REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FOURTEENTH REPORT OVERVIEW OF THIRD COUNTRY TRADE DEFENCE ACTIONS AGAINST THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE YEAR 2016
Date: 2017-07-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, export (EU), protectionism, third country, trade dispute

EN 

   EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.7.2017  COM(2017) 401 final   REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FOURTEENTH REPORT  OVERVIEW OF THIRD COUNTRY TRADE DEFENCE ACTIONS AGAINST THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE YEAR 2016 {SWD(2017) 277 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Trade defence instruments (TDIs) consist of three important tools specifically designed within 
the framework of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to meet this goal: anti-dumping, anti-
subsidy and safeguards.  

Anti-dumping (AD) and anti-subsidy (AS)1 measures aim at counteracting the material injury 
(or  threat  of  it)  caused  by  dumped  and/or  subsidised  imports  to  a  domestic  industry,  while 
safeguards (SFG) provide domestic producers with a temporary relief from an unforeseen and 
significant  increase  of  imports.  Safeguard  measures  are  applied  on  imports  from  all  origins 
indifferently (erga omnes), while anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures are country – and 
even company – specific. 

Each  WTO  member  has  the  right  to  make  use  of  TDIs  to  counteract  unfair  trade  practices. 
However, this has to be done in full accordance with WTO rules, as misuse of TDIs leads to 
unlawful  and  unjustified  protectionist  measures  that  have  a  negative  impact  on  global  trade 
and  economic  development.  The  EU  itself  is  a  regular  user  of  TDIs  (with  the  exception  of 
safeguards) but  has  a  moderate  and balanced  approach.  EU standards  are  in  fact  even  more 
stringent than those provided by WTO rules and provide for additional conditions before any 
measures  can  be  imposed.  These  so-called  'WTO  plus  elements'  include,  for  example,  a 
mandatory  Union  interest  test  to  be  carried  out  before  any  measure  is  imposed,  in  order  to 
assess the effect of the imposition/non-imposition of measures on the European economy.  

Starting  from  2010,  a  significant  increase  in  the  use  of  TDIs  by  third  countries  against  EU 
exports  has  been  observed.  In  these  times  of  economic  slowdown  and  stagnant  demand, 
especially in certain sectors, EU industries naturally look for other outlets for their production, 
including  export  markets.  It  is  therefore  crucial  that  these  export  opportunities  are  not 
hindered by unwarranted trade defence measures, which unduly restrict market access.   

The EU expects its trading partners to also follow the applicable WTO standards in their use 
of  the  instruments  and  has  continued  its  efforts  to  promote  best  practices:  every  year  the 
Commission  organises  a  comprehensive  one  week  TDI-related  seminar  for  officials  from 
investigating  authorities  of  third  countries.  20  officials  from  6  different  countries  (Egypt, 
Japan,  Thailand,  Tunisia,  Turkey  and  Vietnam)  and  the  WTO  secretariat  participated  in  the 
training  organised  in  November  2016.  In  addition,  bilateral  meetings  to  exchange  EU  best 
practices  with  TDI  officials  from,  respectively,  Indonesia,  Thailand,  China  and  Korea  took 
place last year, as well as more informal contacts with other trade partners.  

When a third country opens a trade defence investigation against EU exports, the role of the 
Commission is to actively intervene, whenever necessary, in order to address systemic issues 
identified  in  the  proceeding  and  to  ensure  WTO  compatibility.  This  is  for  instance  done 
through written submissions to the investigating authority in third countries but also through 
regular participation in hearings, in order to ensure that EU exporters’ rights and interests are 
respected. The Commission also intervenes in the framework of its bilateral agreements and 
in the multilateral context. 

1 In the framework of the WTO, anti-subsidy (AS) measures are referred to as countervailing duties (CVD). 

2 

 
 
 
                                                            
This  report  describes  the  overall  trends  in  trade  defence  activities  by  third  countries,  which 
adversely  impact  or  could  impact  EU  exports,  the  main  problems  identified  and  results 
achieved in 2016. It also gives an overview of what the Commission has done concretely in 
third country monitoring with a detailed country-by-country analysis and exhaustive figures in 
the Annex. 

2.  OVERALL TRENDS 

2.1.  Measures in force at the end of 2016 

Similar  to  2015,  the  trade  defence  activity  by  third  countries  against  EU  industries  in  2016 
remained intense. 

