COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 36th Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities (2017)
Date: 2018-07-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping duty, anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, countervailing charge, import (EU), import restriction, originating product, surveillance concerning imports, trade dispute

EN 

EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.7.2018 SWD(2018) 392 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 36th Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities (2017) {COM(2018) 561 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

36th Annual Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council 
on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities (2017) 

Table of Contents 

Executive summary .................................................................................................................... 4 

1.  Overview of the legislation .................................................................................................... 6 

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy .................................................................................................. 6 

1.1.1.  The international framework ........................................................................................ 6 

1.1.2.  The EU legislation........................................................................................................ 6 

Safeguards .................................................................................................................................. 7 

1.2.1.  The international framework ........................................................................................ 7 

1.2.2.  The EU legislation........................................................................................................ 7 

Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services ................................................. 8 

2.  Basic concepts ....................................................................................................................... 8 

2.1. 

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy .................................................................................... 8 

2.1.1.  What is dumping and what are countervailable subsidies - the material conditions for 
the imposition of duties? .............................................................................................. 8 

2.1.2.  Procedure ................................................................................................................... 10 

2.1.3.  Review of measures ................................................................................................... 11 

2.1.4. 

Judicial reviews .......................................................................................................... 12 

2.2. 

Safeguards .................................................................................................................. 12 

2.2.1.  What are safeguard measures? ................................................................................... 12 

2.2.2.  Procedure ................................................................................................................... 12 

3.  General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures ............. 14 

3.1. 

3.2. 

Measures in place ....................................................................................................... 14 

Review investigations ................................................................................................ 14 

EN 

1 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.  Overview of activities in 2017 ............................................................................................. 15 

4.1. 

New investigations ..................................................................................................... 15 

4.1.1. 

Initiations ................................................................................................................... 15 

4.1.2.  Provisional measures .................................................................................................. 17 

4.1.3.  Definitive measures .................................................................................................... 17 

4.1.4.  Details on individual cases with application of new provisional or definitive duties 18 

4.1.5. 

Investigations terminated without measures .............................................................. 26 

4.1.6.  Details on some individual cases of termination without measures .......................... 27 

4.2. 

Review investigations ................................................................................................ 27 

4.2.1.  Expiry reviews ........................................................................................................... 27 

4.2.2. 

Interim reviews .......................................................................................................... 40 

4.2.3. 

“Other” reviews .......................................................................................................... 41 

4.2.4.  New exporter reviews ................................................................................................ 45 

4.2.5.  Absorption investigations .......................................................................................... 46 

4.2.6.  Anti-circumvention investigations ............................................................................. 46 

4.3. 

Safeguard investigations ............................................................................................ 47 

5.  Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures ...................................................... 47 

5.1. 

5.2. 

Follow-up of measures ............................................................................................... 47 

Monitoring of undertakings ....................................................................................... 47 

6.  Refunds ................................................................................................................................ 48 

7.  TDI Modernisation .............................................................................................................. 48 

8.  Amendment of the EU's AD and AS legislation in 2017 .................................................... 50 

     Report on market distortions in the Chinese economy ....................................................... 52 

9.  Market economy status (MES) ............................................................................................ 55 

10.  Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts ........................................ 56 

10.1. 

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) ............................................................ 56 

10.2.  Bilateral contacts/information activities – EU economic operators including their key 
stakeholder associations and third countries .............................................................. 56 

11.  Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice and the General Court .............. 56 

EN 

2 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11.1.  Overview of the judicial reviews in 2017. ................................................................. 56 

11.2.  Cases pending ............................................................................................................ 56 

11.3.  New cases ................................................................................................................... 56 

11.4. 

Judgments rendered by the General Court ................................................................. 57 

11.5. 

Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice .............................................................. 63 

12.  Activities in the framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ............................. 69 

12.1.  Dispute settlement in the field of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards .......... 69 

12.1.1.  Overview of the WTO dispute settlement procedure ................................................. 69 

12.1.2.  Dispute settlement procedures against the Union ...................................................... 70 

12.2.  Other WTO activities ................................................................................................. 71 

13.  Conclusion ......................................................................................................................... 72 

LIST OF ANNEXES ................................................................................................................ 73 

ANNEX A ................................................................................................................................ 74 

ANNEX B ................................................................................................................................ 75 

ANNEX C ................................................................................................................................ 77 

ANNEX D ................................................................................................................................ 78 

ANNEX E ................................................................................................................................ 79 

ANNEX F ................................................................................................................................. 80 

ANNEX G ................................................................................................................................ 82 

ANNEX H ................................................................................................................................ 84 

ANNEX I .................................................................................................................................. 85 

ANNEX J ................................................................................................................................. 87 

ANNEX K ................................................................................................................................ 88 

ANNEX L ................................................................................................................................ 89 

ANNEX M ............................................................................................................................... 90 

ANNEX N ................................................................................................................................ 91 

ANNEX O ................................................................................................................................ 92 

ANNEX P ............................................................................................................................... 104 

ANNEX R .............................................................................................................................. 107 

ANNEX S ............................................................................................................................... 110 

ANNEX T .............................................................................................................................. 113 

EN 

3 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  report  describes  the  European  Union's  anti-dumping,  anti-subsidy  and  safeguard 
activities  during  2017,  pursuant  to  Article  23  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1036  (‘basic  anti-
dumping  Regulation’)  and  Article  34  of  Regulation  (EU)  2016/1037  (‘basic  anti-subsidy 
Regulation’). 

The report, as in previous years, gives an overview of the EU legislation in force with regard 
to the trade defence instruments: anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards. 

The report also summarises the developments in general policy. In this respect, two important 
legislative files merit particular attention. In December 2017, the European Parliament and the 
Council  adopted  a  regulation  introducing  a  new  methodology  for  calculating  dumping 
margins  for  countries  in  which  significant  distortions  occur  in  the  economy  owing  to  state 
interference. It also introduces changes to strengthen the anti-subsidy legislation.  

A  breakthrough  has  also  been  achieved  regarding  the  modernisation  of  the  trade  defence 
instruments, a file introduced  by the Commission back in 2013. After a complex legislative 
process, the European Parliament and the Council reached in December 2017 a compromise, 
which paved the way for the entry into force of the new rules in June 2018.  

It should be noted that the reporting provisions in Article 23 and Article 34 of the basic anti-
dumping and basic anti-subsidy Regulations respectively were modified in December 2017 as 
part of substantive changes to those regulations (described in detail under Section 8 below). 
Given that none of the EUs anti-dumping and anti-subsidy proceedings in 2017 were affected 
by  the  changes,  this  report  provides  no  information  in  that  regard.  Worth  noting  is  that  the 
Commission's reporting obligations have been further changed as from 8 June 2018 following 
the  entry  into  force  of  the  amendments  of  the  basic  Regulation  modernising  trade  defence 
rules. 

The  report  also  gives  an  overview  of  all  investigations  together  with  the  most  essential 
information  such  as,  for  instance,  the  rate  of  individual  duties  imposed.  Cases  which  merit 
special attention are treated in more detail. Consequently, the report covers the essential facts 
pertaining to the activity in 2017. 

The  detailed  annexes  give  a  complete  overview  of  all  case-related  information  for  the  past 
year. These are broken down into various categories e.g. initiations, imposition of measures 
etc.  and  are  designed  to  complement  the  narrative  of  this  report  by  providing  details  of  all 
cases including references to publications.  

With  regard  to  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy,  the  year  2017  saw  a  slight  decrease  in  the 
number of new cases initiated when compared to the previous year (11, as compared to 15 in 
2016).  However,  while  only  two  provisional  measures  were  imposed  compared  to  nine  last 
year, the number of definitive measures imposed reached 12 compared to seven in 2016. Only 
two investigations were terminated without measures (compared to eight in 2016).  

As regards review investigations initiated, there was a significant increase in number  - from 
16 in 2016 to 28 in 2017. These included nine expiry reviews, ten interim reviews, six new 
exporter reviews and three anti-circumvention investigations. During 2017, 19 expiry reviews 
were  concluded  with  confirmation  of  the  measures  and  one  interim  review  was  concluded 
with the measures being amended. One anti-circumvention investigation was concluded with 
an extension of duty. 

EN 

4 

EN 

 
 
 
In  short,  while  the  focus  of  the  investigative  work  may  shift  somewhat  from  one  year  to 
another,  the  aforementioned  figures  show  the  overall  importance  and  intensity  of  the 
Commission's trade defence activity. Moreover, the reality of trade defence work goes beyond 
a simple comparison of yearly figures. Indeed, some of the investigations such as on tyres and 
electric bikes from China are technically very complex and affect a wide array of economic 
interests. 

As in previous years, this report provides an overview of the Court cases relating to the trade 
defence policy instruments. In 2017, the Court of Justice and the General Court rendered 29 
judgments in total relating to the areas of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy.  

The  relevant  activities  in  the  framework  of  the  World  Trade  Organisation  (WTO)  are  also 
reported, including dispute settlement procedures initiated against the EU.  

In  general  terms,  therefore,  the  year  2017  has  again  been  a  very  challenging  as  well  as 
particularly intense year in the trade defence area. 

As in previous years, the European Parliament's INTA Committee continued to be informed 
about major developments in the EU's trade defence activities. 

The annexes to this report provide easy access to the case information in table form. 

This  report 
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/accessing-markets/trade-defence/  

the  general  public  under 

is  also  available 

to 

the  following 

link.:  

EN 

5 

EN 

 
1. 

OVERVIEW OF THE LEGISLATION 

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.  Today's  globalised  trade  environment  is 
characterized by quicker and cheaper communication and transportation, as well as the 
coexistence of different models of economic governance. In such a world, trade defence 
instruments  are  more  relevant  than  ever.  Indeed,  trade  distortions  that  underlie  the 
application of these instruments are widespread. 

Since  the  beginning  of  the  GATT  in  1947,  considerable  efforts  have  been  made  to 
harmonise the rules relating to trade defence 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 agreements, which are reflected in 
its  own  legislation.  The  EU  applies  its  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy  legislation  with 
rigour and consistency. Unfortunately, many WTO Members lack this type of restraint, 
thereby affecting negatively also EU operators. The role that the EU plays as a prudent 
user has therefore also an exemplary function at WTO level. Against this backdrop, the 
EU  also  continues  to  play  a  leading  active  role  in  any  efforts  to  update  the  WTO 
rulebook. 

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.    These  texts  were 
codified in 2016 to reflect changes previously made. The basic texts are: 

– 

– 

Regulation  (EU)  2016/1036  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  on  protection  against  dumped  imports  from  countries  not 
members of the European Union – Codified Version1 

Regulation  (EU)  2016/1037  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council  on  protection  against  subsidised  imports  from  countries  not 
members of the European Union – Codified Version.2 

These  regulations  will  overall  be  referred  to  as  the  "basic  Regulation(s)".  Both 
regulations  were  recently  modified  by  Regulation  (EU)  2017/2321  of  12  December 
20173 and Regulation (EU) 2018/825 of 30 May 2018.4   

1 

2 

3 

OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p.21. Codified version as last amended by Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 (OJ L 
18, 21.01.2014, p. 1) 
OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p.55. Codified Version as last amended by Regulation (EU) No 37/2014 (OJ L 
18 21.01.2014, p. 1) 
OJ L 338, 19.12.2017, p. 1. 

EN 

6 

EN 

 
                                                 
The  EU's  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 Union's 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  and  its 
suppliers, downstream users, consumers and traders of the product concerned.  

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 usually determined by using the 
cost of production of the EU industry and a reasonable profit margin. In almost half of 
the cases the anti-dumping  measures for individual exporting companies are set at the 
level of the injury margin instead of the higher dumping margin. The EU is one of the 
few  investigating  authorities  on  a  world-wide  level  that  applies  the  lesser  duty  rule  in 
such a coherent and comprehensive way.  

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  was  the  case  in  China's  Protocol  of 
Accession, although the provision has now expired.  

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 found explicitly in the EU 
legislation nor in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards 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 

4 

OJ L 143, 07.06.2018, p. 1. 

EN 

7 

EN 

 
                                                                                                                                               
when  it  is  in  the  EU’s  interest  to  do  so.  The  current  EU  safeguard  instruments  are 
covered by the following regulations: 

- Regulation (EU) 2015/478  of the  European Parliament and of the Council  of 
11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (codification),5  

- Regulation (EU) 2015/755  of the  European Parliament and of the Council  of 
29  April  2015  on  common  rules  for  imports  from  certain  third  countries 
(recast),6 

-  Regulation  (EU)  2015/936  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 (recast). 

The first two regulations are referred to as the "basic safeguard Regulation(s)". 

Anti-subsidy and unfair pricing instrument for airline services 

Regulation No 868/2004 dealing with the effect of subsidisation and unfair pricing for 
air  services  from  third  countries  was  adopted  by  the  EP  and  the  Council  in  2004. 
However, the Regulation has  never been  used  in practice. Therefore, following public 
consultations in 2013 and a study the following year, the Commission presented, in June 
2017,  a  proposal  for  a  new  regulation,  aiming  at  addressing,  in a  more  effective  way, 
practices  affecting  competition  on  air  transport  market.  The  Commission  proposal  is 
now under discussion by the Council and the Parliament as co-legislators.  

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  selling  below  cost  of  production,  plus  profit.  The 
EU’s anti-dumping legislation (mirroring relevant WTO rules) 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).  This  price  discrimination  can 
have many different causes and is normally only possible if the domestic market of the 
exporting  producer  is  in  some  way  segregated  from  its  overseas  market,  e.g.  by  the 
existence  of  high  import  duties  into  the  country  of  origin  or  non-tariff  barriers.  As  a 
result, exporters are shielded, at least to a certain extent, from international competition 
on their home market and can hence charge higher prices. 

Another  case  in  point  is  the  existence  of  state-induced  distortions  of  the  cost  of 
production  through  the main  production  factors,  i.e.  the  cost  of  capital, raw  materials, 
labour or energy, or other kinds of intervention into the operation of market forces, such 
as the lack of appropriate enforcement of bankruptcy procedures. These distortions have 
the  potential  to  alter  cost  and  price  structures  and  therefore  make  it  impossible  to 

5 
6 

OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p.16. 
OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p.33. 

EN 

8 

EN 

 
                                                 
establish in a meaningful manner the normal value on the domestic market and justify 
the use of out-of-country benchmarks to establish the normal value. 

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 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. 

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/reductions, 
preferential  loans  at  below  commercial  rates,  export  promotion  schemes,  etc.).  This 
allows 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  only  second-best  solutions  in  the 
absence of internationally agreed and enforced rules that ensure full market integration 
(for  instance  like  in  the  EU  internal  market).  Indeed,  while  such  measures  can  re-
establish  a  level  playing  field  on  the  EU  market,  they  leave  the  unfair  competition 
unaddressed in the exporter's home country market and third country markets. 

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  and  their  suppliers,  industrial  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. 

EN 

9 

EN 

 
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  of  the  European  Union  (hereafter 
“Official  Journal”),  and  the  EU  is  obliged  to  justify  its  decisions  in  this  publication. 
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  candidate  countries,  such  as  Turkey.  The  rules  relating  to  a  new  case  (as 
opposed to a review investigation) 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,  on-spot  verifications  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  draft 
implementing  act,  on  the  basis  of  which  it  is  decided  whether  to  impose  provisional 
measures, whether to continue the investigation without proposing duties or whether to 
terminate  the  proceedings.  In  either  eventuality  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 review the Commission’s findings and to submit comments. Comments 

EN 

10 

EN 

 
can  also  be  made  at  a  hearing.  Any  submissions  and  comments  in  reaction  to 
provisional disclosure are taken into account in a second, so-called final disclosure.  

After final disclosure, the Commission assesses the comments of interested parties and 
subsequently  sends  a  draft  implementing  act  to  Member  States.  After  receiving  the 
opinion  of  the  Member  States  via  the  Trade  Defence  Instruments  Committee,  the 
Commission  decides  whether  or  not  to  adopt  definitive  measures.  At  definitive  stage, 
Member States can block the adoption of a draft implementing act by qualified majority. 
The Commission may also accept 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. The Commission regulation imposing 
definitive  duties/accepting  undertakings,  and  deciding  on  the  collection  of  the 
provisional duties, is published in the Official Journal. 

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. In this regard it is important to note that the interested parties can avail 
themselves of a Hearing Officer for trade proceedings. This official, independent from 
the  investigating  service,  can  hear  the  parties,  verify  that  their  procedural  rights  have 
been respected and issue recommendations to the investigating service. 

If  one  or  more  of  the  conditions  for  imposing  measures  are  not  met,  the  Commission 
will decide to terminate a case without the imposition of measures. The same procedure 
(disclosure, comments, hearing, draft implementing act) as described above applies. The 
termination  of  the  case  is  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 criteria set out in the 
basic Regulations. 

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 can be 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 the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of 
dumping  and  injury.  Expiry  reviews  are  subject  to  strict  deadlines,  i.e.  they  should 

EN 

11 

EN 

 
normally be concluded within 12 months of the date of initiation of the review, but in all 
cases not later than within 15 months. 

During  the  five  year  life-time  of  measures,  the  Commission  may  conduct  an  interim 
review.  In  such  procedure,  the  Commission  will  consider  whether  the  circumstances 
with  regard  to  subsidy/dumping  and/or  injury  have  changed  significantly  or  whether 
existing  measures  are  achieving  the  intended  results  in  removing  the  injury.  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. The deadline 
for conclusion of newcomer reviews is nine months.  

Last  but  not  least,  anti-absorption  and  anti-circumvention  investigations  need  to  be 
mentioned here as they are special types of reviews. 

During  these  reviews,  the  main  procedural  rules  outlined  in  chapter  2.1.2  are  also 
applicable. However, in reviews there is no provisional stage.  

2.1.4. 

Judicial reviews 

The procedural rights of the parties, including hearings and access to non-confidential 
files, as well as the substantive rules, are to be 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 
('GC') and the Court of Justice ('CJ') in Luxembourg. Furthermore, WTO members may 
have 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 legislation7 implementing the WTO Safeguards Agreement, they 
can  be  applied  under  the  following  conditions:  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 

One  or  more  Member  States  should  inform  the  Commission  if  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 

7 

Regulation  (EU)  2015/478  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  March  2015  on 
common rules for imports (codification - OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p.16.) 

EN 

12 

EN 

 
                                                 
imports, c) trends in certain economic factors of the Union industry 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  serious 
injury. 

This information is passed on by the Commission to all other Member States. 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. 
slightly more than 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 
published in the Official Journal. In exceptional circumstances, this time limit may be 
extended by a further maximum period of two months. 

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 
(including provisional measures). 

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  of  the 
measures  exceeds  three  years,  the  Commission  will  examine,  mid-way  through  their 
duration,  the  appropriateness  of  further  liberalisation  and  necessity  for their  continued 
application.  This  will  be  done  either  on  the  Commission's  own  initiative  or  at  the 
request of a Member State. Where the Commission considers that the application of the 
measure  is  still  necessary,  it  shall  inform  the  Member  States  accordingly.  Where  the 
Commission considers that any surveillance or safeguard measure should be revoked or 
amended, it shall do so after having received the approval of the Member States.  

EN 

13 

EN 

 
3. 

GENERAL  OVERVIEW  OF  ANTI-DUMPING  AND  ANTI-SUBSIDY  INVESTIGATIONS 
AND MEASURES 

The  number  of  new  investigations  initiated  in  2017  somewhat  decreased  compared  to 
the  previous  year,  with  11  initiations  compared  to  15.  In  addition,  however,  the 
Commission  reopened  two  cases  to  implement  findings  following  judicial  review  (see 
"Other  reviews").  The  number  of  definitive  measures  imposed  in  2017  increased 
substantially  when  compared  to  2016  (12  as  compared  to  seven).  Two  provisional 
measures were imposed. In other words, in 2017 an important number of investigations 
have  come  to  a  conclusion.  Below  are  details  on  new  investigations  and  review 
investigations.  

3.1.  Measures in place 

At  the  end  of  2017,  the  EU  had  97  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  (which  were 
extended8 in 29 cases) and 13 countervailing measures in force (which were extended in 
three cases).9  

The anti-dumping  measures covered 67 products  and 17 countries  (see Annex O);  the 
countervailing  measures  covered  13  products  and  four  countries  (see  Annex  P).  The 
large majority of measures was in the form of duties. However, in a number of cases, 
undertakings were in place. 

Of  the  97  anti-dumping  measures  and  29  extensions  in  force  at  the  end  of  2017,  the 
main countries affected were China (85), Russia (nine), India (five), Indonesia and USA 
(four  each),  Republic  of  Korea  (three),  Belarus,  Taiwan,  Thailand,  Malaysia  and 
Ukraine (two each), Argentina, Brazil, Iran, Japan, South Africa and Turkey (one each).  

Of the 13 anti-subsidy measures and three extensions in place, half concerned imports 
from China (eight) whereas India was subject to five measures, USA to two measures 
and Turkey to one measure.  

Information  about  the  number  of  measures  becomes  more  meaningful  if  it  is 
complemented by the total trade volume of the products subject to measures. It should 
be  noted  that  in  2017,  0.31%10  of  total  imports  into  the  EU  was  affected  by  anti-
dumping  or  anti-subsidy  measures.  It  should  also  be  noted  that  the  trade  volume  can 
vary considerably from one measure to another. This is not, however, a criterion which 
is taken into account when assessing cases – all decisions on cases are exclusively based 
on the compliance with substantive and procedural conditions. Although comprehensive 
data  are  not  available,  the  expiry  review  investigations  show  in  many  cases  that  the 
imposition  of  measures  leads  to  a  significant  reduction  of  the  imports  of  the  product 
concerned. 

3.2. 

Review investigations 

Anti-dumping measures, including price undertakings, may be subject, under  the basic 
anti-dumping  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  anti-circumvention  investigations  (Article 
13).  

8  Measures have been extended to other third countries if circumvention in these countries had been 

found. 
The measures are counted per product and country concerned. 
Source: Comext. 

9 
10 

EN 

14 

EN 

 
                                                 
Also anti-subsidy measures may be subject, under the basic anti-subsidy 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  anti-
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  2013  to  2017,  a  total  of  135  review  investigations  were 
initiated. These review investigations represented 64% of all investigations initiated in 
that period.  

In  2017,  28  reviews  were  initiated.  These  comprised  nine  expiry  reviews,  ten  interim 
reviews, six new exporter reviews and three anti-circumvention investigations. 

An  overview  of  the  review  investigations  in  2017  can  be  found  in  Annexes  F  to  K. 
Table 1 below provides statistical information for the years 2013 – 2017. 

TABLE 1 

Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations 
during the period 1 January 2013 - 31 December 201711 

Reviews in progress at the beginning of the period 

Reviews initiated during the period 

Reviews in progress during the period 

Total reviews concluded during the period12 

Reviews in progress at the end of the period 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

26 

36 

62 

39 

23 

23 

22 

45 

27 

18 

18 

33 

51 

36 

15 

15 

16 

31 

24 

7 

7 

28 

35 

29 

6 

4. 

OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES IN 2017 

4.1. 

New investigations 

4.1.1. 

