REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 12th REPORT OVERVIEW OF THIRD COUNTRY TRADE DEFENCE ACTIONS AGAINST THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE YEAR 2014
Date: 2015-07-24
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping measure, export (EU), protectionism, third country, trade dispute

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 24.7.2015  COM(2015) 359 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  12th REPORT  OVERVIEW OF THIRD COUNTRY TRADE DEFENCE ACTIONS AGAINST THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE YEAR 2014 {SWD(2015) 145 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards are the three trade defence instruments  (‘TDIs’). 
Anti-dumping  (‘AD’)  and  anti-subsidy  (‘AS’)  measures  aim  at  counteracting  the  negative 
effect of unfair trade practices such as dumped/subsidised imports, while safeguards (SFG’) 
should  temporarily  shield  industries  from  the  negative  effect  of  unforeseen  and  significant 
increases of imports. Safeguard measures also differ from the other two instruments, as they 
are  applied  on  imports  from  all  origins,  while  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy  measures  are 
country (and even company) specific. 

–In the application of TDIs, WTO rules need to be scrupulously respected. Misapplication of 
TDIs leads to unlawful and unjustified measures that have a negative impact on free and fair 
trade.  This  is  in  particular  the  case  for  the  safeguard  instrument,  which  is  the  most  trade 
restrictive instrument, and for which the rules are even stricter than for anti-dumping and anti-
subsidy measures.  

Over the past years, and in conjunction with the global economic crises, an increase of the use 
of  trade  defence  measures  has  been  observed.  In  times  of  economic  crises,  when  domestic 
consumption in certain sectors decreases, industries naturally look for other outlets for their 
production and focus on export markets. It is therefore crucial that these export opportunities 
are  not  hampered  by  unwarranted  trade  defence  measures,  which  unduly  restrict  market 
access.   

WTO members have the right to make use of the TDIs. The EU itself is a regular user of these 
instruments  (with  the  exception  of  safeguards),  but  employs  a  balanced  and  moderate 
approach  and  applies  strict  standards  that  go  even  beyond  its  WTO  commitments.  The  EU 
expects its trading partners to follow the agreed WTO required standards in their use of the 
instruments.  In  this  context,  the  Commission  has  continued  its  efforts  to  promote  best 
practices in the use of TDI among its trading partners, and the monitoring activity has been 
further intensified.  

The  Commission  intervenes,  whenever  necessary,  in  order  to  address  systemic  issues 
identified in third countries’ use and practice of trade defence and ensure WTO compatibility. 
The Commission systemically submits comments in writing, and also increasingly participates 
in public hearings in third country TDI proceedings, especially when EU exporters’ rights and 
interests are unjustifiably affected.  

Furthermore,  the  Commission  provides  detailed  TDI  related  training  to  officials  from  the 
investigating authorities of third countries, in an effort to spread its own high standards in TDI 
investigations  and  thereby  increasing  the  quality  of  investigations  carried  out  by  third 
countries.  Such training is usually organised once a year, in the form of a one week seminar, 
for up to 25 participants from around five third countries. Due to high interest, a second such 
seminar was organised in 2014. Officials from Israel, Kosovo, Pakistan, Panama, Tajikistan, 
Ukraine, Vietnam, Dominican Republic and Turkey participated in the two trainings provided 
in 2014. Furthermore, Commission TDI experts provided training to Moroccan officials in a 
seminar  in  Rabat.  Additional  requests  from  Egypt  and  Tunisia  for  training  of  their  officials 
‘sur place’ by Commission TDI experts were received during 2014. 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
This  report  describes  the  overall  trends  in  trade  defence  activities  by  third  countries,  which 
adversely  impact  or  could  potentially  impact  EU  exports  (AD  or  AS  measures  by  third 
countries can target either the EU as a whole or individual Member State(s)). It also gives an 
overview  of  what  third  country  monitoring  means  concretely  with  detailed  analyses  per 
country and detailed figures in the annex. 

2.  OVERALL TRENDS 

Similar to 2013, the trade defence activity by third countries in 2014 remained intense. 

While the number of measures in force has decreased to 140 (from 152 in 2013), mainly due 
to the expiry of certain measures, 34 new measures were imposed in 2014 (compared to 27 in 
2013) and 41 new investigations were initiated (compared to 43 in 2013). It is thus expected 
that this intense activity will remain also in 2015.  