At  the  end  of  2016,  there  were  156  TDI  measures  in  force  affecting  EU  exports,  which 
represents  an  increase  when  compared  to  the  151  measures  in  force  at  the  end  of  2015.  As 
shown in the graph below, there has been a clear increasing trend in the number of measures 
in force affecting EU exports since 2010, and the TDI activity is still quite important. 

Total number of measures in force at the end of 2016 

160

150

140

130

120

110

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

As showed in the graph below, India remained the most active user of TDIs against the EU, 
with a total of 24 measures in force at the end of 2016 (19 AD and 5 SFG), an increase of 5 
measures as compared to 2015 (19). The United States follow with 21 measures in force, 19 
of  which  are  AD  (3  more  than  in  2015)  and  2  are  AS.  China  remained  stable  with  19 
measures (17 AD and 2 AS) and so did Brazil, with 15 measures, all AD. 

3 

 
 
 
Measures in force at the end of 2016 by country 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

By type of instrument, out of the 156 measures in force2, 116 are AD, 5 are AS and 35 are 
SFG  (it  is  recalled  that  SFG  measures  are  not  country-specific,  thus  not  all  of  them 
necessarily affect EU exports). 

More  specifically  on  safeguards, the  most  important  users  in  2016  were Indonesia  (7),  with  
the highest number of measures in place, followed by India (5) and four other Asian countries: 
Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam (3 each).  

2.2.  New investigations initiated in 2016 

In  terms  of  new  investigations,  2016  has  seen  a  considerable  decrease:  all  third  countries 
together opened a total of 30 new cases against the EU, 7 less than in 2015. This is mainly due 
to a decreasing trend in the number of new SFG investigations, which dropped from 18 in 
2015 to 12 in 2016 (-6). The number of AD and AS investigations remained relatively stable 
as compared to 2015, i.e. 18 new AD and no new AS.  

It is worth noting that, among all countries, India is the one who opened the highest number 
of new investigations (5, 4 of which are AD), reversing the decreasing trend it has had in 2015, 
when no AD case was initiated.  

In  terms  of  sectors,  as  in  2015,  the  increasing  trend  of  new  steel  cases  initiated  by  third 
countries against the EU persisted over 2016. As shown in the graph below, the proportion of 
new  steel  investigations  exceeded  the  total  number  of  cases  in  all  other  sectors.  In  fact,  in 
2016  17  out  of  the  30  new  investigations  against  the  EU  concerned  steel  products.  Starting 
from 2015, the steel sector worldwide has often been subject to trade defence investigations 
and measures. This is mainly due to excess capacity and overproduction in China that result in 
very significant levels of exports at dumped prices. Even though there is no overcapacity in 
the EU steel production, EU industries are also often targeted by trade measures imposed by 

2 The  details  of  measures  imposed  by  third  countries  against  the  EU  are  available  on  DG  TRADE's  webpage: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/actions-against-eu-exporters/cases/index.cfm. 

4 

 
 
 
                                                            
third countries against imports of steel. This is particularly the case of SFG, which are applied 
irrespectively of the country of origin. However, EU industries are also sometimes included 
by  third  countries in  the  scope  of  AD  investigations  which otherwise  mostly  target dumped 
steel products coming from Asia. 

The  EU  itself  also  opened  a  number  of  cases  and  imposed  measures  on  imports  of  steel 
products.  In order to closely monitor the developments in the sector, the EU has put in place 
a  "steel  surveillance"  mechanism:  this  entails  a  regular  monitoring  of  import  trends  which 
threaten to cause injury to EU steel producers. 

New investigations against the EU in steel and other sectors

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Other sectors new investigations

Steel sector new investigations

% share of steel

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

2.3.  Measures imposed in 2016 

A  total  of  30  new  measures  were  imposed  in  2016  by  third  countries  on  EU  exports.  This 
represents  a  significant  decrease  as  compared  to  2015  (37)  notably  in  the  number  of 
safeguard  measures,  which  dropped  from  15  to  10.  In  this  regard,  it  is  important  to  recall 
that the European  Commission  is  very active in promoting a fair  use of TDIs by its trading 
partners, especially when it comes to SFG. 