Initiations 

In 2017, nine new anti-dumping investigations and two new anti-subsidy investigations 
were  initiated.  The  anti-dumping  investigations  involved  five  different  products  (most 
of  which  were  related  to  chemicals  and  allied  sectors)  from  seven  different  countries. 
Details of these investigations are given in Annex A. The country most affected by the 
anti-dumping  investigations  was  China,  with  three  investigations.  The  anti-subsidy 
investigations  also  concerned  China.  The  most  noteworthy cases  against  imports  from 
China  were  related  to  transport  equipment,  with  one  case  on  tyres  and  one  case  on 
electric bikes. No safeguard investigation was initiated in 2017. 

In  the  five-year  period  from  2013  to  2017,  65  new  investigations  were  initiated  on 
imports from 19 countries. The sectors concerned by the investigations were: 'iron and 

11 

12 

The simultaneous initiation of a case concerning several countries but the same product is accounted 
as separate investigation/proceeding per country involved. 
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. 

EN 

15 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
steel'  –  29    investigations,  'chemical  and  allied  industries'  –  15    investigations,  'other 
metal  products'  –  five 
three 
investigations, the 'mechanical engineering' sector and the 'wood and paper' sector – one 
investigation each, and finally 'other products' – 11  investigations. A breakdown of the 
product sectors is available in Annex B(A). 

'textiles  and  allied 

investigations, 

industries'  – 

The breakdown of the countries concerned by initiations during the period from 2013 to 
2017 include China – 29  investigations, India – six, Russia – five, Turkey – four, Brazil 
and    Korea  –  three  each,  Taiwan  and  Ukraine  –  two  each,  Belarus,  Bosnia  and 
Herzegovina,  Egypt,  Iran,  Georgia,  Indonesia,  Japan,  Mexico,  Serbia,  USA  and 
Vietnam  –  one each. A table showing all  the investigations initiated over the last  five 
years broken down by country of export is available at Annex B(B). 

Table  2  below  provides  statistical  information  on  the  developments  regarding  new 
investigations for the years 2013 – 2017.  

TABLE 2 

Evolution of new anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations 
during the period 1 January 2013 - 31 December 201713 

Investigations in progress at the beginning of the 
period 
Investigations initiated during the period 
Investigations in progress during the period 
Investigations concluded : 
- 
of undertakings 
- 
Total investigations concluded during the period 
Investigations in progress at the end of period 
Provisional measures imposed during the period 

terminations14 

imposition of definitive duty or acceptance 

2013 
28 

2014 
11 

2015 
20 

2016 
20 

2017 
20 

9 
37 

15  

11 
26  
11 
6 

16 
27 

3  

4 
7  
20 
2 

14 
34 

11 

3 
14  
20 
10 

15 
35 

7 

8 
15 
20 
9 

11 
31 

12 

2 
14 
17 
2 

The list of cases initiated in 2017 can be found below, together with the names of the 
complainants. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications 
to which reference is given in Annex A. 

Product – Type of investigation (AD or 
AS) 

Country of 
origin 

Complainant 

Low carbon ferrochrome (AD) 

China, 

Russia, 

Turkey 

Euroalliages 

13 

14 

The simultaneous initiation of a case concerning several countries but the same product is accounted 
as separate investigation/proceeding per country involved. 
Investigations might be terminated for reasons such as the withdrawal of the complaint, de minimis 
dumping or injury, lack of causal link etc. 

EN 

16 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Ferro-silicon (AD) 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or 
lorries (AD) 

Electric bicycles (AD) 

Silicon metal (silicon) (AD) 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or 
lorries (AS) 

Electric bicycles (AS) 

Egypt, 

Ukraine 

China 

China 

Bosnia and 
Herzegovina,  

Brazil 

China 

China 

Euroalliages 

Coalition against unfair 
tyres imports 

European Bicycle 
Manufacturers 
Association 

Ferroatlántica and 
Ferropem 

Coalition against unfair 
tyres imports 

European Bicycle 
Manufacturers 
Association 

4.1.2.  Provisional measures 

In  2017,  provisional  duties  were  imposed  in  two  anti-dumping  investigations.  No 
provisional measures were imposed in anti-subsidy investigations. It has to be noted that 
the latter run often in parallel to anti-dumping investigations, where the provisional anti-
dumping duty already provides some relief to the Union industry. 

The list of cases where provisional measures were imposed during 2017 can be found 
below, together with the measures imposed. More information can be obtained from the 
Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex C. 

Product 

Originating from  Type15 and level of measure  

Corrosion resistant steels 

Cast iron articles 

China 

China 

AD 17,2 – 28,5% 

AD 25,3 – 42,9% 

4.1.3.  Definitive measures 

During  2017, definitive  duties  were imposed  in 11 anti-dumping investigations and in 
one  anti-subsidy  investigation.  The  list  of  cases  where  definitive  measures  were 
imposed during 2017 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. 

15  AD = anti-dumping duty, CVD = countervailing duty, UT = undertaking. 

EN 

17 

EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Product 

Originating from 

Type16 and level of measure  

Stainless steel tube and 
pipe butt-welding fittings 

China, 
Taiwan 

AD: 

China 30,7 – 64,9% 

Taiwan 5,1 – 12,1% 

Heavy plates 

China 

AD:  65,1 – 73,7% 

Hot-rolled flat products 

China 

AD: 18,1 – 35,9% 

Hot-rolled flat products 

Brazil, Iran, Russia 
and Ukraine 

AD: 

Brazil 53,4 – 65% 

Iran 57,5% 

Russia 17,6 – 96,5% 

Ukraine 60,5% 

Thermal paper 

Rep. of Korea 

AD: 104,46 EUR per tonne 

Seamless pipes and tubes 
of iron or steel of an 
external diameter 
exceeding 406,4 mm 

China 

AD: 29,2 – 54,9% 

Rebars 

Belarus 

AD: 10,6% 

Hot-rolled flat products 

China 

AS: 4,6 – 35,9% 

4.1.4.  Details  on  individual  cases  with  application  of  new  provisional  or  definitive 

duties 

Hot-rolled flat products from China (AD) 
In February 2016, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation on imports of 
certain  hot-rolled  flat  products  of  iron,  non-alloy  or  other  alloy  originating  in  China, 
following a complaint lodged by the European Steel Association (Eurofer) on behalf of 
producers  representing  more  than  90  %  of  the  total  Union  production  of  the  product 
concerned. In October 2016 the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty 
on  the  product.  In  the  further  course  of  2016,  the  Commission  also  initiated  the 
following two investigations on the basis of a complaint lodged by Eurofer: 1) an anti-
subsidy investigation on imports of the same product originating in China17; 2) an anti-

16  AD = anti-dumping duty, CVD = countervailing duty, UT = undertaking. 
17 

The  anti-subsidy  investigation  led  to  the  adoption  of  the  Commission  Implementing  Regulation 
(EU) 2017/969 and it amended the Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/649 imposing anti-
dumping measures.  

EN 

18 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
dumping  investigation  on  imports  of  the  same  product  originating  in  Brazil,  Iran, 
Russia, Serbia and Ukraine (see below).  

Dumping 

As no market economy treatment claim was introduced, the normal value for China was 
determined  on  the  basis  of  the  price  or  constructed  value  in  an  analogue  country, 
namely  the  US,  in  accordance  with  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The 
Commission  then compared the normal value and the export  price (adjusted to  ensure 
fair  comparison).  The  definitive  dumping  margins  are  as  follows:  a)  Bengang  Steel 
Plates Co., Ltd: 97,3%; b) Hesteel Group Co., Ltd: 95,5 %; c) Jiangsu Shagang Group: 
106,9 %, d) Other cooperating companies: 100,5 %; e) All other companies: 106,9 %. 

Threat of Injury and causation 
On  the  basis  of  the  analysis  of  the  relevant  economic  parameters18  the  Commission 
concluded that the Union industry was in a weak situation at the end of the investigation 
period but not to the extent that the Union industry has suffered material injury. In these 
circumstances, the Commission then examined whether a threat of material injury was 
present. While the Union industry was recovering during 2014 and the first two quarters 
of 2015, almost all injury indicators started to fall dramatically during the second half of 
2015. This negative trend continued during the first half of 2016. As a result, all factors 
assessed,  in  particular  the  significant  rate  of  increase  of  dumped  imports  in  2015  at 
further  decreasing  prices,  the  huge  excess  capacity  in  China  and  the  negative 
developments in profitability of the Union industry pointed to the conclusion that there 
was a threat of a clearly foreseeable and imminent  injury to the Union industry at the 
end of the investigation period. 
Regarding  the  causality  analysis,  it  was  found  that  despite  the  relatively  small  market 
share of the Chinese imports, a causal link existed between the Chinese dumped imports 
and the threat of material injury of the Union industry. The Commission distinguished 
and  separated  the  effects  of  all  known  factors  on  the  situation  of  the  Union  industry 
from the injurious effects of the dumped imports. The other identified factors19 were not 
found  to  break  the  causal  link  between  the  threat  of  material  injury  and  the  Chinese 
dumped imports. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

The  Commission  examined  whether  it  could  clearly  conclude  that  it  was  not  in  the 
Union interest to adopt measures in this case. The determination of the Union interest 
was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the 
Union industry, importers, and users.  
The  Union  industry  underwent  already  significant  restructuring  in  the  (recent)  past.  If 
no measures were imposed, the threat of imminent injury at the end of the investigation 
period  was  likely  to  materialise.  Some  Union  producers  might  have  to  close 
down/reduce their hot-rolled flat steel products activities, dismiss employees and leave 
many Union users with limited sources of supply. 
As regards the interest of unrelated importers and users, the Commission concluded that 
the  imposition  of  measures  would  have  only  a  limited  impact.  More  specifically,  the 

18  Among which: the Union consumption, the imports from the country concerned, and the economic 

19 

situation of the Union industry. 
The economic crisis, the cost of the raw materials, imports from third countries, and the export sales 
performance of the Union producers. 

EN 

19 

EN 

 
                                                 
prices,  their  profitability  and  the  employment  in  the  user's  industry  would  not  be 
disproportionately  affected.  Hence,  the  imposition  of  measures  at  the  proposed  level 
would only have a limited impact on the prices of the supply chain and the performance 
of  users.  The  level  of  measures  would  lead  to  a  level  playing  field  but  still  allow  for 
imports from the country concerned, at fair prices. 
Weighing  and  balancing  the  strong  interests  of  an  important  Union  industry  to  be 
protected  against  unfair  practices,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  limited  likely  effects  of 
measures on unrelated importers and users, which continue to benefit from a wide array 
of  supply  in  the  Union,  the  Commission  concluded  that  there  were  no  compelling 
reasons not to impose measures on imports from China. 

Hot-rolled flat products from Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine (AD) 

In  July  2016,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  investigation  with  regard  to 
imports  into  the  Union  of  certain  hot-rolled  flat  products  of  iron,  non-alloy  or  other 
alloy steel originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine, following a complaint 
lodged by the European Steel Association (Eurofer) on behalf of more than 90 % of the 
total  Union  production  of  the  product  concerned.  In  February  2016,  the  Commission 
already  initiated  an  anti-dumping  investigation  on  imports  of  the  same  product 
originating in China on the basis of a complaint lodged by Eurofer. 

Registration of imports 

The  complainant  submitted  a  request  for  registration  of  imports  of  the  product 
concerned.  Accordingly,  on  6  January  2017,  the  Commission  made  the  imports 
originating  in  Brazil  and  Russia  (the  only  countries  for  which  the  conditions  for 
registration were fulfilled) subject to registration as of 6 January 2017 onwards. 

Dumping 

The normal value was determined on the basis of the sales done on the domestic market 
or when there were no or insufficient sales of a product type of the like product in the 
ordinary  course  of  trade  or  where  a  product  type  was  not  sold  in  representative 
quantities  on  the  domestic  market,  the  Commission  constructed  the  normal  value  in 
accordance with the provisions of the basic Regulation. Then the Commission compared 
the normal value and the export price of the exporting producers on an ex-works basis. 
On this basis the following dumping margins were calculated: a) Brazil: between 16,3% 
and  73%;  b)  Iran:  17,9%;  c)  Russia:  between  5,3%  and  33%;  d)  Serbia:  38,7%;  e) 
Ukraine: 19,4%. 

Injury and causation 

The  injurious  effect  of  imports  from  Brazil,  Iran,  Russia  and  Ukraine  was  examined 
cumulatively for the purposes of the injury determination. By contrast, it was found that 
the Serbian exports to the Union were negligible. In addition, the analysis of the price 
setting,  combined  with  the  negligible  volume,  suggested  that  the  Serbian  exporting 
producer  is  rather  a  price  follower  than  a  price  setter  for  the  product  concerned. 
Therefore,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  imports  from  Serbia  should  not  be 
cumulatively assessed with the imports from the four other countries. In addition and as 
a  consequence  of  the  finding  that  imports  from  Serbia  were  negligible,  protective 
measures  were  considered  unnecessary.  Thus,  the  proceeding  was  terminated  with 
regard to the imports from Serbia. 

EN 

20 

EN 

 
 
Regarding the injury analysis related to the remaining four countries concerned (Brazil, 
Iran,  Russia  and  Ukraine),  their  imports  increased  significantly  during  the  period 
considered, while the average unit price of the dumped imports decreased by 27%. At 
the same time, the Union industry's economic indicators declined. These developments 
coincided  in  time  with  an  increase  of  consumption  and  increasing  dumped  imports  in 
the Union market, which highlighted the deterioration of the competitive position of the 
Union  steel  producers.  Despite  the  concrete  actions  by  the  Union  industry  to  improve 
efficiency, its economic situation deteriorated significantly: losses increased during the 
investigation  period  and  despite  a  5%  increase  in  the  Union  consumption,  the  sales 
volumes of the Union industry decreased, its market share went down by more than 8%, 
sales  unit  prices  dropped  by  more  than  20%,  and  production  decreased  by  2%.  As  a 
consequence,  also  the  other  injury  indicators  developed  negatively.  The  Commission 
concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury.  
The Commission then examined whether the injury to the Union industry was caused by 
the  dumped  imports  from  Brazil,  Iran,  Russia  and  Ukraine  and  also  whether  other 
known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. The Commission 
ensured  that  any  possible  injury  caused  by  other  factors  was  not  attributed  to  the 
dumped imports. It was found that the increasing volumes and the sharp decrease in the 
prices of imports from the countries concerned caused injury to the Union industry. This 
is because, faced with the aggressive pricing strategy of the exporting producers, Union 
producers had no choice but to also decrease prices and to sell at a loss (or otherwise 
lose  even  more  sales)  which  impacted  their  profitability.  The  other  factors  considered 
by the Commission for the assessment of the causality were: the economic crisis, Union 
producers  not  being  sufficiently  competitive,  imports  from  third  countries,  the  export 
sales  performance  of  the  Union  producers,  the  "overcapacity"  of  the  European  steel 
industry, and the correlation between the prices in the Union market, on the one hand, 
and raw material and the product concerned prices worldwide, on the other hand. The 
Commission  concluded  that  these  factors  combined  or  separately  could  not  break  the 
causal link between dumped imports and the material injury found to the Union industry 
and that the dumped imports from the countries concerned remained the main cause of 
injury20. 
With regard to the imports from China21, the Commission concluded that it is likely that 
the  imports  from  China  have  contributed  to  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Union 
industry.  However,  it  did  not  break  the  causal  link  between  the  injury  caused  to  the 
Union  industry  and  the  dumped  imports  of  the  four  other  countries  because  of  their 
significant volumes and comparatively low prices. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

The  specific  circumstances  of  this  case  (steep  increase  of  prices  of  the  product 
concerned  and  a  shortage  on  the  market  of  certain  product  types)  explain  the 
Commission's  decision  to,  exceptionally,  investigate  post-IP  developments  in  the 
context of its assessment of Union interest. 
The most important consumption/uses of the product concerned relate to the following 
segments: the steel tube industry (32 %), construction (20 %), automotive (15 %) and 
mechanical engineering (15%). Given that the profitability of the users in the steel tube 

20 

The imports from Brazil, Iran, Russia and Ukraine constituted the vast majority of all imports into 
the  Union  during  the  investigation  period,  and  their  volume  increased  by  77  %  during  the  period 
considered. 

21  An anti-dumping investigation on the same product was initiated against China in February 2017. 

EN 

21 

EN 

 
                                                 
businesses  was  modest  during  and  after  the  investigation  period  the  Commission 
concluded that there was a considerable risk that duties in the form of ad-valorem duties 
would drive the steel tube sector into losses while the impact on other sectors would be 
less significant. After a careful analysis the Commission considered it in line with the 
Union  interest  to  change  the  form  of  the  measures  to  adequately  strike  the  balance 
between the interests of Union producers and users in this particular case. Therefore, the 
Commission decided to impose ad valorem duties, capped by a Minimum Import Price 
(MIP)  which  takes  into  account  the  rise  in  raw  material  prices  after  the  investigation 
period. In view of the dumping margins found and the resulting injury, definitive anti-
dumping duties ranging between 17,6% and 96,5% were imposed. The MIP was fixed at 
472,27euro/tonne. The anti-dumping  proceeding concerning imports into the Union  of 
the  product  concerned  originating  in  Serbia  was  terminated  as  these  imports  were 
considered negligible. 
As all the necessary conditions were not met, the Commission Implementing Regulation 
(EU)  2017/5  of  5  January  2017  making  imports  of  certain  hot-rolled  flat  products  of 
iron,  non-alloy  or  other  alloy  steel  originating  in  Russia  and  Brazil  subject  to 
registration was definitively repealed without the retroactive collection of duties. 

Lightweight thermal paper from the Republic of Korea (AD) 

The investigation  was initiated in  February  2016 following a complaint lodged  by the 
European Thermal Paper Association (ETPA) on behalf of producers representing more 
than 25% of the total Union production of certain lightweight thermal paper (LWTP). In 
November 2016, the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports 
originating in the Republic of Korea. 

Dumping 

For  one  of  the  exporting  producers  the  normal  value  was  based  on  its  domestic  sales 
while  for  the  second  one  the  normal  value  was  calculated  on  the  basis  of  its  cost  of 
production as there were product types with no or unrepresentative domestic sales. The 
dumping margin established for the exporting producers was a weighted average of the 
dumping margins established for the sales of different types of rolls. The weighting was 
based  on  the  exporting  producer's  Union  sales  volume  to  related  and  unrelated 
customers  during  the  investigation  period.  The  definitive  weighted  average  dumping 
margin was 10,3 %. The residual dumping margin was set at the same level. 

Injury and causation 

The  Union  producers  experienced  a  deterioration  of  their  economic  situation  that 
coincided  in  time  with  the  surge  of  imports  from  the  Republic  of  Korea.  The  Union 
industry  sales  volume  on  the  Union  market  remained  relatively  stable,  but  since  this 
occurred  in the  context of  a  significant increase  in  the  Union  consumption,  the  Union 
producers' market share was actually declining. The volume of imports from the country 
concerned  during  the  investigation  period  was  well  above  negligible  levels  and  their 
market share increased from 0,7 % in 2012 to 13,6 % in the investigation period. The 
Commission concluded that over the period considered, the Union industry's injury was 
material. Due to the drop in selling prices, concrete actions to improve efficiency and a 
tight grip on costs could not prevent Union producers from becoming loss-making in the 
investigation period. 

The  Commission  examined  and  concluded  that  the  dumped  imports  from  the  country 
concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. The effects of all known factors 

EN 

22 

EN 

 
on  the  situation  of  the  Union  industry  were  distinguished  and  separated  from  the 
injurious effects of the dumped imports. The other identified factors such as the export 
performance of Union producers, the anti-dumping duties in the USA, higher costs and 
a  series  of  rationalisation  processes  were  carefully  analysed.  The  Commission 
concluded  that  the  material  injury  to  the  Union  industry  was  caused  by  the  dumped 
imports  from  the  country  concerned  and  the  other  factors  considered  individually  or 
collectively, did not break the causal link. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

The  Government  of  Korea  claimed  that  measures  are  not  in  the  Union  interest  on  the 
grounds that many European converters and importers expressed their objections at the 
hearing  in  September  2016  to  imposition  of  measures.  However,  the  investigation  did 
not  find  that  there  is  a  majority  of  converters  and  importers  in  the  Union  against 
measures.  Hansol  Group  (an  exporting  producer)  claimed  that  the  Union  downstream 
industries are almost unanimously against the imposition of measures and that at least 
36 unrelated converters and end-users expressed their strong opposition. The claim was 
rejected as many Union downstream industries remained silent during the investigation 
and no downstream industry made any representation following provisional or definitive 
disclosure.  The  investigation  also  revealed  that  in  terms  of  purchase  volume  of  the 
product  concerned  the  converters  that  came  forward  and  expressed  to  be  in  favour  of 
measures represented a larger consumption of the product concerned than the ones that 
did not express views or were opposing the measures. The Hansol Group claimed also 
that  the  measures  are  against  the  interest  of  European  businesses  because  the  Union 
market  can  be  defined  as  a  "duopoly/oligopoly"  and  competition  should  be  promoted. 
The  claim  was  rejected  as  the  mere  existence  of  a  few  producers  in  the  Union  is 
irrelevant,  there  is  no  evidence  on  file  of  any  anti-competitive  practices  and  there  are 
several sources of supply inside and outside the Union. 

Therefore,  after  analysis  of  the  different  interests  at  stake,  the  Commission  concluded 
that  the  impact  of  anti-dumping  duties  on  the  parties  opposing  measures  did  not 
outweigh  the  positive  effect  of  measures  to  the  Union  industry.  Hence,  there  were  no 
compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports 
of the concerned product originating in the Republic of Korea. 

The  Commission  concluded  that  it  would  be  more  appropriate  that  the  anti-dumping 
duty should be imposed as a fixed amount per tonne instead of  an ad valorem duty as 
provisionally  imposed.  The  definitive  fixed  anti-dumping  duty  was  104,46  euro  per 
tonne.  

Rebars from Belarus (AD) 

In March 2016, the Commission initiated an investigation following a complaint lodged 
by  the  European  Steel  Association  (EUROFER)  on  behalf  of  producers  representing 
more  than  25  %  of  the  total  Union  production  of  rebars.  In  December  2016,  the 
Commission  imposed  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  concrete 
reinforcement bars and rods originating in the Republic of Belarus 

Sampling 

It  was  considered  necessary  to  sample  Union  producers  and  unrelated  importers.  The 
first sample consisted of five Union producers accounting for 22,4 % of the total Union 
production  of  the  product  concerned.  The  sampled  companies  are  located  in  France, 
Germany, Italy, Poland and Spain, covering a broad geographic variety. With regard to 

EN 

23 

EN 

 
unrelated importers, a sample of three operators was selected on the basis of the largest 
volume  of  imports  into  the  Union  representing  80  %  of  the  unrelated  imports  of  the 
product concerned originating in Belarus. 

Dumping 

According  to  Article  2(7)(a)  of  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation,  Belarus  is  not 
considered  as  a  market-economy  country.  Therefore,  the  normal  value  in  respect  of 
Belarusian  exports  to  the  Union  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  data  obtained  from  a 
producer in a market-economy third country. The Commission concluded that the USA 
is  an  appropriate  analogue  country  for  this  investigation.  The  only  known  Belarusian 
manufacturer cooperated with the investigation and replied to the questionnaire. 