Total number of measures in force 

160

150

140

130

120

110

100

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

Regarding  the  types  of  instruments  used,  out  of  the  140  measures  in  force,  104  are  anti-
dumping measures, 4 are anti-subsidy measures and 32 are safeguards (it is recalled that not 
all safeguard measures affect EU exports). The 34 new measures imposed in 2014 consist of 
19  anti-dumping,  1  anti-subsidy  and  14  safeguard  measures.  In  terms  of  new  initiations,  23 
safeguard investigations, 17 anti-dumping and 1 anti-subsidy investigations were initiated in 
2014. The number of new safeguard investigations in  2013 seemed to  indicate a decreasing 
trend, in particular compared to the number of anti-dumping investigations. But this trend has 
not been confirmed in 2014. In fact, the number of safeguard investigations initiated in 2014 
(23) is as high as in 2012, and was only higher in 2009, when 31 new safeguard investigations 
had been initiated. 

In  2014,  it  seems  that  certain  sectors  have  been  targeted  specifically.  The  steel  sector  is 
indeed frequently affected by trade defence action, in particular in the Mediterranean region, 
but also in Latin America. In fact, 12 of the new investigations initiated in 2014, concerned 
steel  products.  The  chemical  sector  closely  follows  with  11  new  investigations  initiated  in 
2014. The paper industry was especially targeted in 2014, with 5 new investigations initiated 
followed by another one initiated early in 2015. 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
New investigations initiated in 2014 by sector 

Other; 10 

Agriculture; 2 

Textiles; 1 

Paper ; 5 

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

Steel ; 12 

Chemicals; 11 

The  most  active  country  in  2014  was  India.  India  has  a  total  of  26  measures  in  force  (4 
safeguard, 22 anti-dumping measures). In 2014, it imposed 4 new anti-dumping measures and 
4  new  safeguard  measures,  and  initiated  7  new  safeguard  and  3  new  anti-dumping 
investigations.  It  is  followed  by  China  and  the  US  with  18  measures  in  force  (16  anti-
dumping  and  2  anti-subsidy  measures  for  China,  and  17  anti-dumping  and  1  anti-subsidy 
measure  for  the  US).  In  2014,  China  imposed  4  new  measures  (3  anti-dumping,  1  anti-
subsidy)  and  initiated  1  anti-dumping  investigation.  The  US  imposed  1  new  anti-dumping 
measure and did not initiate any new investigations.  

Measures in force at the end of 2014 by country 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
In  terms  of  regions,  Asia,  Latin  America  and  the  Mediterranean  region  have  been  most 
active with respectively 16, 12 and 10 new investigations initiated in 2014.  

Latin America is clearly on an increasing trend with respectively 6, 10 and 12 new initiations 
over the past 3 years.  

The Mediterranean region has also increased its activity in 2014, with 7 new investigations 
initiated (compared to 4 investigations initiated in 2013). But it is still below the level of 2012 
(11 new initiations).  

One  of  the  main  concerns  in  Asia  and  in  the  Mediterranean  region  is  the  extensive  use  of 
safeguards.  In  Asia,  safeguard  investigations  accounted  for  12  out  of  the  16  investigations 
initiated in 2014, and in the Mediterranean for 6 out of the 7 new investigations initiated.  In 
Latin America, only 2 out of 12 new investigations were safeguard investigations.  

New investigations initiated in 2014 by region 

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

L. America

N. America

Asia

Mediterranean

Eurasia

Australia

S. Africa

2012

2013

2014

 Source: WTO and EU statistics 

3.  RECURRING ISSUES  

3.1. 

Use of safeguards 

The proliferation of initiations of new safeguard investigations continues to raise concerns. In 
2014, third countries initiated 23 new safeguard investigations compared to 18 in 2013. This 
trend  is  all  the  more  worrying,  because  in  many  of  the  investigations,  it  is  questionable 
whether  the  strict  rules  provided  for  in  the  WTO  Safeguard  Agreement  are  respected.  As 
mentioned in previous reports, the safeguard instrument is the most restrictive instrument and 
should  thus  be  used  in  truly  exceptional  circumstances  only.  Even  though  not  all  safeguard 
investigations affect EU exports directly, the Commission intervenes systematically in almost 
all  investigations,  in  order  to  raise  serious  shortcomings  in  many  of  these  investigations, 
already at initiation stage.  