As regards AD and AS measures imposed, figures show an overall stable trend. As compared 
to  2015  (21),  last  year  there  was  a  slight  decrease  in  the  total  number  of  AD  measures 
imposed  (19),  but  some  countries  have  imposed  more  measures  than  in  2015:  the  US  and 
India have imposed respectively 5 and 3 AD measures, while in 2015 they imposed measures 
only in 1 case each.  On the other hand, Brazil had a reverse trend: it has only imposed AD 
measures in 1 case, while in 2015 it imposed  measures in 8 cases. Only 1 AS measure was 
imposed last year by the US, same as in 2015. 

5 

 
 
 
3.  RECURRING ISSUES 

3.1.  Anti-circumvention3 

In  2016,  the  number  of  cases  by  third  countries  against  the  EU  involving  circumvention 
concerns  continued  to  be  significant.  As  in  2015,  last  year  there  was  a  total  of  5  cases 
involving circumvention: Turkey had 3 measures in force (2 on woven fabrics from Bulgaria 
and  Poland  and  1  on  plywood  from  Bulgaria,  the  latter  being  imposed  in  October)  and 
initiated  1  new  investigation  (hinges  from  Greece,  Spain  and  Italy),  and  another  one  was 
initiated by Argentina (coated paper from Finland).  

Circumvention  refers  to  illegal  practices  such  as  transhipment,  miss-declaration  of  origin, 
product  modification  or  assembly  operations,  which  aim  at  avoiding  the  payment  of 
applicable AD or AS duties. When circumvention is found, the existing AD or AS measures 
can  be  extended  to  the  third  country  not  subject  to  the  measures  (but  often  geographically 
close to it) where the circumvention activity takes place, or to the slightly modified product. 
Since there are currently no uniform rules in the WTO agreements as regards circumvention, 
and given the fact that it can become problematic when anti-circumvention measures capture 
genuine producers, this is a sensitive area that the Commission is monitoring closely. 

3.2.  Rights of defence 

A key element in all TDI investigations is the rights of defence of the parties. It is up to the 
investigating  authorities  to  ensure  that  a  meaningful  non-confidential  file  is  made  available 
for consultation. Such a file should exclude business secrets and present redacted information 
in  the  form  of  indexes  or  ranges  that  enable  all  parties  to  have  a  complete  picture  of  the 
situation.  Unfortunately,  in  many  investigations  (in  particular  those  with  few  or  only  one 
complainant), hardly any information is provided in the non-confidential file, or it is simply 
blanked  out.  This  lack  of  meaningful  information  makes  it  impossible  for  parties  to 
understand  the  circumstances  of  the  case  and  to  defend  themselves.  In  such  cases  the 
Commission intervenes systematically, insisting on more transparency during the proceedings. 

3.3. 

Injury and causal link  

Investigations should result in measures only when the relevant WTO conditions are strictly 
fulfilled;  unfortunately,  this  is  not  always  the  case.  In  particular,  the  Commission  has  often 
been confronted with inadequate analysis where the existence of a clear causal link between 
the  alleged  dumped  imports  and  the  injury  suffered  by  the  domestic  industry  was  very 
doubtful. When the link between those two cannot be established, even when injury is found, 
there is no sufficient ground to impose any measure according to WTO rules. It is important 
to recall that there can be many reasons for the domestic industry to be injured: the inefficient 
utilisation  of  its  capacity,  a  drop  in  domestic  demand,  or  an  increase  in  raw  material  and 
energy  prices,  amongst  others.  Any  injury  from  such  other  factors  may  not  be  attributed  to 
dumped imports and may break the causal link. The Commission pays particular attention to 
the analysis of injury and causal link in third country investigations, as without a causal link, 

3 Anti-circumvention investigations do not appear in the web-engine referred to under footnote 2, while in the 
annexed statistics these are counted as anti-dumping cases. 

6 

 
 
 
                                                            
any  measures  go  beyond  remedying  injury  caused  by  dumped/subsidised  imports  and  can 
easily turn into protectionism. 

3.4.  Questionable use of safeguards 

As  explained  before,  safeguard  is  the  most  trade-restrictive  instrument,  as  it  applies  to  all 
imports  regardless  of  their  origin.  This  is  why  it  should  be  used  in  very  exceptional 
circumstances only, in order to temporarily protect the domestic industry from a sudden and 
sharp  increase  in  imports.  Although  the  use  of  SFG  has  started  to  decrease  in  2016,  the 
Commission continues to intervene systematically in almost all investigations, as many do not 
seem to respect the strict rules provided for in the WTO Safeguards Agreement. Many SFG 
investigations refer to imports that are actually originating in only one country, thus the AD or 
AS  instruments  would  be  more  appropriate  in  providing  a  more  targeted  response  to  the 
problem,  without  unduly  limiting  market  access.  In  2016,  this  was  the  case  particularly  in 
South  East  Asia,  where  SFG  investigations  aimed  at  protecting  the  domestic  steel  markets 
against increasing imports of steel products mainly from China. 