The  Commission  compared  the  normal  value  and  the  export  price  of  the  exporting 
producer  on  an  ex-works  basis.  The  resulting  level  of  definitive  dumping  margin  is 
58,4%.  

Injury and causation 

Import volumes from Belarus almost tripled over the investigation period for injury and 
their  market  share  increased  from  1,8  %  in  2012  to  5  %  in  2015.  During  the 
investigation  period  the  prices  of  imports  from  Belarus  were  lower  than  prices  of  the 
Union  producers  and  average  prices  of  imports  from  any  of  the  other  major  third 
countries present on the Union market. 

The Commission considered that the data of one of the sampled Union producers is not 
reliable  for  the  purpose  of  the  injury  analysis  as  a  result  of  price-fixing  (the  product 
concerned was  subject to  an  antitrust  investigation  on  the Italian  market).  As  a  result, 
the  Commission  excluded  the  data  pertaining  to  the  Italian  market  from  its 
investigation. 

The  investigation  showed  that  the  Union  industry  did  not  benefit  from  the  increase in 
consumption, but to the contrary, suffered a drop in its sales volumes and market share. 
At  the  same  time  the  volume  of  Belarusian  imports  and  their  market  share  increased 
rapidly. The Union production volume also decreased. The costs of the Union industry 
decreased by 20% which however was less than the decrease in prices during the same 
period.  As  a  result,  over  the  period  considered  profitability  of  the  Union  industry 
deteriorated.  These  trends  correlate  with  the  highest  volumes  of  the  imports  from 
Belarus and its lowest price level. On this basis it was concluded that the Union industry 
suffered material injury caused by the dumped imports from Belarus within the meaning 
of the basic Regulation.  

The Commission has found that the only other factor that may have had an impact on 
the  situation  of  the  Union  industry  was  imports  from  third  countries.  However,  the 
Commission  concluded  that  those  imports  could  not  break  the  causal  link  between 
Belarusian dumped imports and the material injury found to the Union industry because 
the individual market shares of the other third countries increased only marginally with 
the exception of Ukraine where the increase in market share was substantial in relative 
terms but in absolute terms remained negligible. In addition, the prices of imports from 
third countries other than Belarus were on average always higher than the prices of the 
Union industry.  The only exporting country  with lower average prices than the Union 
industry  was  Belarus.  Therefore,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  dumped  imports 
from Belarus remained the main cause of injury. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

EN 

24 

EN 

 
The Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons against the imposition 
of measures on imports of the product concerned from Belarus. Any potential negative 
effects  on  the  unrelated  users  and  importers  are  mitigated  by  the  availability  of 
alternative sources of supply. When considering the overall impact of the anti-dumping 
measures on the Union market, the positive effects, in particular on the Union industry, 
appeared to outweigh the potential negative impacts on the other interest groups. 

Therefore, a definitive anti-dumping duty of 10,6% was imposed.  

Hot-rolled flat products from China (AS) 

In  May  2016,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-subsidy  investigation  with  regard  to 
imports  into  the  Union  of  certain  hot-rolled  flat  products  of  iron,  non-alloy  or  other 
alloy  steel  originating  in  the  China.  The  Commission  initiated  the  investigation 
following a complaint lodged by the European Steel Association (Eurofer) on behalf of 
Union  producers  representing  more  than  90  %  of  the  total  Union  production.  In 
February 2016 the Commission had already initiated an anti-dumping investigation on 
imports  of  the  same  product  originating  in  China  (the  parallel  anti-dumping 
investigation)  and  in  April  2017  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  was  imposed.  In  July 
2016,  the  Commission  also  initiated,  an  anti-dumping  investigation  on  imports  of  the 
same product originating in Brazil, Iran, Russia, Serbia and Ukraine.  

Sampling 

The final sample of Union producers consisted of six operators located in five different 
Member  States.  It  accounted  for  over  45  %  of  Union  production.  The  Commission 
selected  a  sample  of  four  groups  of  exporting  producers  on  the  basis  of  the  largest 
representative volume of exports to the Union, which could reasonably be investigated 
within the time available. The sampled companies represented 68% of the total imports 
of the product concerned to the Union. 

Subsidisation 

The  following  subsidies  and  subsidy  programmes  were  investigated:  1)  Preferential 
policy loans, credit lines, other financing, and guarantees; 2) De facto guarantee on the 
continuity  of  operations  for  companies  in  the  hot  rolled  flat  steel  industry  that  face 
difficulties  to  repay  loans;  3)  Grant  Programmes;  4)  Direct  Tax  Exemption  and 
Reduction programmes; 5) Indirect Tax and Import Tariff Programmes; 6) Government 
provision of goods and services for less than adequate remuneration; 7) "Foreign Trade 
Transformation  and  Upgrading  Demonstration  Bases"  and  "Common  Service 
Platforms"; 8) Subsidisation of the provision of hot-rolled flat products to the EU during 
the  investigation  period.  Given  the  partial  non-cooperation  from  the  Government  of 
China  and  the  sampled  exporting  producers  the  Commission  had  to  use  the  best  facts 
available in relation to Government preferential lending and grants. 

The  investigation  showed  that  the  following  subsidies  and  subsidy  programmes  were 
countervailable  subsidies:  1)  preferential  lending:  all  sampled  exporting  producers 
benefited  from  it  during  the  investigation  period;  2)  land  provision  and  acquisition  in 
China:  the  situation  is  non-transparent  and  the  prices  are  arbitrarily  set  by  the 
authorities.  There  is  no  functioning  market  for  land  and  the  use  of  an  external 
benchmark  demonstrates  that  the  amount  paid  for  land-use  rights  by  the  sampled 
exporting producers was well below the normal market rate; 3) Enterprise Income Tax 
(EIT)  privileges:  allows  companies  to  deduct  the  income  earned  from  manufacturing 
from its taxable income; 4) EIT offset for research and development expenses: entitles 

EN 

25 

EN 

 
companies  to  preferential  tax  treatment  for  their  R&D  activities  in  certain  high 
technology priority areas determined by the State and when certain thresholds for R&D 
spending  are  met;  5)  Land  use  tax:  two  of  the  sampled  companies  benefited  from 
rebates  or  exemptions,  even  though  they  did  not  fall  under  any  of  the  exempted 
categories; 6) VAT exemptions and import tariff rebates: equipment imported in order 
to  develop  domestic  or  foreign  investment  projects  in  line  with  the  policy  of 
encouraging foreign or domestic investment projects may be exempted from payment of 
the  VAT  and/or  import  duty.  Some  of  the  sampled  companies  were  found  to  benefit 
from  these  exemptions;  7)  Tax  exemption  for  policy-based  relocation:  some  sampled 
companies benefited from this scheme as they relocated for environmental reasons; 8) 
Grant programmes: some of the sampled companies were found to benefit from energy 
saving and conservation programmes and from grants related to technological upgrading 
or transformation.  

Threat of injury and causation 

A detailed description of the situation in terms of threat of injury and causation could be 
found  above,  under  the  section  dealing  with  the  anti-dumping  investigation  into  hot-
rolled flat products from China. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

Weighing  and  balancing  the  strong  interests  of  an  important  Union  industry  to  be 
protected  against  unfair  practices,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  limited  likely  effects  of 
measures on unrelated importers and users, which continue to benefit from a wide array 
of  supply  in  the  Union,  the  Commission  concluded  that  there  were  no  compelling 
reasons that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on subsidised imports 
of the product concerned. 

The definitive countervailing duty rates ranged between 4,6% and 35,9%. As the anti-
subsidy investigation was carried out in parallel with an anti-dumping investigation and 
in view of the use of the lesser duty rule, the Commission amended the definitive anti-
dumping duty up to the relevant injury elimination level22.  

4.1.5. 

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  from 
dumped or subsidised imports, measures not in the interest of the Union). In 2017, two 
new  proceedings  (both  were  anti-dumping  investigations)  were  terminated  without 
measures, as compared to eight in 2016. 

The list of cases which were terminated without the imposition of measures during 2017 
can be found in the following table. More information can be obtained from the Official 
Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex E. 

22 

The  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/649  was  amended  by  the  Commission 
Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/969. 

EN 

26 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
Product (type of investigation23)  Originating from  Main reason for termination 

Purified terephthalic acid (AD) 

Rep. of Korea 

Dumping margin below 2% 

Hot-rolled flat products (AD) 

Serbia 

Lack of material injury 

4.1.6.  Details on some individual cases of termination without measures 

Hot-rolled flat products from Serbia (AD) 

Regulation 2017/1795 has already been discussed above under chapter 4.1.4. 

4.2. 

Review investigations 

4.2.1.  Expiry reviews 

Article 11(2) and Article 18 respectively 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  2017,  five  anti-dumping  measures  (and  no  anti-subsidy  measure)  expired 
automatically. The references for these measures are available in Annex N. 

Since the expiry provision of the basic Regulations came into force in 1985, a total of 
508 measures have expired automatically. 

4.2.1.1.  Initiations 

During  2017,  nine  expiry  reviews  of  anti-dumping  measures  in  place  were  initiated 
(none  concerning  anti-subsidy  measures).  The  list  of  the  expiry  reviews  initiated  in 
2017 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. Where there are interim reviews and expiry reviews ongoing at the same time, 
these are indicated by an asterisk in the table below. More information can be obtained 
from the Official Journal to which reference is available in Annex F. 

Product (type of investigation – AD 
or AS) 

Originating from 

Complainant 

Steel ropes and cables 

China 

Oxalic acid 

China, India 

Tartaric acid 

China 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 

Russia 

Liaison Committee of E.U. 
Wire Rope Industries 
Oxaquim S.A. 
Distillerie Bonollo S.r.l., 
Caviro Distillerie S.r.l., 
Industria Chimica Valenzana 
S.p.a., Alvinesa Alcoholera 
Vinicola SA, and Comercial 
Quimica Sarasa SL 
Defence Committee of the 
Seamless Steel Tubes 

23  AD  =  anti-dumping  investigation;  AS  =  anti-subsidy  investigation,  AD  +  AS  =  parallel  anti-

dumping and anti-subsidy investigation. 

EN 

27 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 

Ukraine 

Lever arch mechanisms 

Aluminium Radiators 

Chamois leather 

China 

China 

China 

Industry of the European 
Union 
Defence Committee of the 
Seamless Steel Tubes 
Industry of the European 
Union 
Lever Arch Mechanism 
Manufacturers Association 
Association of Aluminium 
Radiator Manufacturers 
Limited Liability Consortium 

UK Leather Federation 

4.2.1.2.  Expiry reviews concluded with confirmation of duties 

During  2017,  19  expiry  reviews  were  concluded  with  confirmation  of  the  duties  for  a 
further period of five years.  

The list of the measures which were renewed during 2017, together with the results of 
the  investigations,  can  be  found  below.  More  information  can  be  obtained  from  the 
Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex F. 

Product 

Originating 
from 

Result  of  the  investigation/  Type24  and  level  of 
measure 

Sodium gluconate 

China 

Aluminium road wheels 

China 

High tenacity yarn of 
polyester 

China 

Solar panels (crystalline 
silicon photovoltaic 
modules and key 
components) 

China 

Graphite electrode 
systems 

India 

Okoume plywood 

China 

Confirmation of duty (AD). 
Individual duty rates: 5,6 – 27,1% 
Residual: 53,2% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Duty rate: 22,3% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 5,1 – 9,8% 
Residual: 9,8% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 27,3 – 64,9% 
Residual: 53,4% 

Confirmation of duty (AS) 
Individual duty rates: 3,5 – 11,5% 
Residual: 11,5% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rate: 9,4% 
Residual: 8,5% 

Confirmation of duty (AS) 
Individual duty rates: 6,3 – 7% 
Residual: 7,2% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 6,5 – 23,5% 

24  AD = anti-dumping duty, CVD = countervailing duty, UT = undertaking. 

EN 

28 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
Filament glass fibre 
products 

China 

Tungsten carbide 

China 

Stainless steel bars and 
rods 

India 

Melamine 

China 

Coated fine paper 

China 

Barium carbonate 

China 

Open mesh fabrics of 
glass fibres 

China 

Ceramic tiles 

China 

Hand pallet trucks and 
their essential parts 

Trichloroisocyanuric 
acid 

China 

China 

Residual: 66,7% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 14,5 – 19,9% 
Residual: 19,9% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Duty rate: 33% 
Confirmation of duty (AS) 
Individual duty rates: 3,3 – 4% 
Residual: 4% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rate: 1 153 EUR per tonne 
Residual: 415 EUR per tonne 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 8 – 35,1% 
Residual: 27,1% 

Confirmation of duty (AS) 
Individual duty rates: 4 – 12% 
Residual: 12% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 6,3 – 8,1% 
Residual: 56,4% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 48,4 – 62,9% 
Residual: 62,9% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 13,9 – 36,5% 
Residual: 69,7% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 54,1 – 70,8% 
Residual:70,8% 
Confirmation of duty (AD) 
Individual duty rates: 3,2 – 40,5% 
Residual: 42,6% 

4.2.1.3.  Details on some individual cases concluded by confirmation of duty  

Aluminium road wheels from China (AD) 

Following  an  anti-dumping  investigation  (the  original  investigation),  the  Council 
imposed, by means of Implementing Regulation (EU) No 964/201025 a definitive anti-
dumping duty on imports of certain aluminium wheels originating in China. In October 
2015, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the measures imposed. The request 
was  lodged  by  Association  of  European  Wheels  Manufacturers  (EUWA)  on  behalf  of 
producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production. 

Sampling 

25 

The measures took the form of an ad valorem duty established at 22,3%. 

EN 

29 

EN 

 
 
                                                 
The Commission selected a sample of four groups of exporting producers on the basis 
of the largest declared production and sales volume which cover around 40% of the total 
Chinese exports to the Union. With regard to Union producers, the Commission selected 
a  sample  of  seven  operators  on  the  basis  of  the  largest  representative  volume  of  sales 
and production, taking also into account the geographical spread. The sample accounted 
for over 30 % of total Union production. 

Dumping and continuation of dumping 

As no market economy treatment claim was introduced, the normal value for China was 
determined  on  the  basis  of  the  price  or  constructed  value  in  an  analogue  country, 
namely Turkey26, in accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation. Turkey has 
the  second  largest  production  volume  of  aluminium  wheels  among  the  potential 
analogue countries identified by the Commission (Turkey, Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, 
Korea and Malaysia) and has a satisfactory level of competition on its domestic market.  
Two Turkish exporting producers offered cooperation. 

The Commission found dumping margins ranging between 8,9% and 25,9%. 

The  Commission  further  analysed  whether  there  was  a  likelihood  of  continuation  of 
dumping should the measures lapse. All four sampled Chinese exporting producers were 
found  to  be  dumping  during  the  review  investigation  period.  Moreover,  given  the 
significant spare capacities27 found in China as well as the attractiveness of the Union 
market  compared  to  some  of  the  third  markets  and  the  domestic  market  it  was 
considered  likely  that  Chinese  exporting  producers  would  (re)enter  the  Union  market 
with significant quantities of aluminium wheels at dumped prices in case the measures 
would be allowed to lapse. 

Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury 

In a context of an increasing consumption, the Union industry was able to recover from 
the  past  dumping  thanks  to  the  anti-dumping  measures  in  place.  During  the 
investigation  almost  all  injury  indicators  showed  a  positive  trend.  The  Union  industry 
increased  its  sales  volumes,  production  volumes,  sales  prices  and  improved  its 
profitability. On this basis, the Commission concluded that the Union industry did not 
suffer material injury during the investigation period. Therefore it was assessed whether 
there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury  should the measures against China 
be allowed to lapse. 

The  Chinese  prices  to  the  other  third  country  markets  were  on  average  around  30% 
lower than the Union industry prices in  the Union  market. As  mentioned above,  there 
are large spare capacities in China of the product concerned which cannot be absorbed 
by the Chinese domestic market. Trade defence measures for Chinese aluminium wheel 
imports  had  already  been  imposed  in  other  important  markets  (Australia,  India). 
Therefore, the Union market without measures would be an attractive target of Chinese 
exports  because  it  would  yield  high  profits  due  to  higher  prices  than  elsewhere 
combined  with  possible  large  sales  volumes.  In  short,  the  incentive  to  re-direct  these 
exports  to  the  Union  market  should  measures  be  repealed  was  high.  On  this  basis  the 
Commission concluded that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a 
recurrence of injury to the Union. 

In the original investigation Turkey was also used as analogue country. 

26 
27   The  Global  China  Automotive  Wheel  Industry  Report  2012/2013  estimated  the  total  aluminium 
wheel capacity available in China at 180 million units with sales of only 120 million units, giving 
spare capacity of 60 million wheels at the end of 2012. 

EN 

30 

EN 

 
                                                 
Union interest and definitive measures 

With  regard  to  the  interest  of  importers,  the  investigation  showed  that  countries  other 
than China delivered aluminium wheels to the Union market and it was considered that 
there  were  no  indications  that  maintaining  the  measures  would  have  a  significant 
negative  impact  on  the  importers.  After  careful  analysis,  it  was  also  concluded  that 
maintaining  the  measures  would  not  have  any  significant  negative  impact  on  the 
situation  of  users.  As  a  consequence,  the  Commission  concluded  that  there  were  no 
compelling reasons that it was not in the Union interest to maintain measures on imports 
of aluminium wheels originating in China. 

Therefore,  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  certain  aluminium 
wheels originating in China, imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 964/2010 
were  maintained.  The  rate  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  the  net, 
free-at-Union-frontier price before duty, remained at 22,3%. 

Solar  panels  (crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components)  from 
China (AD)  

Following  an  anti-dumping  investigation  (the  original  investigation),  the  Council 
imposed  in  December  2013  by  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1238/2013  a 
definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and 
key components (i.e. cells) originating in or consigned from China. The measures took 
the form of an ad valorem duty ranging between 27,3 % and 64,9 %. In December 2015, 
the Commission initiated an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures requested by 
EU  ProSun  on  behalf  of  Union  producers  representing  more  than  25  %  of  the  total 
Union  production.  The  request  was  ultimately  supported  by  Union  producers  whose 
collective output constituted more than 50 % of the total production. At the same time, 
the Commission initiated ex officio a partial interim review limited to the examination 
of whether or not it is in the Union interest to maintain measures currently in force on 
cells of the type used in crystalline silicon photovoltaic module or panels. 

Sampling 

A sample of eight Union producers was selected, accounting for 38,8% of the total EU 
sales and 55% of total Union production of modules and for 76,6% of the total EU sales 
volume  and  77%  of  the  total  Union  production  of  cells.  The  identity  and  location  of 
some sampled producers were not revealed for reason of confidentiality. With regard to 
exporting producers, the Commission selected a sample of three groups on the basis of 
the largest representative volume of exports to the Union. One interested party argued 
that  the  sample  of  the  exporting  producers  is  inappropriate  as  it  differs  significantly 
from the sample of Union producers in terms of the sampled companies' production and 
production capacity. According to Article 17 of the basic Regulation, the sample used is 
to be statistically valid on the basis of information available at the time of the selection, 
or  include  the largest representative volume of  production, sales  or  exports which can 
reasonably be investigated within the time available. Therefore, the sample of exporting 
producers  is  to  be  representative  of  the  exporting  producers  and  not  of  their  Union 
counterparts.  As  confirmed  by  the  jurisprudence  of  the  CJ,  the  sample  of  exporting 
producers does not have to mirror that of Union producers. 

Dumping and likelihood of continuation of dumping 

As no market economy treatment claim was introduced, the normal value for China was 
determined on the basis of the price or constructed value in an analogue country. The 

EN 

31 

EN 

 
Commission compared the normal value with the average export price for the sampled 
exporting  producers  and  the  dumping  margin  so  established  ranged  from  23,5  %  to 
31,5%. In light of the estimated significant spare capacity in China, combined with the 
attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  in  terms  of  size  and  sales  price,  in  particular  with 
regard to the price level of the Chinese exports to third countries, and the records of past 
circumvention practices, the Commission concluded that there is a strong likelihood that 
the repeal of the anti-dumping measures would result in continuation of dumping. 

Injury and likelihood of continuation of injury 

In  overall  terms,  the  Union  industry  continued  to  suffer  from  injury  during  the 
investigation period given the short period after the imposition of the original measures 
and  the  magnitude  of  dumping  and  the  level  of  injury  found  in  the  previous 
investigation.  In  addition,  the  circumvention  practices  found  have  also  contributed  to 
the continuation of injury. However, from mid-2013 (the provisional measures entered 
into  force  on  6  June  2013),  and  especially  during  2014  (the  first  full  year  with  anti-
dumping  measures  in  force)  and  during  the  investigation  period  the  Union  industry 
started gradually to recover from the past dumping by the Chinese exporters. However, 
this recovery was only partial, despite the efforts made and all the positive trends that 
resulted therefrom. 

The  Commission  found  that  there  was  significant  spare  capacity  in  China  for  both 
modules and cells, that the Union market remains attractive in terms of size and sales 
price,  particularly  in  comparison  with  the  price  level  of  the  Chinese  exports  to  third 
countries, further proven by the records of past circumvention practices. Consequently, 
the  Commission  found  that  there  was  a  strong  likelihood  that  the  repeal  of  the  anti-
dumping  measures  would  lead  to  the  continuation  of  dumping  resulting  in  the 
continuation of injury of the Union industry. 

Causation 

Several  interested  parties  claimed  that  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Union  industry  was 
caused by several other factors: 1) the abolition of the incentive schemes by many of the 
Member States, 2) the fact that the Union industry has not achieved yet economies of 
scale in order to be economically viable and to have an impact on the global market, 3) 
the  injury  is  caused  by  imports  from  other  countries  as  their  prices  were  25  %  lower 
than  the  Chinese  import  prices,  4)  the  injury  is  caused  by  the  fact  that  the  prices  of 
modules  of  the  Union  producers  are  constantly  lower  than  the  import  prices  of  the 
Chinese producers.  

The  Commission  established 
incorrect  or 
unsubstantiated and these  factors did not  break the causal  link between the injury  and 
the Chinese imports. 

these  claims  were 

factually 

that 

Union interest  

Weighing and balancing the competing interests, the Commission analysed whether the 
negative  effect  on  unrelated  importers,  upstream  and  downstream  industries  and  other 
effects  would  be  disproportionate  when  compared  to  the  positive  effect  on  the  Union 
manufactures  of  the  product  under  review.  The  key  consideration  was  to  assess  the 
likely impact of continued measures on the future of Union demand for solar modules. 
If  the  measures  would  significantly  curb  demand,  it  could  be  argued  that  protecting  a 
relatively  small  Union  industry  might  disproportionally  affect  significantly  larger 
downstream and upstream industries. However, it was concluded that the measures had 

EN 

32 

EN 

 
only  a  limited  impact  on  the  Union  demand  for  solar  modules.  The  Commission 
considered,  on  the  basis  of  the  evidence  available,  that  when  balancing  the  likely 
negative  effects  on  the  upstream  and  downstream  industry  as  well  as  the  consumers 
against  the  benefits  which  Union  industry  would  derive  from  the  measures,  a 
prolongation  of  the  measures  to  18  months  constituted  an  appropriate  resolution 
between the competing interests. Overall, the Commission concluded that there are no 
compelling reasons to terminate the measures on Union interest grounds. 