There are many common flaws in these safeguard initiations and investigations. Often, third 
countries do not establish an unforeseen development, or react to an increase of imports which 
is  not  recent,  sudden,  sharp  and  significant  enough.  Further,  the  injury  picture  is  often 
questionable and the causal link doubtful. In this context, it is recalled that the injury standard 
in  safeguard  investigations  is  serious  injury,  which  is  a  more  demanding  standard  than 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
material  injury,  as  required  in  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy  investigations.    Despite  the 
interventions  by  the  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  industry,  in  most  cases  measures  are 
nevertheless  imposed.  However,  such  interventions  have  led,  at  least  in  some  cases,  to  less 
restrictive measures (lower duty rates, higher quota, shorter duration or faster liberalisation of 
measures). 

3.2. 

Use of the instruments by emerging economies 

Non-respect of the WTO rules in the area of trade defence leads to unwarranted measures that 
do  not  achieve  their  intended  purpose.  The  Commission  observed  that  some  emerging 
economies  readily  use  safeguards  and  regardless  if  imports  are  dumped  or  subsidised.    In 
particular, in cases where imports increase mainly from one source the appropriate instrument 
would  often  be  the  anti-dumping  or  the  anti-subsidy  instruments,  which  are  both  country 
specific and provide a targeted response to the unfair trading practice at stake.  

Unlike  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy  measures,  safeguards  affect  imports  from  all  sources, 
and thus may hamper fair competition. When taking a closer look at many of the safeguard 
investigations opened during the past year, most of which in emerging economies, they often 
involved industries  with  either  a  dominant  position  on  the local  market  or  in  the  process  of 
massive  capacity  building.  Clearly,  these  are  situations  in  which  the  use  of  the  safeguard 
instrument is not warranted.  

The Commission has also observed a ‘contagion’ effect in some regions. This has specifically 
been  observed  in  the  Mediterranean  region,  where  Morocco  started  to  use  the  instruments 
regularly since 2012 and was then emulated by Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan, while Turkey is a 
more traditional and very active user of the TDIs.  

3.3. 

Lack of transparency 

A key element in each trade defence investigation concerns the rights of defence of the parties 
affected. It is up to the investigating authorities to ensure that an appropriate, meaningful non-
confidential  file  is  made  available  for  parties  to  consult  on  a  timely  basis.  Such  a  file  must 
contain  a  non-confidential  version  of  each  document  on  the  record  and/or  meaningful 
summaries  of information  provided in  confidence.  Unfortunately, in  many investigations, in 
particular with few or only one complainant, hardly any information is provided in the non-
confidential  file.  In  such  cases  the  Commission  intervenes  in  order  for  the  investigating 
authorities to at least provide information in the form of indices or ranges, so that parties can 
obtain at least a general picture of the situation.   

4.  WTO ACTIVITY 

The Commission is active in the WTO in order to ensure full respect of WTO law. 

If measures taken by other WTO members violate WTO rules the Commission may request 
the establishment of a WTO Panel.  
For  instance,  in  August  2013,  the  Commission  had  requested  the  establishment  of  a  Panel 
against  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by  China  on  imports  of  certain  steel  tubes.  The 
proceeding took place mostly in 2014 and resulted in a favourable final outcome for the EU 
(more  details  below).  In  2014,  the  Commission  had  also  requested  the  establishment  of  a 
Panel  concerning  the  anti-dumping  measures  imposed  by  Russia  against  imports  of  light 
commercial vehicles. The proceeding will continue through 2015. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Furthermore,  the  Commission  also  intervenes  as  a  third  party  in  WTO  Panels  requested  by 
third  countries,  with  the  main  objective  to  address  and  monitor  issues  of  systemic  interest, 
which may also impact the EU's use of the trade defence instruments. Such interventions have 
also  an  offensive  interest,  since  the  Commission  advocates  for  higher  standards  in  trade 
defence investigations abroad. In 2014, the Commission intervened as a third party, inter alia, 
in cases such as, United States – anti-dumping and countervailing measures regarding large 
residential washers from Korea (WT/DS464), and United States – anti-dumping measures on 
certain shrimp from Viet Nam (AB-2015-01)(DS429). 