4.  MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS 

China – Termination of AD measures following WTO AB report  

On  22  August  2016  China  terminated  the  AD  measures  on  certain  high-performance 
stainless  steel  seamless tubes  originating in the EU and Japan. This decision represents the 
implementation of the WTO Appellate Body (AB) report of October 2015, which concluded 
that the AD measures imposed by China in 2012 were in breach of WTO rules (see also under 
point 5 below). This case is an example of unwarranted Chinese TDI measures, which were 
motivated by retaliation and were not in compliance with WTO rules. The case was initiated 
shortly after an EU case against imports of Chinese steel. The WTO AB found notably that 
the Chinese Ministry of Commerce did not undertake a segmented analysis of the impact of 
the dumped imports on the Chinese domestic industry, failing to ensure that the injury caused 
by other factors was not attributed to the dumped imports; it also found that interested parties 
were not allowed to properly exercise their rights of defence. 

Australia – Decrease of duties for exporting producers of processed tomatoes  

In 2013 the Australian authorities initiated an AD investigation concerning processed tomato 
products  from  Italy  (EU  exports  of  this  product  to  Australia  of  €  48  million).  Further  to 
several interventions, the investigation for the two main exporters, who represent around 45% 
of total EU exports, was terminated because no evidence of dumping was found.  The duties 
for the other cooperating exporters were relatively low (on average 4%). 

In  2015  Australia  initiated  a  new  AD  investigation  regarding  the  two  exporting  producers 
against  whom the previous investigation  had been terminated. Despite several  technical and 
political  interventions  at  various  levels,  early  in  2016  the  Australian  authorities  imposed 
measures  ranging  from  4.5%  to  8.4%.  These  measures  were  based  on  a  methodology  the 
application  of  which  lead  to  serious  systemic  concerns,  as  it  indirectly  challenged  EU 
agricultural green box payments (which are allowed under WTO rules) within the framework 
of an AD investigation. In April 2016, at the request of the Italian companies and authorities, 
the  Australian  Anti-dumping  Review  Panel  initiated  a  review  of  the  measures.  The 

7 

 
 
 
Commission, in coordination with industry, promptly intervened  in the proceeding, showing 
that the price of raw tomatoes purchased by the two exporters was not influenced by the EU 
green  box  payments.  As  a  consequence,  there  should  not  have  been  any  cost  adjustments, 
which  resulted  in  artificially  high  dumping  margins.  This  argument  prevailed  and,  on  5 
January 2017, the Australian authorities reduced the level of the applicable duty for the two 
exporting producers (to 0% for one exporter and to 4.6% for the other), acknowledging that 
the cost adjustment methodology was not appropriate.  

In  parallel, in  May  2016  an  interim  review limited  to  the  other  exporting  producers  already 
subject to the measures was also initiated by the Australian authorities, in order to apply the 
cost adjustment methodology they had initially applied to the two Italian companies with the 
aim of raising also their dumping margins. But in January 2017, further to the methodological 
review lodged by the two Italian exporters (which has been described above), the Australian 
AD Committee reviewed its conclusions and decided to no longer apply the cost adjustment 
methodology and to reduce the duty rates for all the exporters concerned. 

Brazil – Termination of AD investigation on X-ray machines without imposition of measures  

In  February  2017,  Brazil  terminated  the  AD  investigation  against  imports  of  X-ray  dental 
machines from Germany (EU exports of this product to Brazil of around € 5 million). In view 
of  the  arguments  presented  by  the  Commission  and  the  industry  (three  interventions 
addressing serious flaws relating to the analysis of volume and price effects, injury and causal 
link),  the  Brazilian  Department  of  Trade  Remedies  (DECOM)  reverted  its  preliminary 
determination  and  concluded  that  the  domestic  industry  was  not  injured  by  the  investigated 
imports. 