Definitive measures  

In  view  of  the  conclusions  reached  with  regard  to  the  likelihood  of  continuation  of 
dumping and continuation of injury, it was concluded that the measures in force should 
be maintained.  

In view of the conclusions reached that there are no compelling reasons to terminate the 
measures  on  cells  on  Union  interest  grounds,  the  partial  interim  review  initiated 
pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation was terminated. 

As the measures may have more impact on the demand in the future, once the transition 
of renewable support policies will be completed, the fiscal situation of self-consumption 
clarified  and  grid  parity  will  be  achieved  across  wider  parts  of  Europe.  This  justified 
that the measures were exceptionally prolonged for 18 months only. 

Partial interim review regarding to maintaining cells in the product scope 

On  the  date  of  initiation  of  the  present  expiry  review,  the  Commission  initiated  ex 
officio a partial interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation limited 
to  the  examination  of  whether  or  not  it  is  in  the  Union  interest  to  maintain  measures 
currently in force on cells of the type used in crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules or 
panels.  

The review was opened as there was prima facie evidence that the circumstances on the 
basis  of  which  the  original  measures  were  imposed  had  changed.  The  interests  of  the 
cell  manufacturers, 
industry  were  analysed.  The 
Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons to terminate the measures 
on  cells  on  Union  interest  grounds.  In  particular,  it  found  that  the  measures  were 
effective in retaining and to some extent restoring cell production in the Union. 

importers,  and  downstream 

Partial interim review regarding the form and the adjustment of the evel of measures 

During  this  investigation  it  was  concluded  that  it  is  also  appropriate  to  open  an  ex 
officio  interim  review  on  the  form  of  the  measure  and  the  adjustment  mechanism 
associated with it. 
In  March  2017,  the  Commission  initiated  an  interim  review28  in  order  to  examine 
whether the level of the measures should be gradually decreased. 

The original form of the measures was an ad valorem anti-dumping and countervailing 
duty.  A  price  undertaking  was  offered  by  a  group  of  cooperating  exporting  producers 
and  accepted  by  the  Commission.  One  of  the  core  elements  of  the  undertaking  was  a 
MIP which is subject to a quarterly adjustment mechanism. Under the price undertaking 
accepted by the Commission, the MIP for the modules and cells was adjusted quarterly 
by reference to international spot prices of modules including Chinese prices as reported 
by the Bloomberg database. 

28  Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/1570, OJ L238, 16 September 2017, p.22. 

EN 

33 

EN 

 
                                                 
However,  when  reviewing  the  interests  of  unrelated  importers  and  non-vertically 
integrated  Union  module  manufactures  in  the  expiry  review  investigation,  the 
Commission  received  complaints  about  the  heavy  administrative  burden  put  on  them, 
while the Union producers complained about ongoing circumvention. The Commission 
accepted these points and considered that a variable duty in the form of a MIP (‘variable 
duty MIP’) is a more appropriate form of measures than the previous ad valorem duty 
coupled with the price undertaking (‘undertaking MIP). The variable duty MIP means 
that eligible imports with a declared value at, or above, the MIP would not be subject to 
duties and customs authorities will levy duties immediately if the product is imported at 
a price below the MIP. 

Graphite electrode systems from India (AD) 

The  Council,  following  an  anti-dumping  investigation,  by  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1629/2004,  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  graphite 
electrodes systems originating in India. In December 2015, the Commission initiated an 
expiry  review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  these  imports.  The  request 
was  lodged  by  SGL  Carbon  GmbH,  TOKAI  Erftcarbon  GmbH  and  GrafTech 
Switzerland SA representing more than 25 % of the total Union production. 

Sampling 

The Commission selected a sample of four Union producers on the basis of the largest 
representative volume of sales which could reasonably be investigated within the time 
available,  considering  also  the  geographical  location.  The  sampled  Union  producers 
accounted for more than 80 % of the total Union production.  

Dumping and likelihood of continuation of dumping 

The  expiry  review  investigation  showed  that  (i)  Indian  imports  continued  to  enter  the 
Union  market  at  significant  dumped  prices  and  in  significant  quantities;  (ii)  both29 
Indian  producers  are  export-oriented  and  have  spare  capacity  which  could  be  used  to 
increase export volumes to the Union at dumped prices; (iii) consumption worldwide is 
following a decreasing trend, thus reducing the possibilities of Indian exporters to other 
third markets; (iv) the introduction of anti-dumping measures in Russia against Indian 
graphite electrode systems further restricts the export possibilities. As a consequence, it 
was concluded that there is a likelihood of continuation of dumping should the measures 
be repealed. 

Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury 

The  investigation  showed  that  despite  the  measures  in  force  most  of  the  injury 
indicators developed negatively and the economic and financial situation of the Union 
industry deteriorated. While these negative developments may in part be explained by 
the  decrease  in  consumption,  Indian  imports  were  still  strongly  present  on  the  Union 
market  at  prices30  lower  than  the  Union  industry's  prices.  The  Commission  concluded 
that the Union industry was in an extremely fragile situation.  

To  establish  the  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  injury,  the  following  elements  were 
analysed: the production capacity and spare capacity in India, the exports from India to 
other  third  countries  and  the  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market.  The  Indian  spare 

29 

30 

There  are  only  two  exporting  producers  of  the  product  concerned  in  India.  Only  one  of  them 
cooperated with the expiry review investigation.  
Prices do not include anti-dumping/countervailing duties. 

EN 

34 

EN 

 
                                                 
capacity  was  estimated  to  be  between  29%  and  36%  of  the  Union  consumption.  The 
access  to  Russia  (the  third  main  export  market)  for  Indian  exporting  producers  was 
restricted via the imposition of anti-dumping measures. The attractiveness of the Union 
market was demonstrated by the fact  that despite  the anti-dumping  and countervailing 
duties in force, Indian graphite electrode systems continued to enter the Union market. 
Therefore, should measures in the Union be repealed it is indeed likely that a large part 
of the available spare capacity will be used for export to the Union market. This would 
further deteriorate the economic situation of the Union industry. Based on the above, the 
Commission  concluded  that  that  there  is  a  strong  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  injury 
caused by dumped imports from India should the measures be repealed.  

Union interest and definitive measures 

The Commission analysis showed that the Union industry would be likely to experience 
a deterioration of its situation in case the measures were allowed to lapse. Therefore, it 
was concluded that the continuation of the measures would benefit the Union industry. 
As  no  importers  cooperated  or  made  themselves  known  in  the  current  investigation, 
there were no indications  that maintaining  measures would have a negative impact on 
the importers outweighing the positive impact of the measures. The users did not submit 
any  information  showing  that  there  have  been  difficulties  in  finding  the  necessary 
supply and none of them put forward any argument against maintaining of the measures. 
On this basis the Commission concluded that there are no compelling reasons of Union 
interest against the extension of the current anti-dumping measures. 

A definitive anti-dumping duty (between 0% and 9,4%) was hereby imposed on imports 
of graphite electrodes imported from India. 

Filament glass fibre products from China (AD) 

In 2011, by Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 248/2011, the Council imposed 
a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  continuous  filament  glass  fibre 
products  originating  in  China.  In  March  2016  the  Commission  initiated  an  expiry 
review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  applicable  to  these  imports.  The  request  was 
lodged  by  the  European  Glass  Fibre  Producers  Association  (‘APFE’)  on  behalf  of 
producers representing more than 25 % of the total Union production.  

Sampling 

The  Commission  sampled  three  exporting  producers,  based  on  the  largest  volume  of 
exports.  The  Commission  also  sampled  three  company  groups  of  Union  producers 
representing  around  74%  of  the  total  sales  on  the  Union  market.  A  sample  of  three 
importers was selected on the basis of the largest volume of imports into the Union. 

Dumping 

The  Commission  examined  whether  dumping  was  currently  taking  place  and  whether 
dumping was likely to continue or recur upon a possible expiry of the measures. As no 
market economy treatment claim was introduced and according to Article 2(7)(a) of the 
basic Regulation, normal value was determined on the basis of the price or constructed 
value  in  a  market  economy  third  country.  For  this  purpose,  the  Commission  selected 
Japan.  The  Commission  did  not  receive  a  reply  to  the  questionnaire  from  any  of  the 
sampled exporting producers in China. As a consequence of non-cooperation, pursuant 
to Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation, the Commission established the export price on 
Eurostat  imports  statistics  (COMEXT)  and  compared  it  with  the  normal  value 

EN 

35 

EN 

 
established in Japan. On this basis, the Commission found a dumping margin of above 
70%.  

The  excess  capacity  in  China  during  the  review  investigation  period  was  estimated  at 
around 150 thousand metric tonnes (more than 15 % of the total Union consumption). 
The  level  of  prices  on  the  Union  market  and  its  importance  for  exports  from  China 
allowed the Commission to conclude that the Union market is attractive for the Chinese 
producers. In addition, India and Turkey extended their anti-dumping duties on imports 
of  glass  fibre  from  China.  The  Commission  considered  the  existence  of  anti-dumping 
measures in other third countries to be an additional indication of dumping practices by 
the Chinese exporting producers.  

On  this  basis,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  Chinese  dumped  exports  would 
resume  in  larger  volumes  and  exercise  increased  price  pressure  on  the  Union  market 
should  the  current  measures  be  repealed,  i.e.  that  there  was  a  likelihood  of  a 
continuation of dumping should measures be repealed. 

Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury 

The investigation established a dumping margin of more than 70%. The Union industry 
started to benefit more fully from the anti-dumping measures since they were increased 
in  201431.  As  a  result  of  the  measures32,  Chinese  imports  stabilised  and  enabled  the 
Union  industry  to  maintain  its  market  share.  However,  prices  of  the  Union  industry 
remained  low.  On  this  basis  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  Union  industry, 
following  the  increase of  measures in 2014 partially recovered from the injury  caused 
by  the  past  dumping  and  did  not  suffer  material  injury  in  the  review  investigation 
period. However, its situation remained vulnerable and is characterised by a persistence 
of depressed prices, volatile costs of production and high capital requirements. On this 
basis, should the anti-dumping measures be repealed and countervailing duty remains at 
a  level  which  already  proved  ineffective  to  restrict  the  arrival  of  large  quantities  of 
imports at undercutting prices, the Commission concluded that there is a likelihood of 
recurrence of injury. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

The Commission examined the different interests at stake and concluded that it is in the 
interest of the Union industry to maintain the measures. The importers and traders have 
access  to  a  large  number  of  supply  sources  inside  and  outside  the  Union.  The 
Commission's analysis also showed that the renewal of the measures would only have a 
limited impact on the situation of the users. The Commission concluded that on balance, 
no  compelling  reasons  existed  against  the  continuation  of  the  current  anti-dumping 
measures. Therefore the anti-dumping measures were maintained. 

Coated fine paper originating from China (AD) 

In  2011,  following  an  anti-dumping  investigation  (the  original  investigation),  by 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  451/2011,  the  Council  imposed  a  definitive  anti-

31  By  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1379/2014,  following  an  anti-subsidy 
investigation and a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures, the Commission amended 
the original anti-dumping duty to values ranging between 0% to 19,9 % and imposed an additional 
countervailing duty ranging between 4,9 % to 10,3 %. 
The  measures  in  place  are:  anti-dumping  duties  (Council  Implementing  Regulation  No  248/2011) 
and  countervailing  duties  (Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1379/2014).  The 
resulting combined countervailing and anti-dumping measures range between 4,9% and 30,2%. 

32 

EN 

36 

EN 

 
                                                 
dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  coated  fine  paper  originating  in  China.  In  May 
2016,  the  Commission  initiated  an  expiry  review  of  these  measures.  The  request  was 
lodged  by  five  Union  producers  (Arctic  Paper  Grycksbo  AB,  Burgo  Group  SpA, 
Fedrigoni SpA, Lecta Group and Sappi Europe SA), representing more than 25 % of the 
total Union production of coated fine paper. 

Sampling 

There  was  no  cooperation  from  the  exporting  Chinese  producers.  With  regard  to  the 
Union producers the Commission selected three operators (with  the biggest volume of 
sales and production), accounting for over 30 % of the total Union production. 

Dumping and likelihood of recurrence of dumping 

The Commission examined whether dumping was currently taking place and whether or 
not  the  expiry  of  the  existing  measures  would  be  likely  to  lead  to  a  continuation  or 
recurrence  of  dumping.  As  no  Chinese  exporting  producer  cooperated  in  the 
investigation,  the  Commission  resorted  to  the  use  of  facts  available.  For  the 
investigation period, the data showed that only negligible volumes were imported into 
the  Union  from  China.  The  Commission  concluded  that  these  quantities  were  not 
representative  as  they  represented  less  than  1%  of  the  total  imports  of  the  product 
concerned. Therefore no meaningful analysis of dumping based on the Chinese imports 
to the Union during the investigation period could be made. The investigation focused 
on the likelihood of a recurrence of dumping.  

As no market economy treatment claim was introduced, normal value was determined, 
in accordance with the basic Regulation, on the basis of the price or constructed value in 
a market economy third country. The USA was selected for this purpose. In the absence 
of any cooperation from the Chinese exporting producers, the export price was based on 
facts  available  in  accordance  with  the  basic  Regulation.  After  a  comparison  of  the 
normal value and export price the average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of 
the CIF Union frontier price was 58%. 

The  Chinese  spare  capacity  of the  product  concerned  was  found  to  be around  13%  of 
total  Union  consumption  while  Chinese  domestic  demand  is  expected  to  decrease  by 
more  than  10%  until  2021.  The  investigation  has  demonstrated  that  Union  demand 
remained  substantial  and  the  Union  market  remains  the  largest  market  in  the  world, 
accounting  for  25%-30%  of  global  demand.  Based  on  facts  available,  Chinese  export 
prices  to  the  third  countries  close  to  the  Union  were  on  average  7%  lower  than  the 
prices in the Union during the review investigation period. Such a difference of price is 
significant. On this basis, the Commission concluded that shall the measures laps there 
is likelihood of recurrence of dumping.  

Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury 

During the period under investigation, injury indicators showed a mixed picture. While 
financial  performance  indicators,  such  as  profitability,  cash  flow  and  return  on 
investment,  improved,  volume  indicators,  such  as  production  and  sales,  continued  to 
decline. The improvement of financial performance indicators was the result of both the 
drop in raw materials prices in 2014 and the Union producers' restructuring efforts. The 
negative  trends  in  production  and  sales  volumes  were  the  result  of  the  continuously 
falling demand.  

The  foreseen  further  decrease  in  demand  in  the  next  5-10  years  supported  the 
conclusion  that  the  situation  of  the  Union  industry  will  remain  challenging.  The 

EN 

37 

EN 

 
investigation  confirmed  that  the  measures  imposed  by  the  original  investigation  have 
had a positive impact on the Union industry, which regained its market share.  

On the basis of the above, the Commission considered that the Union industry did not 
suffer  material  injury  during  the  investigation,  nevertheless,  it  was  in  a  vulnerable 
situation.  Therefore,  it  was  concluded  that  the  repeal  of  the  measures  would  in  all 
likelihood result in a recurrence of injury.  

Union interest and definitive measures 

After a careful analysis of the different interests at stake the Commission concluded that 
the continuation of the anti-dumping measures in force would be in the interest of the 
Union industry while their impact on the importers/traders and users will be limited. On 
this  basis,  the  Commission  concluded  that  there  are  no  compelling  reasons  of  Union 
interest against the extension of the current anti-dumping measures. Therefore the anti-
dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  certain  coated  fine  paper  originating  in 
China imposed by Regulation (EU) No 451/2011 were maintained. 

Ceramic tiles from China (AD) 

Following  an  anti-dumping  investigation  (the  original  investigation),  the  Council 
imposed,  by  means  of  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  917/2011,  a  definitive  anti-
dumping duty on imports of ceramic tiles originating in China. In September 2016, the 
Commission  initiated  an  expiry  review.  The  request  was  lodged  by  the  European 
Ceramic Tile Manufacturers' Federation on behalf of producers representing more than 
25 % of the total Union production of ceramic tiles. 

Sampling 

The  Commission  sampled  four  groups  of  exporting  producers  on  the  basis  of  their 
declared volume of exports to the Union and production capacity. The sample covered 
around  8%  of  the  total  Chinese  exports  to  the  Union  according  to  Eurostat.  The 
Commission  selected  a  sample  of  nine  Union  producers  on  the  basis  of  the  largest 
representative volume of sales and production, taking into account geographical spread 
and  also  the  high  fragmentation  of  the  ceramic  tiles  industry.  The  sampled  Union 
producers  accounted  for  over  7,7%  of  total  estimated  Union  production  in  2015.  The 
final  sample  of  the  unrelated  importers  consisted  of  three  unrelated  importers, 
accounting for around 6 % of total imports from China. 

Dumping and likelihood of continuation of dumping 

The Commission examined whether the expiry of the existing measures would be likely 
to  lead  to  a  continuation  or  recurrence  of  dumping.  As  no  market  economy  treatment 
claim was introduced, normal value was determined on the basis of the prices paid or 
payable on the domestic market or constructed value in an appropriate market economy 
third  country  (also  referred  to  as  "analogue  country").  After  having  contacted  the 
official representations and/or producers located in several possible analogue countries 
the  Commission  selected  the  US  as  appropriate  analogue  country.    The  weighted 
average dumping margins were found to be between 66% and 231%. 

The  Commission  found  that  Chinese  exporting  producers continued  to  export  ceramic 
tiles to the Union at dumped prices during the review investigation period. 

China has a large spare capacity available and thus the ability to increase its production 
volumes  at  short  notice.  There  were  no  indications  that  the  Chinese  domestic 
consumption would be able to absorb the enormous quantities produced and in stocks. 

EN 

38 

EN 

 
Chinese export prices to the Union were significantly higher compared to the other main 
export  markets.  In  other  words,  the  Union  market  is  more  attractive  for  Chinese 
exporting  producers  than  their  other  main  export  destinations.  On  that  basis,  the 
Commission  considered  it  is  likely  that  significant  volumes  of  Chinese  ceramic  tiles 
would be exported to the Union at dumped prices in case the measures were allowed to 
lapse. 

Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury 

The Union industry was able to recover from the past dumping. Its economic situation 
improved  during  the  investigation  period.  The  measures  in  force  allowed  the  Union 
producers to maintain  the market share, which had a positive impact on the economic 
development  of  the  Union  industry.  All  the  injury  indicators  showed  a  positive  trend: 
the  production  and  the  sales  increased,  the  sales  price  remained  relatively  stable  and 
they had a positive impact on the profitability of the Union industry. On this basis the 
Commission concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the 
investigation period. 

Since the Union industry did no longer suffer material injury the Commission assessed 
whether  there  was  be  a  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  injury  should  the  measures  be 
allowed to lapse. There were high spare capacities of ceramic tiles in China. In addition, 
during  the  investigation  period  the  average  price  of  the  Chinese  exports  to  the  Union 
market was on average 30%  - 40% lower than the average price in the Union market. 
And as mentioned above, Chinese export prices to other destinations were even lower. 
On the basis of the above considerations, the Commission concluded that the repeal of 
the  measures  would  in  all  likelihood  result  in  a  recurrence  of  injury  to  the  Union 
industry. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

In  weighing  and  balancing  the  competing  interests,  the  Commission  gave  special 
consideration to the need to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious dumping 
and to restore effective competition. While the continuation of measures would protect 
an important  Union industry, including  many small  and medium enterprises, against  a 
likely  recurrence  of  injury,  the  rather  low  cooperation  of  the  importers  and  users 
suggests that the continuation of measures would not have a disproportionate negative 
impact on them. On this basis the Commission concluded that there were no compelling 
reasons that it was not in the Union interest to maintain measures. Therefore, the anti-
dumping  measures  applicable  to  imports  of  ceramic  tiles  originating  in  China  were 
maintained (the rate is between 13,9% and 69,7%). 

4.2.1.4.  Reviews concluded by termination 

In 2017, one expiry review was concluded by the termination of measures in force.  

Product 

Originating from 

Reason for termination 

Polyethylene 
terephthalate (PET) 

China 

Withdrawal of complaint 

EN 

39 

EN 

 
4.2.2. 

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 lapsed 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 will be examined, 
inter  alia,  whether  the  circumstances  with  regard  to  dumping/subsidization  and  injury 
have changed significantly and whether these changes are of a lasting nature. Reviews 
can be limited to dumping/subsidization or injury aspects. 

During  2017,  ten  interim  reviews  were  initiated  (six  anti-dumping  and  four  anti-
subsidy).  Two  interim  reviews  were  concluded  during  the  same  period,  one  by 
amending the duties and another by confirming the duties unchanged. The details of the 
case  which  was  concluded  during  2017  by  amending  the  duties  can  be  found  below. 
More  information  can  be  obtained  from  the  Official  Journal  publications  to  which 
reference is given in Annex G. 

Product 

Originating from 

Stainless steel wires 

India 

Result  of  the 
Type33  

investigation/ 

Duty levels amended within 
the range 0,7 – 16,2% (AD) 

Solar panels (crystalline 
silicon photovoltaic modules 
and key components) 

P.R. China 

Termination without 
amendment of duty 

4.2.2.1.  Details on individual cases 

Stainless steel wires from India (AD) 

In  2013,  by  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1106/2013  the  Council  imposed  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  stainless  steel  wires  originating  in 
India.  In  December  2015  the  Commission  initiated  a  partial  interim  review  of  these 
measures,  limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  dumping.  The  Commission  had 
received two requests from two Indian exporting producers (Venus and Garg) claiming 
that the circumstances on the basis of which anti-dumping measures were imposed have 
changed, that these changes are of a lasting nature and the continued imposition of the 
measures  at  the  current  level  were  no  longer  necessary  to  offset  injurious  dumping. 
After an analysis, the Commission concluded that the change in circumstances claimed 
by the two Indian exporting producers was of a lasting nature. 

Dumping 

The  normal  value  for  each  of  the  applicants  was  calculated  as  a  weighted  average  of 
their profitable sales on the Indian market, or, where a product type was not sold at all 
or not in representative quantities on the domestic market, the Commission constructed 

33  AD = anti-dumping, AS = anti-subsidy, UT = undertaking. 

EN 

40 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
the  normal  value.  On  this  basis,  the  weighted  average  dumping  margin  of  Venus  was 
found to be 9,9 % and of Garg 19,2%. 

Definitive measures 
Following  the  initial  investigation34  in  2013,  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  of  8,6% 
and  8,4%  were  imposed  respectively  to  Venus  and  Grag  –  two  Indian  exporting 
producers. In 2015 the two producers introduced requests for review. In their requests, 
the  applicants  claimed  that  the  circumstances  on  the  basis  of  which  anti-dumping 
measures  were  imposed  have  changed  and  that  these  changes  are  of  a  lasting  nature. 
The  applicants  provided  prima  facie  evidence  that  the  continued  imposition  of  the 
measures at the current level was no longer necessary to offset injurious dumping. 

Following the  review investigation, the revised anti-dumping  duty  rates that  would be 
applicable  to  imports  of  the  product  concerned  manufactured  by  Venus  amounts  to 
6,9%  (a  decrease  compared  to  the  initial  investigation)  and  the  revised  anti-dumping 
duty  applicable  to  Garg  amounts  to  10,3  %  (an  increase  compared  to  the  initial 
investigation).  The  dumping  margin  and  duty  rate  for  all  other  non-cooperating 
companies in the original investigation was not revised. 