Finally,  the  Commission  also  actively  participates  in  the  relevant  WTO  committees  in 
Geneva.  In  the  Anti-dumping/Anti-subsidy  Committees,  actions  taken  by  other  WTO 
Members are reviewed in the context of the semi-annual and monthly reporting exercises to 
the WTO. Special focus is paid to the Safeguard Committee, given the increasing use of this 
instrument, which is a cause of concern. The Commission raises individual cases, where the 
EU has an economic or a systemic interest. In addition, the Commission also participates in a 
more general discussion group on safeguard issues, which takes place in the margins of this 
WTO  Committee.  The  main  objective  is  to  exchange  views  on  the  respective  practices  of 
WTO members.  

5.  MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS 

5.1. 

Egypt  –  termination  of  an  anti-subsidy  investigation  without  imposition  of 
measures 

In June 2014, Egypt initiated an anti-subsidy investigation regarding imports of Edam cheese 
from  the  Netherlands.  The  subsidies  targeted  were  EU  as  well  as  Dutch  programs.  The 
Commission  cooperated  in  the  investigation  and  also  assisted  the  Dutch  authorities.  In 
addition  the  Commission  made  a  submission  highlighting  that  the  subsidy  programs  under 
investigation  were  non-specific  and  thus  not  actionable  under  WTO  rules.  Furthermore,  it 
raised  strong  doubts  as  to  the  injury  and  causal  link  analysis.  The  Commission  also 
participated in consultations held in Cairo. In March 2015, the investigation was terminated 
without  imposition  of  measures.  The  Egyptian  authorities  concluded  that  the  subsidy 
programs were non-specific and thus not actionable and that their investigation could not find 
that the domestic industry was suffering material injury.  

5.2. 

South Africa – decrease in the final duty rates 

In the investigation regarding frozen chicken parts from Germany, the Netherlands and the 
United Kingdom, South Africa (ITAC) proposed definitive duties for imports from those three 
member  states.  Following  comments  received  from  interested  parties,  including  the 
Commission’s intervention especially concerning the dumping margins and their calculations 
for the UK, ITAC significantly lowered those rates for both individual UK producers (from 
18.68% to 13.07%) and for the “all others” UK rate (from 34.7% to 22.3%). 

5.3. 

Turkey – decrease of the negative impact of measures 

Turkey  imposed  safeguard  measures  concerning  terephthalic  acid  (PTA).  However, 
following  active  interventions  by  the  Commission  in  support  of  the  EU  industry,  the  duty 
rates imposed are relatively low (4%) and will last only 2 years. The Commission highlighted 
weaknesses in the causal link analysis and stressed that due to the increase in consumption, 
any duties could endanger sufficient levels of supply. 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.4.  Morocco – undertaking accepted 

Morocco  initiated  an  anti-dumping  investigation  regarding  imports  of  insulin  in  December 
2012. Provisional duties were imposed in April 2014 and the imposition of definitive duties of 
13.89% was proposed in August 2014. Following interventions by the Commission in support 
of EU industry, the Moroccan authorities accepted an undertaking from the Danish producer 
concerned and thus the duties have been suspended.   

5.5. 

US – termination of a sunset review without continuation of measures 

The  Commission  was  actively  involved  in  the  first  full  sunset  review  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures imposed in 2008 on imports of lightweight thermal paper from Germany. On 28 
May 2014, the US DOC found that the revocation of the order would be likely to lead to the 
continuation or recurrence of dumping. Subsequently, the Commission intervened during the 
public hearing before the US ITC in October 2014 supporting German industry. Following a 
favourable vote by the US ITC, the anti-dumping order was revoked on 17 December 2014. 

5.6. 

Australia – low or no duty for several companies 

On 9 July 2013, the Australian authorities initiated an anti-dumping investigation concerning 
processed  tomato  products  from  Italy.  The  Commission  intervened  on  several  occasions 
through a number of submissions to the Australian Anti-dumping Commission in support of 
Italian industry. Furthermore, during the verification visits, a Commission expert was present 
to  support  the  companies  concerned.  As  a  result,  45%  of  exports  were  excluded  from  the 
measure and duties for the other cooperating exporters were relatively low (on average 4%). 

Unfortunately, the Australian authorities initiated a new investigation only a few months later, 
in  2015,  to  re-investigate  the  imports  from  the  two  companies  earlier  excluded  from  the 
measure. The Commission will continue to intervene supporting the Italian exporters since the 
grounds for initiating a new investigation appear extremely weak.   