Turkey – Less restrictive form of SFG measures 

Turkey imposed SFG measures on imports of wall paper, including those of EU origin (EU 
exports  of  this  product  to  Turkey  of  around  €  13  million).  The  Commission  intervened  at 
several  levels,  including  during  the  WTO  SFG  Committee  in  Geneva.  After  extensive 
contacts, in April 2017 the Turkish authorities eventually agreed to put in place a tariff rate 
quota  that  would  apply  as  of  August  2016,  considerably  limiting  the  negative  economic 
impact on EU exporters. 

Morocco – Less restrictive form of SFG measure 

The Commission intervened as from initiation in the Moroccan SFG case concerning  paper 
in  reels  and  reams  (EU  exports  of  this  product  to  Morocco  of  around  €  20  million).  The 
injury  and  causal  link  analysis  were  found  inconclusive  and  the  only  domestic  producer 
seemed to have problems with quality, available quantity and delivery time. A decreasing ad 
valorem  duty  was  then  proposed,  but  the  Commission's  and  the  industry's  joint  efforts  and 
various interventions resulted in a less restrictive tariff quota for EU exporters.  

Tunisia – Non-imposition of measures in three SFG investigations  

Tunisia  initiated  three  SFG  investigations  in  recent  years:  glass  bottles  and  fibre  board  in 
2014 and ceramic tiles in 2015 (EU exports of these three products to Tunisia of around € 70 
million). The Commission intervened strongly, as all three cases were initiated on very weak 

8 

 
 
 
grounds. In particular, the domestic industry was not suffering serious injury: difficulties were 
caused by other factors, such as an increase in raw material and energy prices. Following the 
Commission's interventions in cooperation with industry, the imposition of measures has been 
avoided so far. The Commission continues to exercise pressure so that these investigations are 
closed also formally.  

Egypt – Termination of a SFG investigation without imposition of measures 

The SFG investigation concerning imports of polyethylene terephthalate (PET) was initiated 
in  December  2015.  The  Commission  intervened  several  times  to  highlight  significant 
shortcomings.  In  particular,  the  industry  was  in  a  start-up  phase  and,  after  the  production 
started, imports did not increase but actually decreased. Furthermore, most indicators showed 
a positive trend, especially as regards market share (producers had reached 60% within only 
one year of production), and any difficulty the applicant was experiencing was related to the 
start-up  phase,  not  to  an  increase  in  imports.  The  investigation  was  terminated  without 
measures in August 2016. 

Turkey – Termination without measures of two SFG investigations 

In two SFG cases, hot rolled flat steel and mobile phones, following several submissions by 
the  Commission,  in  cooperation  with  the  industry,  the  Turkish  authorities  eventually 
recognised  that  the  complaints  were  unfounded.  Consequently,  both  investigations  were 
terminated without the imposition of duties.  

South Africa – Lower SFG measures on frozen chicken 

In December 2016 South Africa imposed provisional SFG duties of 13.9% (ad valorem) on 
frozen  chicken  (EU  exports  of  this  product  to  South  Africa  of  around  €  200  million).  The 
same  product  has  already  been  subject  to  AD  measures  since  2015.  Following  several 
Commission interventions, the provisional duty imposed was considerably lower than the one 
initially proposed by the applicant. But the case is still ongoing and, at the time of this report, 
the two duties were still applied cumulatively. 

New Zealand – Termination of AD measures on Spanish preserved peaches 

In  2016  New  Zealand  initiated  an  expiry  review  of  the  AD  measures  imposed  in  2011  on 
imports  of  preserved  peaches  from  Spain.  However,  also  following  interventions  from  the 
Commission, in March 2017 the New Zealand authorities concluded that the duties were no 
longer necessary and they were thus terminated. 

9 

 
 
 
 
 
5.  WTO ACTIVITY 

The Commission is active at WTO level in order to defend the interests of the EU in specific 
cases  and to  ensure  full respect  of  WTO  law.  If  TDI  measures  taken  by  other  members  are 
considered  to  violate  WTO  rules,  the  Commission  may  challenge  them  and  request  the 
establishment of a Panel. 

This  was  the  case  of  AD  measures  imposed  by  Russia  against  imports  of  light  commercial 
vehicles (LCV) (DS479), for which a Panel report was issued in January 2017 (the case was 
mentioned in last year's Annual Report). The Panel declared such duties as in breach of WTO 
rules, agreeing with the EU on all procedural claims and recognising several problems with 
the analysis made by Russia, in particular because it disregarded the massive overcapacity in 
the  domestic  LCV  sector.  In  February  2017,  however,  the  Russian  Federation  appealed  the 
Panel report on behalf of the Eurasian Economic Union4. 