Solar  Panels  (crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components)  from 
China (AD) 

This review was described in detail above under the section on expiry reviews. 

4.2.3.  “Other” reviews 

The  Commission  initiated  in  2017  two  "other  reviews"  i.e.  reviews  falling  outside 
Article 11(3) or Article 19 of the basic Regulations. These investogations focus on the 
implementation  of  court  rulings.  In  2017,  five  “other”  reviews  were  concluded  with  a 
confirmation or amendment of the duty. More detilas are to be found below. No "other" 
review  was terminated with  a  repeal  of  the  measures.  A  list  of  the  cases  concerned  is 
given  in  Annex  H.  More  information  can  be  obtained  from  the  Official  Journal 
publications to which reference is given in that Annex. 

Footwear from China and Vietnam (AD) 

The following is a presentation of the following three regulations ('regulations at issue') 
that  were  adopted  in  2017  in  order  to  implement  the  CJ  ruling  annulling  the  Council 
Regulation (EC) 1472/2006: 1) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2017/423, 
2) Commission Implementing Regulation 2017/1982 and 3) Commission Implementing 
Regulation 2017/2232. 

By  adopting  the  regulations  at  issue  the  Commission  assessed  the  Market  Economy 
Treatment  and  Individual  Treatment  ('MET'  /  'IT')  claims  for  the  exporting  producers 
falling under Council Regulation (EC) 1472/2006. 

Regulation  1472/2006  was  adopted  in  October  2006  by  the  Council  and  imposed 
definitive  anti-dumping  duties  ranging  from  9,7  %  to  16,5  %  on  imports  of  certain 
footwear with uppers of leather originating in Vietnam and in the People's Republic of 
China  ('China')  ('contested  regulation').  The  contested  regulation  and  its  subsequent 

34  Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1106/2013, OJ L298, 8 November 2013, p.1. 

EN 

41 

EN 

 
                                                 
regulations35 were challenged by inter alia several Chinese exporters ('applicants'). The 
CJ  annulled  these  regulations  on  the  basis  that  the  Commission  did  not  examine  the 
substantiated claims submitted by the applicants pursuant to Article 2(7)(b) and (c) of 
the basic Regulation for the purpose of claiming (MET).36  

By  way  of  implementing  the  above  mentioned  CJ  judgment,  the  Commission  first 
adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/223. By this regulation, the Commission 
instructed the national customs authorities, which have to decide on  an application for 
re-imbursement of anti-dumping duties, to forward requests for re-imbursements of paid 
duties  under  the  annulled  regulations  to  the  Commission  and  await  the  Commission's 
assessment of the MET and IT claims and of the re-imposition of the anti-dumping duty 
at  the  appropriate  rate  before  proceeding  with  re-imbursement.  Subsequently,  the 
Commission adopted the three regulations at issue in which it assessed the MET and IT 
claims from these exporting producers.  

Implementation 

By adopting the Implementing  Regulations (EU) 2017/423, 2017/1982  and 2017/2232 
the Commission assessed the MET/IT claims for the concerned companies.37 

35  Regulation (EC) No 388/2008 extending the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of certain 
footwear with uppers of leather originating in China to imports consigned from the Macao Special 
Administrative  Region  (SAR),  whether  declared  as  originating  in  the  Macao  SAR  or  not  and 
Implementing Regulation (EC) No 1294/2009. 

36  C-249/10  P  Brosmann  Footwear  (HK)  and  Others  v  Council  and  C-247/10  P  Zhejiang  Aokang 
Shoes v Council. See also Joined Cases C-659/13 C & J Clark International Limited  and C-34/14 
Puma SE. The regulations were annulled in so far they applied to the applicants concerned in those 
cases. 

37  By  Commission  Implementing  Regulation (EU) 2017/423:  Fujian Viscap  Shoes  Co.  Ltd, Vietnam 
Ching  Luh  Shoes  Co.  Ltd,  Vinh  Thong  Producing-Trading-Service  Co.  Ltd,  Qingdao  Tae  Kwang 
Shoes Co. Ltd, Maystar Footwear Co. Ltd, Lien Phat Company Ltd, Qingdao Sewon Shoes Co. Ltd, 
Panyu  Pegasus  Footwear  Co.  Ltd,  PanYu  Leader  Footwear  Corporation,  Panyu  Hsieh  Da  Rubber 
Co. Ltd, An Loc Joint Stock Company, Qingdao Changshin Shoes Company Limited, Chang Shin 
Vietnam  Co.  Ltd,  Samyang  Vietnam  Co.  Ltd,  Qingdao  Samho  Shoes  Co.  Ltd,  Min  Yuan,  Chau 
Giang  Company  Limited,  Foshan  Shunde  Fong  Ben  Footwear  Industrial  Co.  Ltd  and  Dongguan 
Texas  Shoes  Limited  Co.  By  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2017/1982:  Dongguan 
Luzhou  Shoes  Co.  Ltd,  Dongguan  Shingtak  Shoes  Co  Ltd,  Guangzhou  Dragon  Shoes  Co.  Ltd, 
Guangzhou Evervan Footwear Co. Ltd, Guangzhou Guangda Shoes Co. Ltd, Long Son Joint Stock 
Company  and  Zhaoqing  Li  Da  Shoes  Co.  Ltd.  By  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2017/2232:  Aiminer  Leather  Products  Co.,  Ltd,  Best  Health  Ltd,  Best  Run  Worldwide  Co.  Ltd, 
Bright  Ease  Shoe  Factory,  Cambinh  Shoes  Company,  Dong  Anh  Footwear  Joint  Stock  Company, 
Dong Guan Bor Jiann Footwear Co., Ltd, Dongguan Hongguo Shoes Co. Ltd, Freetrend Industrial 
Ltd,  Freeview  Company  Ltd,  Dongguan  Hopecome  Footwear  Co.  Ltd,  Dongguan  Houjie  Baihou 
Hua  Jian  Footwear  Factory,  Dongguan  Qun  Yao  Shoe  Co.,  Ltd,  Dongyi  Shoes  Co.,  Ltd,  Doozer 
(Fujian) Shoes Co., Ltd, Emperor (VN) Co., Ltd, Everlasting Industry Co., Ltd, Fu Jian Ching Luh 
Shoes Co., Ltd, Fu Jian Lion Score Sport Products Co., Ltd, Fujian Footwear & Headgear Import & 
Export (Holdings) Co., Ltd, Fujian Jinjiang Guohui Footwear & Garment Co., Ltd, Gan Zhou Hua 
Jian  International  Footwear  Co.,  Ltd,  Golden  Springs  Shoe  Co.,  Ltd,  Haiduong  Shoes  Stock 
Company,  Hangzhou  Forever  Shoes  Factory,  Hua  Jian  Industrial  Holding  Co.,  Ltd,  Huu  Nghi 
Danang Company, Hwa Seung Vina Co., Ltd, Jason Rubber Works Ltd, Jinjiang Hengdali Footwear 
Co.,  Ltd,  Jinjiang  Xiangcheng  Footwear  and  Plastics  Co.,  Ltd,  JinJiang Zhenxing  Shoes  & Plastic 
Co.,  Ltd,  Juyi  Group  Co.,  Ltd,  K  Star  Footwear  Co.,  Ltd,  Kangnai  Group  Wenzhou  Lucky  Shoes 
and Leather Co., Ltd, Khai Hoan Footwear Co., Ltd, Lian Jiang Ching Luh Shoes Co., Ltd, Li-Kai 
Shoes  Manufacturing  Co.,  Ltd,  New  Star  Shoes  Factory,  Ngoc  Ha  Shoe  Company,  Nhi  Hiep 
Transportation Construction Company Limited, Ophelia Shoe Co., Ltd, Ormazed Shoes (Zhao Qing 
City)  Ltd,  Ormazed  Shoes  Ltd  (Dong  Guan)  Ltd,  Pacific  Joint  —  Venture  Company,  Phuc  Yen 
Shoes  Factory,  Phuha  Footwear  Enterprise,  Phuhai  Footwear  Enterprise,  Phulam  Footwear  Joint 
Stock Company, Putian Dajili Footwear Co., Ltd, Right Rich Development VN Co., Ltd, Saigon Jim 

EN 

42 

EN 

 
                                                 
MET Claims 

The  burden  of  proof  lies  with  the  exporter  claiming  MET  treatment  under  Article 
2(7)(c) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. In order for a MET claim to be successful, 
the exporter needs to show that all five criteria listed in Article 2(7)(c) are met. 

The Commission found that none of the companies in the regulations at issue were able 
to  demonstrate  that  they  met  criterion  1  (business  decisions).  The  Commission  found 
that  certain  exporting  producers  could  not  freely  determine  their  sales  quantities  for 
domestic and export markets. Furthermore, certain companies did not provide sufficient 
information to demonstrate that their business decisions were taken in accordance with 
market signals without significant State interference. 

Since the failure to meet at least one criterion under Article 2(7)(c) results in rejection 
of a MET claim, the Commission rejected the companies' MET requests. 

IT Claims 

The burden of proof lies with the exporting producer wishing to claim IT under Article 
9(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  exporting  producer's  claim  needs  to  be  properly 
substantiated and show that all five criteria listed in the article, prior to its amendment, 
are  met.38  The  failure  to  meet  at  least  one  of  the  criterions  is  enough  to  reject  the  IT 
claim. 

The Commission found that certain companies failed to prove that business decisions, 
such  as  export  prices  and  quantities  and  conditions  and  terms  of  sale,  were  freely 
determined in response to market signals (criterion 2). The Commission also found that 
certain companies failed to provide the necessary information to demonstrate that they 
were sufficiently independent from State interference (criterion 3).  

In essence, the Commission found that none of the companies concerned were able to 
show  that  all  of  the  conditions  in  Article  9(5)  of  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulations 
were met. Consequently, the Commission also rejected the IT claim. 

Conclusion 

Having taken account of the comments made by the interested parties, the Commission 
concluded  that  the  residual  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  imports  from  China  and 
Vietnam,  i.e.  16,5%  and  10%  respectively,  should  be  re-imposed  to  the  concerned 
exporting producers for the period of application of the contested regulation. 

Biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia (AD) 

In November 2013, the Council imposed by Regulation (EU) No 1197/2013 a definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of biodiesel originating in Argentina and Indonesia ('the 
definitive  Regulation').  The  product  concerned  is  fatty-acid  mono-alkyl  esters  and/or 

Brother  Corporation,  Shenzhen  Harson  Shoes  Ltd,  Shunde  Sunrise  (II)  Footwear  Co.,  Ltd, 
Splendour  Enterprise  Co.,  Ltd,  Stellar  Footwear  Co.,  Ltd,  Sung  Hyun  Vina  Co.,  Ltd,  Synco 
Footwear Ltd, Thai Binh Shoes Joint Stock Company, Thang Long Shoes Company, Thanh Hung 
Co.,  Ltd,  Thuy  Khue  Shoes  Company  Ltd,  Truong  Loi  Shoes  Company  Limited,  Wenzhou  Chali 
Shoes Co., Ltd, Wenzhou Dibang Shoes Co., Ltd, Wenzhou Gold Emperor Shoes Co., Ltd, Xiamen 
Sunchoose  Import  &  Export  Co.,  Ltd,  Xingtaiy  Footwear  Industry  &  Commerce  Co., Ltd,  Zhuhai 
Shi Tai Footwear Company Limited, and Zhuhai Shun Tai Footwear Company Limited. 
The  five  criteria  of  the  Regulation  1225/2009  were  the  following:  Free  repatriation  of  capital  and 
profits,  export  conditions  and  terms  of  sales  freely  determined,  company  –  key  management  and 
shares – is sufficiently independent from State interference, market based exchange rate and absence 
of State interference to permit circumvention. 

38 

EN 

43 

EN 

 
                                                                                                                                               
paraffinic gasoils obtained from synthesis and/or hydro-treatment, of non-fossil origin, 
in pure form or as included in a blend originating in Argentina and Indonesia. 

Argentina claimed the measures to be inconsistent with several provisions of the Anti-
Dumping  Agreement  of  the  WTO.  The  Appellate  Body  found,  inter  alia,  that  the 
European  Union  had  acted  inconsistently  with  Article  2.2  of  the  WTO  Anti-Dumping 
Agreement (‘ADA’) by failing to calculate the cost of production of the product under 
investigation  on  the  basis  of  the  records  kept  by  the  producers.  In  addition,  the  Panel 
found, inter alia, that the European Union had acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 
3.4 of the ADA in its examination of the impact of the dumped imports on the domestic 
industry,  insofar  as  the  examination  related  to  production  capacity  and  capacity 
utilisation  is  concerned.  On  20  December  2016,  the  Commission  initiated  a  review 
under  Article  1(3)  of  the  Regulation  (EU)  2015/476  ('WTO  enabling  Regulation')  in 
order to bring the measures into conformity with the above ruling. 

Determination of the normal value and calculation of the dumping margins  

In order to implement the findings of the Reports (both the reports by the Panel and the 
Appellate  Body  are  collectively  referred  to  as  the  'Reports'),  the  Commission 
recalculated the normal value for exporting producers in Argentina based on the costs of 
the  main  raw  material  (soybean  oil  and  soybeans)  as  reported  in  the  records  of  those 
exporting producers.  

The  Commission  acknowledged  that  the  Appellate  Body  did  not  preclude,  per  se,  the 
possibility that an investigating authority could, in certain specific circumstances, depart 
from  recorded  costs  if  the  investigation  would  demonstrate  that  costs  had  been,  e.g. 
over- or understated or if non-arm length transactions or other practices had affected the 
reliability of the reported costs (para. 6.41 of the Appellate Body report). However, the 
Appellate  Body  also  stated  that  the  Argentine  export  tax  system  was  not,  in  itself,  a 
sufficient basis for concluding that the producers' records did not reasonably reflect the 
costs  of  raw  material  associated  with  the  production  and  sale  of  biodiesel,  or  for 
disregarding the relevant costs in those records when constructing the normal value of 
biodiesel  (paragraph  6.55  of  the  Appellate  Body  report).  The  Commission  therefore 
rejected the European Biodiesel Board's ('EBB') claim during the investigation that the 
Reports  do  not  preclude  the  Commission  from  making  in  these  circumstances  an 
adjustment  to  the  raw  material  costs  when  constructing  the  normal  value  claim,  since 
accepting it would not be in line with the findings of the Reports.  

The revised duty rates in respect of all Argentine exporters in light of the findings and 
recommendation in the WTO reports, expressed on the CIF Union border price, customs 
duty unpaid, ranged between 4,5% and 8,1%. 

Revised injury findings based on the reports  

In the Reports, it was found, inter alia, that the EU acted inconsistently with Articles 3.1 
and  3.4  of  the  ADA  in  its  examination  of  the  impact  of  the  dumped  imports  on  the 
domestic  industry,  insofar  as  it  relates  to  production  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation. 
The  Reports  did  not,  however,  invalidate  the  conclusion  that  the  Union  Industry 
suffered  material  injury  during  the  period  considered.  The  Panel  found  that  the  EU 
authorities  acted  inconsistently  with  Articles  3.1  and  3.4  of  the  ADA  by  accepting 
revised data submitted by the EU domestic industry at a late stage of the investigation 
without assuring themselves of its accuracy and reliability (paragraph 7.395 of the Panel 
report). The revised data concerned ‘idle capacity’. At the same time, the Panel stated 
that the revised data did not have a significant role in the EU authorities' conclusion in 

EN 

44 

EN 

 
the definitive Regulation on overcapacity as an ‘other factor’ causing injury (confirmed 
in paragraph 6.147 of the Appellate Body report).  

In  order  to  implement  the  findings  of  the  Reports,  the  Commission  sent  out  a 
questionnaire  to  the  EBB  requesting  explanations  as  to  (i)  which  methodology  was 
applied  to  calculate  both  production  capacity  and  capacity  utilisation  of  the  Union 
industry  during  the  period  considered,  and  (ii)  why  in  the  course  of  the  original 
investigation  this  data  was  revised  and  on  what  basis  the  new  figures  were  produced. 
The  Commission  also  asked  the  EBB  to  explain  what  their  understanding  of  ‘idle 
capacity’  was;  why  in  their  view  it  had  to  be  excluded  from  the  total  production 
capacity of the Union industry for the period considered and how the idle capacity was 
calculated  for  the  non-EBB  members.  The  Commission  received  the  questionnaire 
reply, analysed it and subsequently carried out a verification visit at the premises of the 
EBB.  The  Commission  verified  the  supporting  documents,  cross-checked  the  reported 
data for the period considered at their source and was able to reconcile the information 
in  the  management  and  accounting  records  with  the  revised  data  submitted  in  the 
original  investigation  on  production  capacity  and  capacity  utilization  covering  the 
period from 1 January 2009 to the end of the investigation period.  

On  the  basis  of  the  above  reassessment,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  injurious 
dumping determined in the original investigation is confirmed.  

Inclusion of Indonesia  

Not only Argentina but also Indonesia had also claimed the measures to be inconsistent 
with several provisions of the Anti-Dumping Agreement of the WTO and has brought 
the  case  to  the  WTO.  Some  claims  made  by  Indonesia  are  similar  to  those  made  by 
Argentina in particular as far as the cost adjustment is concerned. The dispute brought 
by Indonesia was still ongoing at the time this review was concluded.   

The  Commission  therefore  proposed  to  examine  also  the  anti-dumping  measures 
imposed on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia in a concurrent review conducted under 
Article  2(1)  of  the  WTO  enabling  Regulation,  in  particular  as  far  as  the  definitive 
Regulation was found inconsistent with Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA.  

After the Commission has disclosed its finding, interested parties submitted comments 
questioning the Commission's analysis with regard to Indonesia, challenging, inter alia, 
the  applicability  of  the  Appellate  Body's  interpretation  as  well  as  the  Commission's 
authority  to  act  ex  officio  on  that  interpretation  under  the  WTO  enabling  Regulation 
while  the  dispute  is  still  ongoing.  In  light  of  the  comments  received,  the  Commission 
decided  not  to  terminate  the  review  concerning  Indonesia  at  that  point  in  time,  but 
instead  to  continue  its  analysis  because  it  considered  that  it  needed  more  time  in 
analysing the applicability of the findings of the WTO Dispute Settlement Body insofar 
as it concerns Indonesia. The review initiated under Article 2(1) of the WTO enabling 
Regulation therefore remained open insofar as it concerns Indonesia.  

4.2.4.  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 

EN 

45 

EN 

 
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  2017,  four  new  exporter  reviews  were  initiated  relating  to  anti-dumping  measures 
and  two  accelerated  reviews,  i.e.  relating  to  anti-subsidy  measures.  Since  the 
Commission  carried  out  the  first  reviews  of  this  type  in  1990,  a  total  of  77  such 
investigations have been initiated so far. There were no new exporter reviews concluded 
or terminated during 2017. 

4.2.5.  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.  The  duty  may  be  increased  to  take  account  of  such  lower  export  prices.  The 
possibility  of  absorption  reviews  is  included  in  Articles  12  and  19(3)  of  the  basic 
Regulations. 

In  2017,  one  anti-absorption  investigation  was  terminated  without  increase  of  duties 
(Annex J). 

4.2.6.  Anti-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.  Duties  may  also  be  extended  to  imports  of  a  slightly 
modified like product from the country subject to current measures. 

In 2017, three anti-circumvention investigations were initiated. One anti-circumvention 
investigation  was  concluded  with  an  extension  of  the  anti-dumping  duty,  and  one 
terminated  without  extension.  More  information  can  be  obtained  from  the  Official 
Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex K. 

EN 

46 

EN 

 
4.3. 

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. 

There was no safeguard activity by the EU in 2017 and no measures in place (Annex L).  

5. 

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 2017 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).  

5.1. 

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. 

5.2.  Monitoring of undertakings 

Monitoring  of  undertakings  forms  part  of  the  enforcement  activities,  given  that 
undertakings are a form of AD or AS 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  2017,  there  were  102  undertakings  in  force.  During  2017,  the 
following changes to the portfolio of undertakings took place: The undertakings of five 
companies were withdrawn as it was established that breaches had occurred or that the 
monitoring  of  the  undertakings  became  impracticable.  The  undertakings  of  seven 
companies were withdrawn as these companies had notified the Commission that they 
wished  to  withdraw  from  the  undertaking.  The  undertakings  of  87  companies  were 
repealed.  No  new  undertaking  was  accepted.  This  brought  the  total  number  of 

EN 

47 

EN 

 
 
undertakings  in  force  at  the  end  of  2017  to  three.  More  information  is  available  in 
Annexes M and Q. 

6. 

REFUNDS  

Articles  11(8)  and  21(1)  of  the  basic  Regulations  allow  importers  to  request  the 
reimbursement  of 
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. 

the  relevant  collected  duties  where 

is  shown 

that 

it 

During 2017, 75 new refund requests were submitted. At the end of 2017, four refund 
investigations  were  on-going,  covering  61  requests.  In  2017,  26  Commission 
Implementing  Decisions  granting  partial  refund  or  rejecting  refund  requests  were 
adopted. 

7. 

TDI MODERNISATION  

In  April  2013,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  and  a  communication  in  order  to 
modernise the EU’s trade defence instruments (‘TDI’). The aim of the proposal was to 
enhance  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  the  EU’s  TDI  for  the  benefit  of  all 
stakeholders,  including  producers,  importers  or  users.  Increasing  transparency,  finding 
practical solutions to real problems and making the TDI more accessible, so that these 
instruments  would  provide  a  more  adequate  response  to  the  proliferating  unfair  trade 
practices, was at the heart of the proposal.  

The  European  Parliament  largely  supported  the  Commission  proposal  and  voted  a 
legislative resolution as early as April 2014. The amendments voted by the Parliament 
were essentially in favour of the Union industry and a sustainable production in the EU.  

In the Council discussions were lengthy but a mandate was finally adopted by the end of 
2016. The legislative procedure then entered in trilogue mode.  

On 5 December 2017, the Council and the European Parliament reached an agreement 
on  the  Commission's  proposal.  Following  the  formal  approval  in  the  Council  and  the 
European Parliament's plenary vote, the modernisation legislation will enter into force 
on the 8 June 2018. Together with the new anti-dumping calculation methodology (see 
below),  this  is  the  first  major  overhaul  of  the  EUs  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy 
instruments since 1995. 

The compromise found in trilogues represents a balanced result, taking into account the 
interests of EU producers, users and importers alike. When the corresponding legislative 
changes  enter  into  force,  the  EU's  trade  defence  instruments  will  be  more  effective, 
transparent and more adapted to face the challenges of the global economy. At the same 
time,  the  modernisation  brings  these  instruments  closer  to  the  needs  of  small  and 
medium  sized  companies  ('SME').  Finally,  trade  unions  that  represent  workers  whose 
jobs  are  at  stake  due  to  unfair  competition  can  also  now  fully  participate  in 
investigations, including as co-complainants together with the Union industry. 

The  overhaul  covers  a  broad  range  of  aspects  relating  to  the  way  the  Commission 
carries  out  trade  defence  investigations.  The  changes  deliver  concrete  solutions  to 
practical  problems  raised  by  businesses.  They  benefit  EU  industry  but  also  importers 
and downstream users who depend on imports.  