5.7. 

Philippines  –  termination  of  a  safeguard  investigation  without  imposition  of 
measures 

In  September  2012,  the  Philippine  authorities  initiated  a  safeguard  investigation  against 
imports  of  galvanised  iron  and  pre-painted  galvanised  iron  sheets  and  coils.  The 
Commission  intervened  at  an  early  stage  of  the  investigation  in  order  to  point  out  that  the 
evidence disclosed was insufficient to justify any imposition of measures. The investigation, 
which  raised  general  concerns  regarding  a  potential  abuse  of  the  safeguard  instrument,  was 
finally terminated without imposition of measures in February 2015, on the grounds that the 
subject imports did not cause any injury to the domestic industry. 

5.8. 

China  –  termination  of  an  antidumping  investigation  without  imposition  of 
measures 

In June 2014, China initiated an antidumping investigation against imports of haemodialysis 
equipment  originating  in  the  EU  and  Japan.  The  main  EU  exporters  affected  by  the 
investigation were based in Germany, Sweden and Italy. The Commission intervened with the 
Chinese  authorities  pointing  out  technical  flaws  in  the  complaint  and  provided  technical 
support  to  the  exporters  concerned.  The  complaint  was  finally  withdrawn  and  the  case  was 
terminated in December 2014 without imposition of measures. 

5.9. 

China - successful WTO Panel outcome 

In  November  2012,  the  EU  (and  Japan)  had  requested  the  establishment  of  a  WTO  Panel 
concerning anti-dumping measures imposed by  China against imports of certain stainless 

8 

 
 
 
steel tubes. The Commission had identified significant flaws in this investigation. The major 
part of the Panel proceeding took place in 2014 and the results were released early in 2015. In 
its conclusions, the Panel upheld a number of important claims of the EU (China’s failure to 
ensure  a  fair  comparison  between  export  price  and  normal  value,  and  its  flawed  non-
attribution analysis). It is considered that in order to correctly implement the Panel's findings, 
China would have to remove the WTO inconsistent measures. The case has been appealed and 
the Appellate Body is currently reviewing the Panel report. 

The  panel's  findings  are  of  systemic  importance.  They  highlight  recurrent  shortcomings  in 
trade defence investigations carried out by China. This would be the second time that the EU 
successfully challenged anti-dumping duties imposed by China in the WTO.  Following the 
previous ruling (DS425), China repealed its WTO-incompatible anti-dumping duties on x-ray 
scanners. 

In  this  context,  and  following  the  widely  publicised  wine  and  polysilicon  cases  in  2013,  in 
2014, there were no indications that new investigations by China were initiated as retaliation 
to  an investigation  initiated by the EU. However,  this does  not  mean  that  this inappropriate 
practice is at bay, and the Commission will remain vigilant in this regard.  

6.  CONCLUSION 

The trade defence activity against the EU or its Member States in 2014 remained similar to 
that  of  2013.  Although  the  total  number  of  measures  has  decreased,  the  number  of  new 
investigations, and in particular new safeguard investigations, is significant.  

In 2014, the Commission continued its efforts, in order to mitigate the negative impact of the 
trade defence  measures imposed  by third countries,  through interventions,  both  at  technical, 
and in certain cases, also at political level. In some cases, such interventions were successful, 
as described above.  

However,  many  of  the  issues  encountered  over  past  years  persist,  and  some  even  in  an 
aggravated manner, in particular the proliferated use of safeguards and the questionable way 
this instrument is used by a number of third countries. In general, unwarranted trade defence 
measures  go  clearly  against  the  EU’s  strategy  of  open  markets  and  market  access  for  fairly 
traded goods. 

Trade defence measures imposed by third countries, as well as ongoing investigations, have 
an  important  impact  on  EU  exports.  Therefore,  the  Commission  will  continue  its  efforts  to 
promote  the  high  standards  the  EU  applies,  when  using  the  instruments,  among  our  trading 
partners.  It  will  also  intensify  its  interventions  and  its  provision  of  technical  support  and 
advice  to  EU  exporters  especially  when  they  are  faced  with  potential  abuse  of  the  TDIs  by 
third countries. These efforts are fully in line with the Commission’s other efforts regarding 
market access. In that sense, the Commission’s activities regarding third countries’ use of TDI 
go far beyond simple monitoring. 

9