As regards another case also mentioned last year, namely AD measures imposed by China on 
imports of certain steel tubes (DS460), following the ruling of the Appellate Body report of 
October 2015, on 22 August 2016 China implemented the WTO  Dispute Settlement Body's 
(DSB) recommendation and terminated the measures.  

The Commission also actively intervenes as a third party in WTO proceedings involving other 
WTO  members,  with  the  aim  of  addressing  and  monitoring  issues  of  systemic  concern  and 
advocating for higher standards in trade defence investigations worldwide. 

In 2016, the Commission intervened, amongst others, in two WTO disputes (DS464: US – AD 
and AS measures on large washers from Korea, and DS471: US - Certain methodologies and 
their application to AD proceedings involving China), in which the methodology to establish 
targeted  dumping  and  the  application  of  zeroing  by  the  United  States  in  AD  investigations 
were challenged. The Appellate Body reports issued in both cases are of particular interest for 
the EU, as this methodology, which artificially inflated dumping margins, is used by the US 
also in cases against imports from the EU. 

Finally, the Commission regularly participates in the relevant  WTO Committees in Geneva. 
In  the  Anti-dumping  and  Anti-subsidy  Committees,  individual  actions  taken  by  other  WTO 
members are discussed and reviewed in the context of the semi-annual and monthly reporting 
exercises to the WTO. The Commission systematically intervenes and raises individual cases 
also  in  the  framework  of  the  Safeguard  Committee,  in  view  of  the  intensive  use  of  this 
instrument  which  is  a  cause  of  major  concern.  In  addition,  the  Commission  takes  part  in  a 
more  general  discussion  group  on  safeguard  issues,  which  main  objective  is  to  exchange 
views on the respective practices of WTO members. 

6.  CONCLUSION 

The information and data presented in this report show that throughout 2016 the trade defence 
activity against the EU remained intense and required continuous efforts by the Commission 
the  decreasing  number  of  new 
services.  Even 

the  Commission  welcomes 

though 

4 The member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) are: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Armenia and 
Kyrgyz Republic. 

10 

 
 
 
                                                            
investigations  and  measures  against  the  EU,  especially  as  regards  safeguards,  it  should  be 
noted  that the  total  number  of  measures currently in  force  has  increased  compared  to  2015, 
reaching a particularly high level. 

Last year was also marked by an increasing complexity of the cases at stake due to various 
factors such as the global steel overcapacity and the political context in some third countries, 
where  TDI  measures  may  acquire  a  protectionist  connotation.  Moreover,  producers  in  EU 
Member States facing challenges on the internal market have been looking for export outlets 
in order to achieve growth and employment objectives and are thus more often subject to third 
countries' TDI measures. 

The Commission's approach when confronted with TDI activity against EU industries by third 
countries  is  to  intervene  systematically  during  ongoing  proceedings  by  making  technical 
interventions; but it also works to build a constructive dialogue with the TDI services of its 
trading partners. This should contribute to developing well informed investigating authorities, 
who are better aware of the importance of compliance with WTO rules in carrying out trade 
defence investigations in their own countries. 

In  recent  years,  given  the  experience  gained  over  time,  the  Commission's  technical 
interventions have had an increasing impact. This, in combination with political interventions 
and  formal  and  informal  contacts  with  third  countries,  has  led  to  a  number  of  important 
achievements. However, many of the issues encountered in the past still persist.  

Furthermore,  in  view  of  the  increasingly  complex  and  often  politicised  global  trading 
environment,  an  increased  use  of  TDIs  may  be  expected.  In  this  difficult  context,  the 
Commission  will  concentrate  its  efforts  so  that  "use"  does  not  turn  into  "misuse"  of  TDIs. 
Close interaction with the EU industry, individual EU companies and Member States, as well 
as bilateral dialogues and the sharing of best practices with third countries, play a key role in 
the Commission's endeavours.  

Global trade, which is being continuously liberalised and which offers important opportunities 
for stakeholders, can only function on fair terms. Trade defence ensures that fair terms prevail. 
In that sense, it is an integral part of the EU's trade policy, as well as that of other important 
trading partners. 

* * * 

11