EN 

48 

EN 

 
Amongst  the  most  important  changes  to  the  modernised  EU's  anti-dumping  and  anti-
subsidy legislation are:  

  An  improved  injury  margin  calculation  method  will  be  applied:  the  new  rules 
concerning  the  non-injurious  price  for  the  EU  industry  are  better  adapted  to 
economic  reality.  They  now  allow  reflecting  the  profitability  needed  to  cover  full 
costs  and  investments,  research  as  well  as  development  and  innovation.  Moreover, 
the  injury  margin  will  include  future  expenses  related  to  social  and  environmental 
standards,  for  example  under  the  Emissions  Trading  System,  if  the  Union  industry 
presents sufficient evidence to this effect.  

  More certainty will be achieved: in the future, the non-injurious price will include a 
minimum  profit  of  6%.  However,  higher  profit  margins  are  always  possible  on  a 
case-by-case basis. This ensures a better recovery of the industry from unfair trade.  

  Anti-dumping  investigations  will  become  even  more  efficient:  provisional 
measures  will  be  imposed  within  7  to  8  months,  in  comparison  to  the  current  9 
months. 

  More  transparency  and  predictability  will  be  ensured  towards  economic 
operators:  the  Commission  will  be  issuing  an  early  warning  on  the  imposition  of 
provisional anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures. This will include a grace period 
of three weeks during which provisional duties  will not be applied. This will allow 
all  operators  to  adapt  to  the  new  situation.  After  two  years,  the  Commission  will 
review the three weeks early warning system with the option to go up to 4 weeks or 
down to 2 weeks of such pre-disclosure. The non-imposition of provisional measures 
will also be signalled ahead. 

  Additional support will be granted for EU small and medium-sized enterprises 
(SMEs): an SME helpdesk as well as streamlined procedures will make it easier for 
SMEs to participate in trade defence investigations. 

  The  EU  will  better  respond  to  raw  material  distortions  or  subsidisation  in 
exporting  countries:  the  EU's  "lesser  duty  rule"  will  be  adapted  so  as  to  take  into 
account  the  existence  of  serious  distortions  regarding  raw  materials  with  the 
imposition of duties reflecting the full amount of dumping in such cases. Measures 
against  unfair  subsidies  will  be  based  on  the  subsidy  margin.  The  new  disciplines 
will be subject to a Union interest test 

  Social  and  environmental  aspects  will  now  have  a  role  in  trade  defence 
proceedings:  As  mentioned  above,  the  future  higher  costs  of  EU  industry  for 
complying  with  EU  social  and  environmental  standards  will  be  taken  into  account. 
Furthermore, the EU will normally not accept price undertakings from third countries 
with an insufficient implementation record of key International Labour Organisation 
(ILO) conventions and multilateral environmental agreements. The Commission also 
intends to review the measures in place in case of changed circumstances concerning 
social  and  environmental  standards.  This  increased  activity  on  Social  and 
Environmental Standards will also have a dedicated part in the Commission's annual 
report on trade defence instruments.  

EN 

49 

EN 

 
8. 

AMENDMENT OF THE EU'S AD AND AS LEGISLATION IN 2017 

On  9  November  2016,  the  Commission  adopted  a  proposal  to  change  the  EU's  anti-
dumping  and  anti-subsidy  legislation  with  the  aim  to  introduce  a  new  anti-dumping 
methodology  to  capture  State-induced  market  distortions  in  third  countries  and  to 
strengthen the anti-subsidy instrument. 

The  proposal  followed  an  Impact  Assessment  and  included  an  online  public 
consultation  and  a  dedicated  public  event  in  March  2016  on  the  matter.  All  parties 
affected  by  trade  defence  investigations  were  invited  to  participate.  There  was  active 
engagement from parties representing industry, trade, users and third countries at every 
level 
social  partners 
(representatives of trade unions and employer's organisations) were also consulted.  

representative  associations.  The 

individuals 

from 

to 

The amendments to the EU's basic anti-dumping and anti-subsidy Regulations entered 
into force on 20 December 2017. On the same day, DG Trade published on its website a 
report on market distortions in the Chinese economy. The Commission also announced 
that the next country report will concern Russia.  

Main changes 

  The main changes to the legislation are: 

(a)  The introduction of a new dumping calculation methodology to capture market 
distortions  linked  to  State  intervention  in  third  countries.  These  distortions  can 
exist  in  a  country  as  a  whole  or  in  a  given  sector.  The  purpose  of  the  new 
methodology is to address any pervasive influence of a State over the economy 
and  to  address  new  economic  realities.    This  new  methodology  is  country-
neutral and is applicable equally to all WTO countries. The legislation makes it 
clear  that  the  adoption  of  a  new  dumping  methodology  is  without  prejudice  to 
the  treatment  of  any  country  as  a  non-market  economy.  Where  it  will  be 
established  that  it  is  not  appropriate  to  use  domestic  prices  or  costs  due  to 
significant State-induced distortions, the new methodology would apply. 

(b)  A  clear  timeframe  for  the  application  of  the  new  methodology  to  requests  for 
reviews  to  ensuring  a  smooth  transition  to  the  new  methodology  for  measures 
already in place. 

(c)  The strengthening of the anti-subsidy instrument to increase the Union's ability 
to  capture  the  full  magnitude  of  subsidisation by  making  it  possible  to  address 
also subsidies which were identified only in the course of an investigation. 

  In  order  to  'trigger'  the  application  of  the  new  methodology  it  must  be 
established that it is not appropriate to use domestic prices or costs due to significant 
distortions.  In  determining  the  existence  of  distortions,  several  criteria  will  be 
considered,  such  as:  whether  "the  market  in  question  being  served  to  a  significant 
extent  by  enterprises  which  operate  under  the  ownership,  control  or  policy 
supervision or guidance of the authorities of the exporting country", whether there is 
"state presence in firms allowing the state to interfere with respect to prices or costs", 
whether  "public  policies  or  measures  [are]  discriminating  in  favour  of  domestic 
suppliers  or  otherwise  influencing  free  market  forces",  whether  there  is  "lack, 
discriminatory  application  or  inadequate  enforcement  of  bankruptcy,  corporate  or 

EN 

50 

EN 

 
 
 
property laws", or whether "wage costs [are] being distorted", or "access to finance 
[is]  granted  by  institutions  which  implement  public  policy  objectives  or  otherwise 
not acting independently of the state". 

  The  Commission  as  an  investigating  authority  is  responsible  for  establishing 
whether  significant  distortions  exist  in  a  particular  country.  The  legislation 
safeguards all the rights of defence of the interested parties, including the possibility 
to demonstrate the existence or absence of distortions. The Commission may rely on 
any information regarding distortions brought by industry or which comes to light in 
the  context  of  an  investigation.  In  addition,  the  Commission  will  be  entitled  to 
prepare and issue reports describing the specific circumstances of the market in any 
given  country  or  sector  (see  following  two  points).  Any  information  concerning 
distortions  in  an  exporting  country  will  be  part  of  the  evidence  on  file  in  the  anti-
dumping investigation concerned.  

  Reports  prepared  by  the  Commission  on  countries/sectors  where  distortions  are 
identified may be used by the EU industry, which will be able to rely on the evidence 
contained in these reports to make their case concerning cases where prices or costs 
are distorted. The Commission selects the countries for report scrutiny by reference 
to  their  relative  importance  in  the  EU's  overall  anti-dumping  activity  as  well  as 
indications  that significant  distortions  may exist.  In  this context, China was chosen 
for the first report, with Russia being second.  

  The  country  reports  are  technical,  fact-based  documents  which  draw  on  many 
sources, in particular official public records in the countries concerned. Information 
from  international  organisations  is  also  included  e.g.  IMF,  OECD.    The  reports, 
which  are  Commission  Staff  Working  Documents,  are  descriptive  in  nature and  do 
not pass judgement on the economies in question.  

  Where  it  is  not  appropriate  to  use  domestic  prices  and  costs  due  to  significant 
distortions, the normal value will be based on "out-of-country" undistorted costs of 
production,  instead  of  being  based  on  domestic  prices  and  costs  in  the  exporting 
country.   

  The  new  rules  apply  to  all  new  cases  initiated  after  20  December  2017.  In  these 
investigations,  if  the  Commission  finds  that  it  is  not  appropriate  to  use  domestic 
prices and costs due to significant distortions in the country/sector concerned by the 
case,  the  new  methodology  will  apply.  The  legislation  provides  for  a  transition 
period, i.e. the new methodology will be applied to all new investigations and expiry 
reviews  initiated  after  20  December  2017.  Interim  reviews  initiated  after  that  date 
will  be  based  on  the  new  methodology  if  the  measure  itself  is  based  on  the  new 
methodology. If the measure subject to review is still based on the old methodology, 
that  methodology  will  continue  to  apply  to  any  interim  review  initiated  after  20 
December 2017 until the initiation of the first expiry review. 

  The new dumping methodology allows for social and environmental standards to 
be  taken  into  account  in  a  trade  defence  context.  Indeed,  in  choosing  undistorted 
benchmarks to establish normal value preference will normally be given to countries 
which adhere to these standards.  

EN 

51 

EN 

 
 
REPORT ON MARKET DISTORTIONS IN THE CHINESE ECONOMY 

The report examined the existence of significant distortions in the People's Republic of 
China  (PRC)  from  three  different  angles,  i.e.  a  macro-economic  description  of  the 
Chinese economy; the main production factors used in all manufacturing processes and 
a description of four sectors of the Chinese economy. The report consists of three main 
sections, each covering one angle, all developed in a number of subsections.    

Summary of the report: 

Section 1 - Core features of Chinese economy: 

Section  1  examined  the  Chinese  economy's  core  features  (all  closely  interlinked), 
including:  the  concept  of  a  ‘socialist  market  economy’;  the  role  of  the  Chinese 
Communist  Party  (‘CCP’),  in  relation  to  the  economy;  the  extensive  system  of  plans 
issued  and  followed  up  by  various  levels  of  government  under  the  leadership  of  the 
CCP;  the  extensive  State-owned  sector  including  the  various  supervision  and  control 
mechanisms; the financial market, the procurement market and the system of investment 
screening: 

  The unique economic system grants the State, as well as the CCP, a decisive 

role in the economy.  

  The  leadership  role  of  the  CCP  which  sets  the  economic  agenda  and 
controls  all  aspects  of  its  implementation  is  inherent  in  China's  official 
designation as a socialist market economy.  

  The  competence  of  the  CCP  goes  far  beyond  a  macroeconomic  control, 
extending  to  the  level  of  business  decisions  of  individual  enterprises,  both 
SOEs and – at times – privately owned companies.  

  The  basic  features  of  the  PRC  socialist  market  economy  are  a  dominant 
state-ownership, which the State and the CCP wish to further strengthen and 
expand,  an  interventionist  government  policy  in  the  economy  in  order  to 
implement  plans  e.g.  13th  Five  Year  Plan  (FYP)  by  using  a  broad array  of 
tools, 
investment  screening,  financial 
incentives, etc. 

including  guiding  catalogues, 

  Business  decisions  are  very  much  influenced  by  the  various  public  policy 
objectives pursued by the State and the CCP, often resulting in non-market 
based  resource  allocations  and  to  the  creation  of  overcapacities  in  many 
sectors.  

Section 2 – Factors of production 

Section 2 examined the allocation of various factors of production, in general, in PRC 
covering land, energy, capital, material inputs (e.g. raw materials) and labour:  

  Land:  All  land  is  owned  by  the  State  and  allocation  of  land  use  rights  is 
solely  dependent  on  the  state,  which  may  pursue  specific  political  goals 
rather  than  free  market  principles.  The  rules  on  land  provision  and 
acquisition in the PRC are often unclear and not transparent. Prices are often 
set  by  the  authorities  on  the  basis  of  non-market  considerations.  Many 
buyers  (in  particular  SOEs)  received  their  land  for  free  or  obtain  land  use 

EN 

52 

EN 

 
rights at a very low price. There are also significant discrepancies between 
different regions and individual cases.  

  Energy: China is currently the world's largest power producer with 50% of 
the  generation  capacity  as  well  as  100%  of  the  entire  transmission  grid 
being  state-owned.  Prices  are  differentiated  for  different  industries  and 
appear to favour certain industries which seems to be aimed at reducing the 
electricity costs of certain sectors (e.g. non-ferrous metals).   

  Capital: Access to capital for corporate actors in China is subject to various 
distortions  including  a  bias  for  lending  to  SOEs,  large  well-connected 
private firms and firms active in key industrial sectors. This implies that the 
availability and cost of capital is not equal for all players in the market. The 
formal  financial  system  is  characterised  by  a  strong  State  presence  and 
regulatory controls. This is compounded by artificially low borrowing costs, 
which  are  not  proportionate  in  comparison  with  actual  returns  and  risk. 
Policy  considerations  concerning  strategic  sectors  also  play  a  role  with 
Government  directing investment  into  key  projects  and industries  by,  inter 
alia,  offering  loan  interest  subsidies,  loan  guarantees  and  other  means  of 
reducing  capital  costs.  While  nominal  interest  rate  liberalization  was 
achieved in October 2015, interest rates are still influenced by government-
induced factors. Indeed, the share of lending at or below the benchmark rate 
still  represents  45%  of  all  lending.    Non-performing  loans  have  increased 
rapidly in recent years. Faced with a situation of increasing debt-at-risk, the 
Chinese  government  has  opted  to  avoid  defaults,  by  heavily  influencing 
bankruptcy  procedures.  The  problem  of  bad  debt  has  been  handled  by 
rolling  over  more  debt,  resulting  in  the  creation  of  so-called  ‘zombie’ 
companies, or by transferring debts ownership (e.g. via mergers or debt-to-
equity  swaps),  without  necessarily  removing  the  overall  debt  problem  or 
addressing its root causes. 

  Material inputs: The extensive planning including at the sectoral, provincial 
and  municipal  levels  regulates  basically  every  aspect  of  the  Chinese 
economy  including  many  key  raw  materials  and  -  to  some  extent  -  other 
material  inputs.    The  distortions  found  in  relation  to  the  allocation  of  raw 
materials  include:  plans  setting  very  specific  and  detailed  targets  of 
production thereby influencing the level of supply of specific raw materials 
on  the  market;  influencing  supply  and  prices  by  introducing  export 
restrictions;  setting  prices  of  certain  goods  centrally  in  cases  where  the 
prices run against government policies; stockpiling impacting domestic and 
global prices (e.g. metals, including copper, nickel and tungsten, as well as 
cotton  and  agricultural  commodities);  and  finally  the  State  guidance  of 
investments in certain sectors. All this allows the government to artificially 
influence the supply of specific goods. 

  Labour: Chinese workers have no possibility to freely choose or establish a 
trade union as there is only one legally recognized trade union, the ACFTU, 
which is closely intertwined with the CCP and the State. Senior positions in 
ACFTU  are  occupied  by  senior  Party  figures  in  SOEs  or  by  managers  in 
non-state  enterprises  hampering  their  ability  to  represent  workers'  interests 
independently.  There  is  no  official  national-level  right  to  strike.  The 
Chinese workforce is impacted by the hukou household registration system. 

EN 

53 

EN 

 
Only  hukou  holders  have  access  to  the  full  range  of  social  security  and 
public welfare benefits. While collective bargaining of wages exists, it is not 
well developed. 

Section 3 – Distortions in selected sectors 

Section  3  examined  a  number  of  sectors  looking  at  the  specific  rules  and  policy 
dynamics applicable. The sectors, selected because they have featured most in the EU’s 
trade defence investigations, are steel, aluminium, chemicals and ceramics.  

  Steel:  Numerous  plans,  directives  and  other  documents  focus  on  steel, 
which  are  issued  at  national,  regional  and  municipal  level.  Through  them, 
the government intervenes to shape the development of the sector through a 
broad  range  of  policy  tools  and  directives  related,  inter  alia,  to:  market 
composition  and  restructuring,  raw  materials,  access  to  finance  and 
investment,  capacity  elimination,  product  ranges,  relocation,  technical 
upgrading, etc. The government seeks to promote the creation of ever-larger 
steel  producers  ('national  champions').  Financial  institutions,  in  particular 
those  that  are  state-owned,  play  a  key  role  in  channelling  to  Chinese  steel 
producers'  benefits  from  a  wide  array  of  State  support  measures.  Other 
market  distortive  practices,  such  as  export  restrictions  affecting  raw 
materials and inputs and or the inadequate application of bankruptcy rules, 
exacerbate  the  phenomenon  of  State  intervention  into  the  sector.  This  has 
led  to  the  current  problem  of  overcapacity  causing  a  depression  of  steel 
prices globally and a negative impact on, inter alia, the financial situation of 
steel  producers  worldwide.  As  a  result  the  number  of  trade  defence 
investigations  against  Chinese  steel  imports  in  different  jurisdictions  has 
increased.  

  Aluminium:  China  is  the  largest  aluminium  producer  in  the  world.  Its 
domestic market is served significantly by large SOEs, which account for a 
dominant share of Chinese aluminium production and production capacity. 
As  in  the  case  of  the  steel  sector  there  are  numerous  plans,  directives  and 
other  documents  pertaining  to  aluminium,  issued  at  the  national,  regional 
and municipal level, showing the high degree of intervention of the Chinese 
government  in  the  market.  Through  these  and  other  instruments,  the 
government  directs  and  controls  virtually  every  aspect  of  the  development 
and functioning of the sector. SOEs are a primary vehicle for implementing 
these government policies.  Government intervention in the sector includes, 
inter  alia,  export-related  measures,  including  export  duties,  export  quotas, 
export  performance  requirements,  minimum  export  price  requirements  on 
different  raw  materials  for  aluminium  production,  as  well  as  VAT  rebate 
policies  and  export  taxes  on  aluminium  products  (e.g.  primary  aluminium 
and  scrap).  The  Chinese  government  also  consistently  granted  different 
types  of  State  support  measures  to  aluminium  producers.    The  extensive 
intervention  of  the  State  in  the  sector  has  also  led  to  overcapacity  and  the 
consequential  negative  effects  that  this  brings  for  the  Chinese  and  global 
economy.  

  Chemicals:  Intervention  in  this  sector  is  also  carried  out  in  a  top-down 
manner  through  sequences  of  sectoral  chemical  plans  at  the  central, 
provincial, local, even municipal levels across a broad geographical setting, 

EN 

54 

EN 

 
as  chemical  companies  of  all  sizes  are  located  in  virtually  the  whole 
country. The State influence is more pronounced as the chemical sector's top 
players are predominantly SOEs, and while their overall sectoral share has 
decreased somewhat in recent years, this still gives authorities direct control 
over significant parts of the market. The State and the CCP seek to manage, 
in  detail,  not  only  production  methods  (as  to  achieve  environmental  and 
innovation  goals)  but  also  production  capacity  (and  therefore  market 
supply).  At  the  same  time,  Chinese  authorities  manipulate  the  industrial 
fabric's  structure  and  geographical  location,  and  influence  the  product 
portfolio  of  companies.  Intervention  occurs  through  direct  requirements  or 
regulations  (e.g.  relocation  requests,  production  targets  or  restraints)  or 
specific  support  instruments,  in  most  cases  of  a  financial,  fiscal  or  cost-
reducing  nature.  The  latter  include  grants,  preferential  loans,  tax  rebates, 
land-use permits, energy price rebates or special access to inputs.  

  Ceramics:  As  in  the  case  of  other  key  sectors,  State  involvement  in  this 
traditional  sector  of  the  Chinese  industry  is  visible  through  the  ladder  of 
planning documents issued at all levels – from national to municipal. Due to 
its labour-intensive character and traditional role, the State has been closely 
overseeing,  steering  and  managing  its  development.  The  government's 
intervention  into  the  sector  aims,  among  others,  at  managing  the  excess 
production  capacity  of  certain  sub-sectors.  This  often  translates  into 
government  requirements  to  develop  large  competitive  conglomerates, 
which would also allow greater control of the sector in order to implement 
government  policies.  The  sector  is  openly  supported  by  the  State,  in  the 
form  of  innovation  funds,  preferential  loans,  export  incentives,  financial 
transfers,  tax  relieves,  land-use  cost  relief  and  employment-stabilisation 
schemes, among others. These have direct and indirect consequences on the 
cost structures of companies and product prices. 

9. 

MARKET ECONOMY STATUS (MES) 

In  an  anti-dumping  investigation,  Commission  services  usually  compare  the  export 
price of a product with its 'normal value', which is the price paid in the domestic market 
of the exporting  country or  a constructed normal value (Article 2(1)  of the basic anti-
dumping Regulation). However, this methodology can only be used if costs and prices 
in the exporting country are reliable and essentially the result of the play of supply and 
demand, i.e. set according to market economy rules. For TDI cases initiated before 20 
December  2017,  for  the  specific  purpose  of  applying  the  EU  basic  anti-dumping 
Regulation, the practice was that a country could be considered a market economy if it 
fulfilled five specific criteria.  

As from 20 December 2017, in the case of countries which are non-WTO members and 
feature on Annex 1 of EU Regulation 2015/755, the normal value will be calculated on 
the  basis  of  costs  and  prices  found  in  an  appropriate  market-economy  third  country, 
selected according to the same criteria as applied prior to the entry into force of the new 
rules  on  20  December  2017.  Today,  these  countries  are:  Azerbaijan,  Belarus,  North 
Korea, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.   

EN 

55 

EN 

 
10. 

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES / BILATERAL CONTACTS 

10.1. 

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) 

During 2017, the SME helpdesk received and dealt with many requests for information, 
relating  to  specific  cases  as  well  as  broader  queries  addressing  procedural  and 
substantive  elements  of  proceedings.  The  TDI  website  also  specifically  highlights  the 
SME's  role  in  TDI  proceedings  and  offers  practical  advice  and  help.  The  special 
helpdesk was set up in 2004 to help SMEs deal with the specific challenges they face in 
TDI investigations due to their small size, resource limitations and their fragmentation.  

10.2.  Bilateral  contacts/information  activities  –  EU  economic  operators 

including their key stakeholder associations and third countries 

Explaining  the  legislation  and  practice  of  the  EU's  trade  defence  activity  and 
exchanging  views  on  third  country  practices  continues  to  be  an  important  part  of  the 
work of the TDI services. 

The  Commission  organises  one  week  seminars  for  TDI  officials  from  third  countries. 
As an example, 20 officials from 6 different countries (Egypt, Japan, Thailand, Tunisia, 
Turkey and Vietnam) and representatives from the WTO secretariat participated in the 
latest such seminar organised in November 2016. Given that this seminar was organised 
in late 2016, no such seminar was organised in 2017. In addition, bilateral meetings to 
exchange best practices with TDI officials from the US, China, Japan and Korea took 
place in 2017. 

During 2017, the trade defence services continued to entertain contacts with practically 
all  key  stakeholder  organisations  affected  by  trade  defence.  One  of  the  key  topics  of 
these meetings was the legislative changes concerning TDI described above.  

11. 

JUDICIAL  REVIEW:  DECISIONS  GIVEN  BY  THE  COURT  OF  JUSTICE  AND  THE 
GENERAL COURT 

11.1.  Overview of the judicial reviews in 2017. 

In 2017, the GC and the CJ rendered 29 judgments in the areas of anti-dumping or anti-
subsidy.  15  judgments  were  handed  down  by  the  GC.  12  concerned  appeals  of  GC 
rulings  which  were  decided  by  the  CJ.  Last  but  not  least,  the  CJ  also  rendered  two 
preliminary rulings in the TDI field. 

