P || Brosman Footwear (HK) and others v Council (appeal against judgment in T-401/06) 
 C-191/09 P || Council v Interpipe Niko. Tube & Interpipe NTRP (appeal against judgment in T-249/06) 
 C-200/09 P || Commission v Interpipe Niko. Tube & Interpipe NTRP (appeal against judgment in T-249/06) 
 C-338/10 || GLS Grünwald Logistik Service GmbH (preliminary ruling) 
 C-348/11 || Thomson Sales Europe SA v Administration des douanes (preliminary ruling) 
 C-533/10 || CIVAD S.A. (preliminary ruling) 
 C-337/09 P || Council v Zheijiang Chemical (appeal against judgment in T-498/04) 
 C-247/10 P || Zhejiang Aokang Shoes Ltd. v Council (appeal against judgment in T-407/06) 
 C-552/10 P || Usha Martin Ltd. v Council and Commission (appeal against judgment in T-119/06) 
 General Court 
 T-113/06 || Fjord Seafood Norway AS et al v Council 
 T-115/06 || Fiskeri og Havbruksnaeringens et al v Council 
 T-162/09 || Würth and Fasteners (Shenyang) v Council 
 T-158/10 || The Dow Chemical Company v Council 
 T-555/10 || JBF RAK v Council 
 T-156/11 || Since Hardware (Guangzhou) CO., LTD v Council 
 T-269/10 || LIS GmbH Licht Impex Service GmbH v Commission 
 T-150/09 || Ningbo Yonghong Fasteners v Council 
 T-170/09 || Shanghai Biaowu High-Tensile Fastener and Shanghai Prime Machinery v Council 
 T-172/09 || Gem-Year and Jinn-Well Auto-Parts (Zhejiang) v Council 
 T-556/10 || Novatex Ltd. Karachi v Council 
ANNEX T
Safeguard
and surveillance measures in force on 31 December 2012
A. Safeguard measures
 List of safeguard measures in force 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 None ||   ||   ||   
B. Surveillance measures
 List of surveillance measures in force 
 Product || Country of origin || Regulation/Decision N° || OJ Reference 
 Steel products (surveillance) || Erga omnes || Commission Reg. (EC) No 76/2002 17.01.2002 as last amended by Commission Reg. (EU) No 1241/2009 16.12.2009 || L 16 18.01.2002 p. 3 L 332 17.12.2009 p. 54 
[1]               OJ C 11, 18.1.1982, p. 37.
[2]               PE 141.178/fin of 30.11.1990, reporter Mr Gijs DE
VRIES.
[3]               OJ L 343, 22.12.2009, p.51 Codified version
[4]               OJ L 188, 18.07.2009, p. 93 Codified Version
[5]               OJ L 237, 03.09.2012
[6]               OJ L 344, 14.12.2012
[7]Case C-249/10 P Brosmann Footwear (HK)
and others v Council, judgment of 2 February 2012.
[8] ( 2 ) WTO, Report of the Appellate Body, AB-2011-2, WT/DS397/AB/R,
15 July 2011. WTO, Report of the Panel, WT/DS397/R, 3 December 2010.
[9]               OJ L 349, 31.12.94, p. 53, as last amended by
Regulation (EC) No 2200/2004
(OJ L 374, 22.12.2004, p. 1).
[10]             OJ L 67, 10.3.94, p. 89, as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 427/2003 (OJ L 65, 8.3.2003, p. 1)
[11]             Council Regulation (EC) No 427/2003 (OJ L 65, 8.3.2003,
p. 1), as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1985/2003 (OJ L 295, 13.11.2003,
p. 43)
[12]             OJ L 67, 10.3.94, p. 1, as last amended by Regulation
(EC) No 1786/2006
(OJ L 337, 5.12.2006, p. 12).
[13]             OJ L 162, 30.4.2004, p. 1
[14]             Council Regulation (EC) No 260/2009 on common rules for
imports (Codified version).
[15]             The measures are counted per product and country
concerned.
[16]             Source Comext.
[17]             The initiation of a case concerning several countries
is accounted as separate investigations/proceedings per country involved.
[18]             Investigations might be terminated for reasons such as
the withdrawal of the complaint, de minimis dumping or injury, etc.
[19]             The initiation of a case concerning several countries
is accounted as separate investigations/proceedings per country involved.
[20]             Investigations which were conducted and concluded under
the specific provisions of the Regulation imposing the original measures are
not counted as there was no publication of the initiation.
[21]             AD = anti-dumping duty, CVD = countervailing duty, UT =
undertaking.
[22]             AD = anti-dumping duty, CVD = countervailing duty, UT =
undertaking.
[23]             AD = anti-dumping investigation; AS = anti-subsidy
investigation, AD + AS = parallel anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigation.
[24]             AD = anti-dumping duty, CVD = countervailing duty, UT =
undertaking.
[25]             AD = anti-dumping, AS = anti-subsidy, UT = undertaking.
[26] Exclusion
from the definitive anti-dumping
measures, limited to Hangzhou Bioking Biochemical Engineering Co., Ltd.,) thus
also from the scope of an on-going expiry review of those measures. No conclusion
of the expiry review.
[27] partial reopening (Case T-274/07, judgment of the General Court of
the European Union of 
   8 November 2011)
[28] review based on the WTO enabling Regulation (following the recommendations
and rulings adopted 
  by the Dispute Settlement Body of the World Trade Organisation on
28 July 2011 in the EC -
  Fasteners dispute (DS397))
[29] partial reopening (Case C-338/10, judgment of the European Court of
Justice of 8 November 2011)
[30] partial
reopening (Case T-188/10, judgment of the General Court of the European Union of
8 May 2012)
[31] New Exporting Producer Treatment