11.2.  Cases pending 

A list of the anti-dumping/anti-subsidy cases before the GC and the CJ still pending at 
the end of 2017 is given in Annex S (34 pending before the GC and 22 before the CJ). 

11.3.  New cases 

Twenty  new  cases  were  lodged  in  2017  (compared  to  34  in  2016,  20  in  2015,  37  in 
2014, 33 in 2013, 23 in 2012, and 16 in 2011). Eleven of these were lodged before the 
GC (ten actions for annulment and one application for taxation of costs) and nine before 
the CJ (six appeals and three preliminary rulings). 

EN 

56 

EN 

 
 
11.4. 

Judgments rendered by the General Court 

Imports  of  certain  polyethylene  terephthalate('PET')  originating  in  India,  Taiwan 
and Thailand  -  T-422/13  -  Committee  of  Polyethylene Terephthalate Manufacturers 
in Europe v Council – Judgment of 5 April 2017. 

Anti-dumping  duties  have  been  imposed  on PET originating from Indian, Taiwan and 
Thailand since 2000. Following an expiry review, the Council in the contested decision 
rejected  the  Commission's  proposal  for  a  Regulation  maintaining  the  anti-dumping 
measures on imports of PET originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand for another five-
year period. Contrary to the Commission, the Council found that it was unlikely that the 
removal  of  anti-dumping  measures  would  lead  to  the  continuation  or  recurrence  of 
injurious dumping and injury, and that it was against the Union interest to impose anti-
dumping  measures  because  the  cost  to  the  imports,  users  and  consumers  were 
disproportionate to the benefits for the Union industry. Consequently, by Implementing 
Decision  2013/226/EU,  the  Council  rejected  the  Commission  proposal  for  prolonging 
the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  certain  polyethylene  terephthalate 
originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand ('contested decision'). 

The Committee of Polyethylene Terephthalate Manufacturers in Europe (the applicant) 
lodged  an  application at the GC  for the annulment of Council  Implementing Decision 
2013/226/EU.  The  applicant  also  claimed  that  the  GC  should  order  the  Council  to 
compensate them for the damage suffered as a result of the contested decision. 

The applicant claimed, essentially, that the Council infringed Article 11(2) and Article 
21(1)  of  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation  by  making  manifest  errors  of  assessment 
when  it  concluded,  first  that  the  expiry  of  the  measures  was  unlikely  to  lead  to  the 
recurrence of material injury and second that the extension of anti-dumping duties was 
clearly not in the Union interest. The applicant argued that these conclusions were based 
on considerations that reflected a partial and distorted selection of the facts established 
by the Commission's investigation, and on other unsubstantiated and clearly erroneous 
assertions.  

The  GC  examined  whether  the  considerations  that  were  relied  on  in  the  contested 
decision made it possible to conclude, without making a manifest error of assessment, 
that it had not been demonstrated that the expiry of the anti-dumping duties would result 
in the recurrence of injury. The GC found that the Council failed to mention economic 
data that was relevant and identified by the Commission in its analysis. Furthermore, the 
GC  found  that  the  Council  had  drawn  economic  conclusions  on  market  developments 
without  giving  adequate  reasons  for  them.  The  GC  also  found  that  the  Council  had 
made findings that were not relevant to its analysis, and that it had drawn conclusions 
from the Commission's analysis that contradicted the Commission's conclusions without 
providing any explanation or reason. Therefore the GC found that the Council's analysis 
in  the  contested  decision  was  vitiated  by  manifest  errors  of  assessment  and  in  certain 
respects  by  a  lack  of  reasoning  and  contradictory  reasons.  Since  the  Council's 
conclusion  on  the  Union  interest  was  based  on  the  unlikely  recurrence  of  injurious 
dumping,  the  defects  with  regard  to  a  recurrence  of  injury  also  affected  the  Council's 
conclusion on the Union interest. In conclusion, the GC annulled the contested decision. 

Lastly,  the  GC  rejected  the  applicant's  claim  for  damages.  The  GC  found  that  the 
applicant  failed  to  establish  a  direct  and  sufficient  causal  link  to  make  the  EU  liable. 
More specifically, the GC found that the applicants failed to make a distinction, in the 

EN 

57 

EN 

 
reduction  of  their  earnings  before  interests,  taxes,  depreciation  and  amortization, 
between  the  part  which  would  be  caused  by  the  increase  in  imports  at  low  prices  and 
that  resulting  from  other  factors  likely  to  cause  or  lead  to  a  decrease  in  that  single 
economic indicator. 

Imports  of  crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components  (cells) 
originating in or consigned from China – T-783/14 – SolarWorld AG vs Commission 
– Judgment of 16 February 2017. 

SolarWorld  AG  (the  applicant)  sought  annulment  of  the  Commission's  decision, 
contained  in  a  letter  of  15  September  2014  addressed  to  the  Chinese  Chamber  of 
Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic Products (CCCME) on 
the  downward  adjustment  of  the  minimum  import  price  for  imports  of  photovoltaic 
modules  and  cells  manufactured  by  Chinese  exporting  producers  subject  to  a  price 
undertaking with effect from 1 October 2014 for the last quarter of 2014 (the contested 
decision).  

In June 2013 the Commission imposed a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of 
crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components  (i.e.  cells  and  wafers) 
originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China. In conjunction with the 
Regulation, the Commission adopted a decision accepting an undertaking by a group of 
Chinese companies. The Commission could not establish a correlation between prices of 
raw  materials  and  those  of  final  products  manufactured  in  the  EU.  Therefore,  it  was 
examined whether  an alternative methodology  could  be established in  the undertaking 
in order to address changes in price levels on the market. The solution found was that 
the  Commission,  on  its  own  initiative  or  that  of  the  CCCME,  shall  adapt  Minimum 
Import  Prices  (MIP)  if  there  is  an  average  price  difference  between  the  quarter 
preceding the given quarter as reported by the Bloomberg database (see Clause 3.5 of 
the undertaking).  

By  the  contested  decision,  the  Commission  approved  a  downward  adjustment  of  the 
MIP  pursuant  to  Clause  3.5  of  the  undertaking.  The  applicant  submitted  that  the 
contested  decision  infringed  Article  8(1)  of  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation.  The 
applicant claimed that both the initial MIP and the adjusted MIPs must be set at levels 
that are such as to remove the injurious effects of the dumping and subsidies. According 
to the applicant, the methodology under Clause 3.5 did not allow for a prior assessment 
as to whether the adjusted MIP would remove the injurious effects of the dumping and 
subsidies, which is allegedly contrary to Article 8(1). 

The GC did not accept the applicant's point of vue. It found that the wording of Clause 
3.5  provides  that  it  is  an  automatic  adjustment  of  the  MIP,  leaving  no  room  for  a 
systematic verification of the elimination of the injurious effects of the dumping prior to 
the adjustment of the MIP. According to the GC, Article 8(1) of the basic anti-dumping 
Regulation  does  not  require  the  Commission  to  conduct  systematic  monitoring  of  the 
elimination of the injurious effects of the dumping prior to every application of Clause 
3.5 leading to adaptation of the MIP. 

Furthermore,  the  GC  found  that  the  Commission  concluded,  by  accepting  the 
undertaking  in  its  entirety  in  Decision  2013/707,  that  both  the  initial  MIP  and  the 
adaptation  mechanism  ensured  that  the  MIP  were  always  at  a  level  sufficient  to 
eliminate the injurious effects of the dumping. It was therefore for the applicant to show 
that the adjustment mechanism did not allow for the objective pursued by Article 8(1) to 
be attained. 

EN 

58 

EN 

 
According  to  the  GC,  the  applicant  did  not  provide  any  evidence  or  argumentation 
capable  of  showing  that  the  adjustment  mechanism  under  Clause  3.5  was  manifestly 
inappropriate  for  ensuring  that  the  adjustment  of  the  MIP  would  be  sufficient  to 
eliminate  the  injury  caused  by  the  dumped  imports.  Therefore,  the  applicant  failed  to 
show  that  the  contested  decision,  which  is  based  on  the  adjustment  mechanism  under 
Clause  3.5,  is  illegal.  Accordingly,  the  GC  dismissed  the  action  as  lacking  any 
foundation in law. 

Imports  of  crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components  (cells) 
originating in or consigned from China – cases T-162/14, T-160/14, T-157/14 and the 
joined cases T-158/14, T-161/14 and T-163/14 – Judgments rendered on 28 February 
2017.  

The following summaries are judgments rendered in annulment proceedings relating to 
Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013 imposing a 
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on 
imports  of  crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components  (i.e.  cells) 
originating in or consigned from the People's Republic of China ('contested regulation'). 

The applicants in these six cases sought the annulment of the contested regulation and 
raised  more  or  less  the  same  pleas  in  law.  Only  in  case  T-160/14,  an  additional 
argument  was  made.  Therefore,  this  section  describes  case  T-162/14  in  detail  and 
subsequently also describes the notable exception raised in case T-160/14.  

Note  that  the  GC  rejected  all  pleas  and  dismissed  all  of  the  actions  brought  by  the 
applicants  in  all  of  the  cases.  The  cases  are  summarized  below.  The  following 
judgments were all delivered on 28 February 2017. 

Imports  of  crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components  (cells) 
originating  in or consigned from  China  – T-162/14  – Canadian Solar  Emea  GmbH 
and others v Council – Judgment of 28 February 2017. 

Canadian Solar Emea GmbH and four other companies established in China; Canadian 
Solar  Manufacturing  (Changshu),  Canadian  Solar  Manufacturing  (Luoyang)  Inc,  Csi 
Cells  Co.  Ltd  (Suzhou)  and  Csi  Solar  Power  (Suzhou)  (the  applicants)  brought  the 
present  action.  The  applicants  sought  the  annulment  of  the  contested  regulation,  in  so 
far as it applied to the applicants.  

The  applicants  claimed  that  the  institutions  infringed  several  provisions  of  the  basic 
anti-dumping  Regulation.  Essentially,  the  applicants  claimed  that  the  contested 
regulation  was  adopted  in  breach  of  Article  2(7)(a),  in  so  far  normal  value  was 
calculated  on  the  basis  of  the  non-market  economy  methodology  on  products  from 
market economies. Furthermore, the applicants claimed that the institutions made an ill-
defined  definition  of  the  products  and  thus  violated  Article  1(4).  Moreover,  the 
applicants claimed that the Commission infringed Article 2(7)(c) (as it provided at the 
material  time) by exceeding  the three month  deadline for  Market Economy Treatment 
('MET')  determination.  Lastly,  the  applicants  claimed  that  the  institutions  infringed 
Article 3 and  9(4) by not  examining the injury caused by the dumped  imports and by 
other known factors separately, and that the level of duty imposed exceeded what was 
necessary to remove the injury caused by dumped imports. 

The GC noted it was common ground that  the institutions only  used  the  methodology 
under  Article  2(7)(a)  to  establish  normal  value  for  all  the  categories  of  the  product 
concerned,  since  the  applicants  claimed  that  they  were  exporting  different  kinds  of 

EN 

59 

EN 

 
products  to  the  EU.  According  to  the  GC,  Article  2(7)(a)  must  be  interpreted  in 
accordance  with  Article  1(3)  of  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation  and  "exporting 
country"  could  be  both  the  country  of  origin  and  the  intermediate  country.  The  GC 
considered  that  the  EU  legislature  has  not  provided  a  rule  in  Article  1(3)  that  the 
exporting  country  must  be  defined  in  the  same  way  for  all  categories  of  the  product 
concerned,  irrespective  of  their  origin.  In  the  absence  of  this  intention  the  institutions 
enjoy  a  wide  margin  of  discretion.  The  GC  therefore  found  that  it  is  not  contrary  to 
Article 1(3) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation to regard the country of origin as the 
exporting  country  for  some  products  and  the  intermediate  country  as  the  exporting 
country for others. The GC also rejected the applicants' argument that Article 2(7) of the 
basic anti-dumping Regulation has to follow the specific case law of the WTO Dispute 
Settlement Body, since according to the GC it cannot be established that it was the EU 
legislature's intention to implement particular obligations by Article 2 of the GATT by 
adopting Article 2(7).  

Furthermore, the GC noted that the institutions applied the basic criterion to define the 
product concerned in a consistent manner, and that the applicants failed to show that the 
institutions  committed  any  manifest  error  of  assessment  of  the  factors  which  they 
applied. Consequently, the GC found that the applicants were not successful in showing 
that  the  institutions  had  made  an  error  of  assessment  with  regard  to  the  factors  they 
decided were relevant for the definition of the product concerned. Furthermore, the GC 
found  that  the  institutions  evaluated  the  criteria  raised  by  the  interested  parties,  but 
concluded that they did not impact the definition of the product concerned. 

The GC also noted that the institutions had established a causal link between the injury 
suffered  by the EU industry and the dumped imports  from China.  The GC considered 
that  the  institutions  had  assessed  in  a  detailed  and  comprehensive  manner  the  other 
possible  causes  of  injury,  such  as  imports  from  third  countries  and  overcapacity,  but 
concluded  that  their  impact  is  only  limited  and  none  of  them  was  breaking  the  causal 
link mentioned above. 

Consequently, having rejected all of the applicants' claims, the GC dismissed the action. 

The below cases follow the same reasoning as case T-162/14:  

Imports  of  crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components  (cells) 
originating  in  or  consigned  from  China  –  T-157/14  –    JingAo  Solar  Co.  Ltd  and 
others v Council – Judgment of 28 February 2017. 

Imports  of  crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components  (cells) 
originating  in  or  consigned  from  China  –  Joined  cases  T-158/14,  T-161/14  and  T-
163/14  -  JingAo  Solar  Co.  Ltd  and  Others  v  Council  –  Judgment  of  28  February 
2017. 

However, further aspects were dealt with in the following case:  

Imports  of  crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components  (cells) 
originating  in  or  consigned  from  China  –  T-160/14  –  Yingli  Energy  and  others  v. 
Council – Judgment of 28 February 2017. 

Yingli  Energy  (China)  Co.  Ltd  and  others  (the  applicants)  claimed  in  addition  to  the 
points  described  above  that  the  Commission  infringed  Article  20(3)  of  the  basic  anti-
dumping  Regulation by not  supplying them with  enough information  on the increased 
injury margin and the exports in the final disclosure.  

EN 

60 

EN 

 
The GC found that the applicants were able to identify these factors by the information 
sent to them by the Commission in the administrative procedure, which the applicants 
actually acknowledged at the hearing. Thus, the GC concluded that the institutions had 
not infringed the obligation to disclose information in the final disclosure under Article 
20(3). 

In conclusion, the GC dismissed the action. 

Imports  of  tartaric  acid  originating  in  China  –  T-442/12  –  Changmao  Biochemical 
Engineering Co.Ltd v Council – Judgment of 1 June 2017. 

Changmao  Biochemical  Engineering  Co.  Ltd.  sought  the  annulment  of  Council 
Implementing Regulation (EU) No 626/2012 of 26 June 2012 amending Implementing 
Regulation  (EU)  No  349/2012  imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
tartaric acid originating in the People's Republic of China (the 'contested regulation'). 

In June 2006, the Council imposed definitive anti-dumping measures against China on 
tartaric  acid.  The  measures  were  extended  in  April  2012  following  an  expiry  review. 
Following  an  application  for  a  partial  interim  review  concerning  the  applicant  and 
another exporting producer, the Council adopted the contested regulation in June 2012. 
In  the  contested  regulation,  the  Council  refused  to  grant  Market  Economy  Treatment 
('MET')  to  the  applicant  and  the  anti-dumping  duty  on  the  applicant's  exports  to  the 
Union  was  increased  to  13.1%.  Normal  value  was  constructed  on  the  basis  of 
information  received  from  a  cooperating  producer  in  the  analogue  country  Argentina. 
Since the Argentinian producer did not manufacture one type of tartaric acid produced 
by Changmao, normal value of that type was constructed using the difference in price 
between the two tartaric types. However, when the applicant requested information on 
the method of calculating normal value, in particular the source of the prices of the two 
different  tartaric  types  and  the  factors  affecting  the  price  comparison,  the  institutions 
refused its request because it constituted confidential information. 

The GC recalled that the obligation to provide information, which is incumbent in anti-
dumping  measures,  must  be  reconciled  with  the  obligation  to  respect  confidential 
information.  According  to  the  GC  however,  the  obligation  to  respect  confidential 
information cannot deprive the applicant's right to defence of its substance.  

According  to  the  GC  the  contested  regulation  makes  no  reference  to  any  valid 
justification warranting the refusal to communicate the information relating to the price 
difference between the two acids, and the difference was fundamental to the calculation 
of the normal value of DL tartaric acid. According to the GC the applicant would have 
been better able to defend itself in the absence of that procedural error.  

In  sum,  the  GC  found  that  the  applicant's  right  of  defence  and  Article  20(2)  were 
infringed when the institutions, without a valid reason, refused to grant it access to the 
information  it  requested  on  the  price  difference  between  the  two  acids.  Consequently 
the GC annulled the contested regulation in so far it applied to the applicant.  

Bicycles consigned from Pakistan - T-435/15 - Kolachi Raj Industrial (Private) Ltd v 
Commission – Judgment of 10 October 2017  

In  this  judgment,  the  GC  annulled  Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU) 
2015/776  of  18  May  2015  (the  'contested  regulation')  extending  the  definitive  anti-
dumping duty imposed by Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013., to the extent that it 

EN 

61 

EN 

 
applied  to  Kolachi  Raj  Industrial  (Private)  Ltd,  the  single  exporter  of  bicycles  from 
Pakistan.  

The contested regulation extended the duty of 48,5% on imports of bicycles from China 
to 
imports  of  bicycles  consigned  from  Pakistan  after  an  anti-circumvention 
investigation.  Kolachi,  was  found  to  be  circumventing  the  duties  via  assembly 
operations within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. 

Kolachi  claimed  that  the  Commission  failed  to  prove  that  the  parts  of  the  assembled 
product were "from" the People's Republic of China (the country subject to measures) in 
the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation 

The  issue  at  stake  was  the  determination  of  where  the  parts  used  in  the  assembly  of 
bicycles (frames, forks, alloy rims and plastic wheels) are from. Under Article 13(2)(b) 
an  assembly  operation  in  a  third  country  is  to  be  regarded  as  circumventing  the 
measures  in  force  where  the  parts  constituting  60%  or  more  of  the  total  value  of  the 
parts of the assembled product are from countries subject to measures. Kolachi claimed 
that the parts it used for assembly in Pakistan were manufactured in Sri Lanka so they 
could not be considered as being from China. It relied on certificates of origin issued by 
the  Department  of  Commerce  in  the  Democratic  Socialist  Republic  of  Sri  Lanka  to 
prove origin of the parts.  

The  Commission  found  that  the  certificates  were  insufficient  to  prove  the  origin  for 
various  reasons.  For  instance,  the  certificates  were  issued  not  on  the  basis  of 
manufacturing costs but on the basis of a mere projection of manufacturing costs for the 
future, valid for one year. Also, supporting cost statements were missing for some parts. 
On the basis of additional information regarding the manufacturing costs of all the parts 
(frames, forks, alloy rims and plastic wheels) in Sri Lanka the Commission calculated 
that more than 65% of the total raw materials used for the manufacture of bicycles parts 
in Sri Lanka came from China and less than 25% Sri Lankan value was added to those 
raw  materials  in  the  manufacturing  process  for  those  parts  in  Sri  Lanka.  Thus,  by 
applying  by  analogy  Article  13(2)(b)  to  the  parts,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the 
parts originate in China. 

The Court stated that under Article 13(2) it would be sufficient to refer simply to where 
the  parts  are  from  without  the  need  to  prove  that  those  parts  also  originate  in  that 
country.  The  Court  pointed  out  however  that  it  may  be  necessary  in  case  of  doubt  to 
verify  whether  the  parts  from  a  third  country  originate  in  another  country.  The  Court 
held that in this case it was established that the parts came from Sri Lanka but that there 
was doubt whether the parts originate in this country indeed. 

The  Court  found  that  the  Commission  was  right  in  the  circumstances  of  this  case  to 
consider that the certificates did not constitute sufficient evidence to demonstrate the Sri 
Lankan  origin  of  the  bicycles  parts  and  a  sufficient  statement  of  reasons  was  present. 
However,  it  disagreed  with  the  application  by  analogy  of  Article  13(2)(b)  to  the 
manufacturing  of  the  parts  in  Sri  Lanka.  It  held  that  the  provision  could  not  establish 
origin  and  that  its  application  to  manufacture  in  Sri  Lanka  is  outside  the  scope  of  the 
anti-circumvention  investigation  concerning  Pakistan.  Only  on  that  basis  the  Court 
annulled the Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/776 for Kolachi. 

The judgment is under appeal. 

EN 

62 

EN 

 
 
11.5. 

Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice 

Bicycles  consigned  from  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia,  whether 
declared  as  originating  in  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia  or  not  –  C-
248/15  P, C-254/15  P and C-260/15  P – Maxcom v City Cycle Industries  (Appeal)  - 
Judgment of 26 January 2017. 

Maxcom  Ltd,  the  Council  and  the  European  Commission  ('appellants')  sought  to  set 
aside the judgment of the GC of 19  march  2015, City Cycle Industries v.  Council  (T-
413/13) in which the GC annulled Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013 in so 
far  as  it  extended  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  imposed  by  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 990/2011 on imports of bicycles originating in China to imports of 
bicycles  consigned  from  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia  ('regulation  at 
issue').  

This case essentially concerned the burden of proof and the standard of proof required 
to  establish  circumvention  in  circumstances  where  some  of  the  producer-exports 
insufficiently cooperated in the investigation. In essence, the appellants argued that the 
Council  was  entitled  to  conclude  in  the  regulation  at  issue  that  City  Cycle  was  not  a 
genuine Sri Lankan producer of bicycles and was not involved in assembly operations 
exceeding the thresholds laid down in Article 13(2) of the basic Regulation. City Cycle 
is  a  company  based  in  Sri  Lanka  which  exports  bicycles  to  the  EU.  Furthermore,  the 
appellants  argued  that  the  burden  of  proof  should  lie  with  the  individual  exporting-
producers to establish that they were not engaging in transhipment practices. According 
to the appellants, the GC reversed the burden of proof in this aspect with its judgment. 

The  CJ  recalled  that  there  is  no  provision  in  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation 
preventing the EU institutions from, when there is sufficient evidence, establishing the 
existence  of  circumvention  practices  when  producer-exporters  accounting  for  a 
significant part of the imports of the concerned product to the EU have not cooperated 
sufficiently  with  the  investigation.  The  CJ  stated  that  the  evidence  establishing 
circumvention under these circumstances must nonetheless fulfil the four criteria under 
Article 13 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. According to the CJ, there is no legal 
presumption that would infer directly from an interested party's failure to cooperate that 
circumvention practices exist.  

In the regulation at issue, the Council's conclusion was based on two findings, i.e. that 
there had been a change in the pattern of trade and that some of the producer-exporters 
had failed to cooperate. The CJ found that this was not enough to constitute sufficient 
evidence  to  conclude  under  Article  13  that  City  Cycle  engaged  in  transhipment 
operations.  According  to  the  CJ,  the  EU  institutions  must  have  in  their  possession 
evidence to show that the change in the pattern of trade 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 CJ thus found that the GC did not reverse the burden of proof under Article 13(1) 
of  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation.  The  GC  merely  found  that  it  was  not  possible 
based  on  the  available  information  to  the  Council  to  conclude  that  transhipment 
operations were being engaged at a national level and did not constitute a factual basis 
for suggesting that City Cycle was involved in such operations.  

EN 

63 

EN 

 
In essence, the CJ rejected the appellants' claims and dismissed the action. 

Bicycles  consigned  from  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia,  whether 
declared  as  originating  in  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia  or  not  –  C-
247/15 P, C-253/15 P and C-259/15 P – Maxcom v Chin Haur Indonesia (Appeal) - 
Judgment of 26 January 2017. 

Maxcom  Ltd,  the  Council  of  the  European  Union  and  the  European  Commission  (the 
appellants) sought to  set  aside the judgment of the GC of 19 March 2015,  Chin Haur 
Indonesia  v  Council  (T-412/13)  by  which  the  GC  annulled  Regulation  (EU)  No 
501/2013  of  29  May  2013  insofar  as  it  extended  the  definitive  anti-dumping  duty 
imposed  by  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  990/2011  on  imports  of  bicycles 
originating  in  China  to  imports  of  bicycles  consigned  from  Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri 
Lanka and Tunisia ('regulation at issue'). 

This case essentially concerns the burden of proof and the standard of proof required to 
establish  circumvention  in  circumstances  where  some  of  the  producer-exports 
insufficiently cooperated in  the investigation.  The GC had  essentially found that  there 
had been insufficient evidence to conclude that Chin Haur engaged in transhipment and 
that the mere lack of cooperation could not establish the existence of such practices. In 
essence, the appellants argued that the Council was entitled to conclude in the regulation 
at issue that City Cycle was not a genuine Indonesian producer of bicycles and was not 
involved in assembly operations exceeding the thresholds laid down in Article 13(2) of 
the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the appellants argued that the burden of proof should 
lie with the individual exporting-producers to establish that they were not engaging in 
transhipment  practices.  According  to  the  appellants,  the  GC  reversed  the  burden  of 
proof in this aspect with its judgment. 

The  CJ  recalled  that  there  is  no  provision  in  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation 
preventing the EU institutions from, when there is sufficient evidence, establishing the 
existence  of  circumvention  practices  when  producer-exporters  accounting  for  a 
significant part of the imports of the concerned product to the EU have not cooperated 
sufficiently  with  the  investigation.  The  CJ  stated  that  the  evidence  establishing 
circumvention under these circumstances must nonetheless fulfil the four criteria under 
Article 13 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. According to the CJ, there is no legal 
presumption that would infer directly from an interested party's failure to cooperate that 
circumvention practices exist.  

The CJ also held that the EU institutions must have evidence to show that the change in 
the pattern of trade stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient 
due  cause  or  economic  justification  other  than  the  imposition  of  the  duty.  It  does  not 
follow from the simple fact that Chin Haur failed to provide evidence that it was in fact 
an Indonesian bicycle producer or that it met the criteria laid down in Article 13(2) of 
the  basic  Regulation  that  that  company  was  engaged  in  transhipment  operations. 
Therefore, the CJ found that the GC's finding was not vitiated by an error of law.  

As  it  was  common  ground  that  Chin  Haur  did  not  cooperate  sufficiently  in  the 
investigation,  the  Council  was  entitled  to  rely  on  a  body  of  consistent  evidence  in 
concluding  that  that  company  had  circumvented  anti-dumping  measures.  Indeed  the 
Council  relied  on  a  certain  amount  of  factual  evidence  gathered  by  the  Commission’s 
agents in the course of the verification visit at Chin Haur’s premises, i.e. that Chin Haur 
did not have the machinery to produce the parts in the volumes that it was claiming to 
produce. The GC found that the evidence did not prove that Chin Haur was engaged in 

EN 

64 

EN 

 
transhipment  operations,  even  though  it  acknowledged  that  some  of  the  evidence,  i.e. 
the fact that Chin Haur’s Chinese supplier was not mentioned anywhere or that certain 
boxes  were  filled  with  frames  bearing  no  origin  contributed  to  uncertainty  as  to  that 
company's  actual  activities.  Additionally,  Chin  Haur  failed  to  justify  the  figures 
provided in the exemption forms.  

According  to  the  CJ,  the  GC  denied  the  Council  by  its  judgment  the  possibility  of 
basing  its  conclusion  on  a  body  of  consistent  evidence and  required  that  institution  to 
furnish direct evidence that Chin Haur was in fact engaged in transhipment operations, 
at odds with the standard of proof required to show circumvention where cooperation is 
not forthcoming from producer-exporters.  

It thus followed that the GC erred in the application of Article 13(1) in finding that the 
Council was not entitled to conclude that Chin Haur was engaged in transhipment. The 
CJ therefore set aside the judgment of the GC and gave a judgment itself in the matter, 
in  which  it  found  that  the  Council  had  established  a  causal  link  between  the 
transhipment  operations  and  the  change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  between  Indonesia  and 
EU.  Consequently,  the  CJ  sided  with  Maxcom,  the  Council  and  the  Commission  and 
reversed the judgment of the GC and dismissed the action for annulment brought by of 
Chin Haur.  

Imports  of  certain  iron  or  steel  fasteners  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of 
China–  C-376/15 P  and  C-377/15 P  –  Changshu  City  Standard  Parts  Factory  v 
Council of the European Union (Appeal) - Judgment of 5 April 2017. 

By  their  appeals,  Changshu  City  Standard  Parts  Factory  and  Ningbo  Jinding  Fastener 
Co. Ltd (the appellants) sought to set aside the judgment of the GC of 29 April 2015, 
Changshu  City  Standard  Parts  Factory  and  Ningbo  Jinding  Fastener  v  Council 
(T-558/12  and  T-559/12),  by  which  the  GC  dismissed  the  appellants'  actions  for 
annulment of Council Implementing  Regulation (EU) No 924/2012  of 4 October 2012 
amending  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. 

The  appellant's  crucial  ground  of  appeal  concerned  the  Council's  exclusion  of  certain 
export transactions for the purpose of calculating the dumping margin. According to the 
appellants, the GC's reasoning was vitiated by an error of law and a misinterpretation of 
Article 2(11) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. The GC had reached the conclusion 
that  the Council had  not committed a manifest error of assessment by excluding  from 
the calculation of the dumping margin the product types that did not match any of the 
products  produced  and  sold  by  an  Indian  producer  and  therefore  had  not  infringed 
Article 2(11). According to the GC, the EU institutions were justified in doing this since 
there was an absence of comparable prices. The GC found that the EU institutions were 
right  to  take  this  approach  since  no  other  method  would  have  allowed  for  a  fairer 
comparison,  as  long  as  the  calculation  was  made  on  the  basis  of  a  significant 
representation  of  the  product  types  under  considerations.  The  appellants  disputed  this 
finding  and  claimed  that  all  export  sales  of  the  product  under  consideration  are  to  be 
included  in  the  comparison  for  the  purpose  of  calculating  the  dumping  margin  under 
Article 2(11) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. 

The CJ found that the wording of Article 2(11) refers to "all export transactions to the 
Union"  and  that  the  objective  pursued  by  Article  2(11)  of  the  basic  Regulation  is  to 
reflect  the  full  degree  of  dumping  being  practiced.  Furthermore,  with  regards  to  the 
context of Article 2(11) and in light of Articles 1(2) and 1(4), the dumping margin is to 

EN 

65 

EN 

 
be calculated on the basis of the definition of "the product under consideration", as put 
forward by the EU institutions at the time of the investigations is initiated.  

Consequently, the CJ found, in light of the wording, objective and context, Article 2(11) 
could  not  be  interpreted  as  allowing  the  exclusion  of  export  transactions  relating  to 
certain  types  of  the  product  under  consideration  from  the  calculation  of  the  dumping 
margin.  On  the  contrary,  according  to  the  CJ  all  transactions  have  to  be  taken  into 
account for the purposes of the calculation.  

Essentially, in the light of the foregoing the CJ held that the GC had wrongly found that 
the EU institutions were entitled to exclude export transactions relating to certain types 
of the product under consideration because there were no "comparable prices" for those 
product types. Thus, the CJ annulled the contested regulation in so far it applied to the 
appellants. 

Imports of ferrosilicon originating in Russia – C-239/15 P – RFA International LP v 
European Commission (Appeal) - Judgment of 4 May 2017. 

By its appeal, RFA International LP (RFA) sought to have set aside the judgment of the 
GC  of  17 March  2015, RFA  International v Commission (T-466/12),  by  which  the  GC 
dismissed  its  action  for  partial  annulment  of  Commission  Decisions  concerning  its 
applications  for  a  refund  of  anti-dumping  duties  paid  on  imports  of  ferrosilicon 
originating in Russia. 

RFA  essentially  submitted  that  the  GC  erred  in  law  as  regards  the  allocation  of  the 
burden  of  proof  concerning  the  adjustments  for  calculating  the  export  price  under 
Article 2(9) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. 

The CJ stated that it is for the EU institutions to make the adjustments provided for by 
Article 2(9) if the requirements for the application of that provision are met. However, it 
is for the appellant to furnish evidence in support of its claim that the adjustments that 
have  been  established  are  incorrect.  RFA  did  not  dispute  before  the  GC  that  the 
requirements  for  the  application  of  Article 2(9)  were  met.  Therefore,  since  the  said 
article is applicable, the GC did not err in law in finding that it was for RFA to submit 
detailed evidence to show that the level of adjustments made was excessive. 

in 

of 

the 

judgment 

established 

Furthermore, RFA argued that it should be accepted that the allocation of the burden of 
proof 
and 
Commission v Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe NTRP (C-191/09 P and C-200/09 P) in 
relation  to  Article  2(10)  is  applicable  by  analogy.  The  CJ  affirmed  that  it  is  true, 
according to that judgment, that when the EU institutions consider that it is appropriate 
to apply a downward adjustment of the export price, on the ground that a sales company 
affiliated to a producer carries out functions comparable to those of an agent working on 
a commission basis, it is the responsibility of the EU institutions to adduce at the very 
least consistent evidence showing that that condition is fulfilled. 

2012, Council 

16 February 

Nonetheless,  in  view  of  the  differences  between  the  adjustments  made  in  connection 
with  the  construction  of  the  export  price  under  Article  2(9)  and  those  made  in  the 
context  of  Article 2(10)  of  the  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation,  RFA’s  argument 
concerning  the  application,  by  analogy,  of  the  allocation  of  the  burden  of  proof 
established in the judgment of 16 February 2012, Council and Commission v Interpipe 
Niko  Tube  and  Interpipe  NTRP (C-191/09 P  and  C-200/09 P)  could  not  call  into 
question the conclusion that the GC did not err in law in finding that it was for RFA to 
submit detailed evidence to show that the level of adjustments made was excessive.  

EN 

66 

EN 

 
In conclusion, the CJ dismissed the action for annulment brought by RFA.  

Imports  of  crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  modules  and  key  components  (i.e.  cells) 
originating in or consigned from China – C-204/16 P and C-205/16 P – SolarWorld 
AG v. Council (Appeal) – Judgment of 9 November 2017. 

This is a summary of the cases C-204/16 P and C-205/16 P. The disputes have the same 
parties and concern essentially the same issues, with the former case concernining anti-
dumping measures and the latter case concerning anti-subsidy measures. By its appeal, 
SolarWorld  AG  (the  applicant)  sought  to  set  aside  the  order  of  the  GC  of  1  February 
2016 (SolarWorld and Others vs Council in T-141/14) in so far it dismissed the action 
as inadmissible. The appplicant and Others sought the annulment of Article 3 of Council 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  1238/2013  of  2  December  2013  imposing  anti-
dumping duties and collecting definitively the provisional duties imposed on import sof 
crystalline silicon photovoltaic modules and key components (i.e. cells) originating in or 
consigned from the People's Republic of China ('regulation at issue').  

In  June  2013,  the  Commission  imposed  provisional  anti-dumping  duties  on  the 
concerned products. The Commission adopted a decision in August 2013 accepting an 
undertaking offered by a group of cooperating Chinese exporting producers. Subject to 
certain  requirements,  these  companies  were  exempted  from  the  anti-dumping  duties 
under  Article  3  of  the  regulation  at  issue,  which  was  adopted  in  December  2013. The 
applicant and others challenged Article 3 of the regulation at issue, claiming inter alia 
that there had been a manifest errors of assessment since the GC had found that Article 
3 of the regulation as issue, which was the sole provision challenged, was not severable 
from  the  other  provisions  of  that  regulation.  Thus,  the  GC  dismissed  the  action  as 
inadmissible. 

The  applicant  raised  two  grounds  of  appeal.  The  first  alleged  that  the  GC  erred  in 
finding that Article 3 of the regulation at issue is not severable from the remainder of 
that regulation. The second alleged infringement of essentially the right to an effective 
remedy under Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union 
(the Charter). 

The CJ recalled that the partial annulment of an EU act is only possible if the elements 
whose annulment is sought may be severed from the remainder of the act. In that regard, 
the CJ has previously held that the requirement of severability is not satisfied in the case 
where the partial annulment of an act would have the effect of altering its substance.  

The CJ stated that EU legislature adopted trade defence measures constituting a set or a 
package when adopting the regulation at issue. According to the CJ the purpose was to 
remove the injurious effects on the EU industry while safeguarding the interests of that 
industry.  The  EU  legislature  concluded  that  the  Minimum  Import  Price  (MIP)  in  the 
undertaking would have  a positive impact on the European market for the products at 
issue, which according to the CJ appears to  have had a significant and separate effect 
from that of the imposition of the duty. In essence, the CJ found that both the imposition 
of  anti-dumping  duty  and  the  undertaking  were  key  means  of  achieving  the  objective 
pursued  by the  regulation  in  issue. The  annulment  of  the  undertaking  would  therefore 
necessarily  affect  the  substance  of  the  regulation  at  issue,  according  to  the  CJ.  In 
essense, this ground of appeal was therefore rejected. 

Lastly,  the  CJ  essentially  found  that  the  fact  that  the  applicant  cannot  bring  an  action 
only against a part of the regulation at issue, which cannot be severed, does not infringe 

EN 

67 

EN 

 
its  rights  under  Article  47  of  the  Charter  in  so  far  the  applicant  can  challenge  the 
regulation at issue in its entirety before the GC. 

Consequently, the CJ dismissed the appeal. 

Bicycles  originating  in  China  -  C-61/16  P  -  European  Bicycle  Manufacturers 
Association v Giant (Appeal) - Judgment of 14 December 2017. 

The  CJ  dismissed  the  appeal  brought  by  the  Union  industry  (EBMA)  against  the 
judgment of the GC of 26 November 2015 Giant (China) v Council (T-425/13). The GC 
annulled Council Regulation (EU) No 502/2013 of 29 May 2013 imposing a definitive 
anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  China  following  an  interim 
review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation ('regulation at issue') as far as 
the applicant, the Chinese exporting producer Giant Co. Ltd. (Giant), was concerned. 

This  case  essentially  concerned  two  issues,  namely  the  interpretation  of  the  term 
'necessary information' under Article 18(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation and if 
the  GC  erred  in  law  when  it  found  that  the  Council  had  been  incorrect  to  rely  on  the 
facts available in calculating the export price by applying the said article. 

Definitive  anti-dumping  duties  of  30,6%  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  China 
have been in place since 1993. In March 2012 the Commission initiated a full interim 
review  of  the  anti-dumping  measures.  Giant  submitted  a  Market  Economy  Treatment 
(MET) claim form for its group companies. The Commission concluded that the Giant 
group  was  related  to  two  Chinese  companies,  S.G.  and  Jinshan  Development  and 
Construction (Jinshan), and that Giant therefore need to return a MET claim for Jinshan 
and all companies belonging to that company. Giant argued that, since it was only very 
indirectly related to Jinshan through a joint venture and Jinshan was not a producer of 
the  product  concerned,  it  was  not  required  to  submit  a  MET  claim  for  that  company. 
Without  those  forms,  the  Commission  indicated  that  it  could  draw  conclusions  on  the 
basis  of  the  facts  available,  in  accordance  with  Article  18  of  the  basic  anti-dumping 
Regulation. In June 2013 the Council adopted the regulation at issue in which it found, 
by applying Article 18(1) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation, that it was impossible 
to determine an individual margin of dumping for the Giant group.  

The  GC  upheld  Giant's  action  for  annulment  of  the  regulation  at  issue  by  finding 
essentially  that  the  EU  Institutions  failed  to  make  a  link  between  the  information  that 
had not been provided by Giant, namely an MET claim for the Jinshan Group, and its 
relevance  to  calculate  the  export  price  for  the  Giant  group.  EBMA  appealed  the 
judgment and relied on two grounds. Essentially, EBMA alleged misinterpretation and 
misapplication of Article 18 of the basic anti-dumping Regulation. Article 18 provides 
that the EU institutions may rely on available facts to make findings inter alia when an 
interested party does not provide necessary information within the time limits provided 
in the Regulation.  

The CJ found that it follows from the wording, context and objective of Article 18(1) 
that the term 'necessary information' refers to information held by the interested parties 
that the EU institutions ask them to provide in order to reach the appropriate findings in 
an anti-dumping investigation. 

Furthermore, the CJ stated that the GC verified whether the information relating to the 
Jinshan group companies which the EU institutions wished to obtain in order, inter alia, 
to  determine  Giant's  export  price,  was  likely  to  influence  that  determination.  The  GC 
concluded  that  the  information  was  irrelevant  to  the  calculation  of  the  export  price. 

EN 

68 

EN 

 
Thus, under these circumstances and in light of the definition of 'necessary information' 
above,  the  CJ  concluded  that  the  GC  did  not  err  in  law  by  finding  that  the  Council 
infringed Article 18(1) when it relied on the facts available to calculate the export price. 

Essentially for these reasons, the CJ dismissed the appeal in its entirety.  

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 to settle 
the dispute, 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 (DSU)). 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, an 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 common subject matters in WTO dispute settlement.  

Regarding the dispute settlement cases against the EU the main developments were the 
following:  

On 5 September 2017, the Appellate Body circulated its report in the case against the 
EU  on  Anti-Dumping  Measures  on  Imports  of  Certain  Fatty  Alcohols  from  Indonesia 
(DS442). The Appellate Body essentially upheld the Panel's finding that Indonesia had 
failed to demonstrate that the EU acted inconsistently with Article 2.4 of the ADA. 

On  6  July  2017,  the  Panel  issued  its  report  in  the  case  against  the  EU  concerning 
Countervailing  Measures  on  Certain  Polyethylene  Terephthalate  from  Pakistan 
(DS486). The Panel essentially found that the EU, by finding that the entire amount of 
the  remitted  duties  was  a  countervailable  subsidy  under  the  SCM  agreement,  acted 
inconsistently with Article 3.1(a) of the SCM agreement. 

On 12 December 2016, the People's Republic of China requested consultations with the 
EU  on  the  provisions  of  the  EU  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation  which  govern  the 
establishment of normal value in relation to imports from China (DS516). A first round 

EN 

69 

EN 

 
of  consultations  was  held  on  23  January  2017  and  the  panel  was  subsequently 
established on 3 April 2017. 

There  were  no  developments  concering  Russia's  complaint  against  the  EU's  Cost 
Adjustment  Methodologies  and  Certain  Anti-Dumping  Measures  on  Imports  from 
Russia (DS494). 

The first 3 cases mentioned are described below. 

12.1.2. Dispute settlement procedures against the Union  

European  Union  –  Anti-dumping  measures  on  Imports  of  Certain  Fatty  Alcohols 
from Indonesia (DS442) 

The Appellate Body (AB) report was circulated on 5 September 2017. 

The  AB  upheld  the  Panel's  report  which  essentially  found  that  Indonesia  had  not 
demonstrated  that  the  EU  acted  inconsistently  with  Article  2.4  of  the  Anti-dumping 
agreement  ('ADA').  The  dispute  concerned  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  certain 
fatty  alcohols  and their  blends  originating  in  Indonesia imposed  originally  by  Council 
Implementing  Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011.  The duties expired in  November 2016, 
but  Indonesia  nevertheless  chose  to  file  the  appeal.  The  core  issue  of  the  dispute  was 
whether  the  EU  infringed  Article  2.4  of  the  ADA  by  treating  a  mark-up  paid  by  an 
Indonesian  producer  and  exporter  to  its  related  trading  company  in  Singapore  as 
difference affecting price comparability, and therefore making a downward adjustment 
to  the  export  price.  The  EU  had  found  that  the  mark-up  represented  a  payment  for  a 
service for which there was no corresponding pricing component on the domestic side. 
Thus, the EU characterized the mark-up as a commission paid in respect of export sales 
to the EU. Indonesia argued in essence that the mark-up was a simple transfer of profits 
between related parties within a single economic entity ('SEE'). According to Indonesia, 
the existence of such economic entity precludes the EU from making the adjustment by. 
The  AB  found  that  there  are  no  differences  affecting  price  comparability  that  are 
precluded under Article 2.4 of the ADA. Instead, the AB found that the need to make 
due  allowances  must  be  assessed  in  light  of  the  specific  circumstances  of  each  case. 
According to the AB, the affiliation between related parties, whether SEE or something 
else, is not capable in principle of precluding adjustments under Article 2.4 of the ADA. 
The AB thus concluded that the EU had sufficient evidentiary basis to treat the mark-up 
as a difference affecting the price comparability.  

European  Union  –  Countervailing  Measures  on  Imports  of  PET  from  Pakistan 
(DS486) 

The panel report was circulated on 6 July 2017. 

The  Panel  found  that  the  EU  acted  inconsistently  with  several  provisions  of  the 
Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures ('SCM Agreement'). The dispute 
concerned  countervailing  measures  by  the  EU  on  imports  of  Certain  Polyethylene 
Terephthalate from Pakistan. The Panel found inter alia that the EU acted inconsistent 
with  Article  1.1(a)(1)(ii)  of  the  SCM  Agreement  by  failing  to  provide  a  reasoned and 
adequate explanation for why it found that  the  entire amount  of remitted duties  under 
the  Pakistani  Manufacturing  Bond  Scheme,  which  it  found  to  be  the  financial 
contribution, was in excess of those which have accrued. The Panel found that the EU 
had not provided any basis upon which to depart from the Excess Remissions Principle. 
Therefore, the Panel found that EU acted inconsistently with Article 3.1(a) of the SCM 

EN 

70 

EN 

 
agreement  by  finding  the  existence  of  a  subsidy  that  was  contingent  on  export 
performance. The EU had found that Pakistan, by providing loans through pre-approved 
banks,  which  were  not  allowed  to  charge  interested  rates  above  a  specified  level, 
conferred a countervailable 'benefit' to the exporter. The Panel found that the EU acted 
inconsistently with Article 14(b) of the SCM Agreement by failing to properly identify 
what the exporter would have paid on a comparable commercial loan in calculating the 
benefit conferred. 

The  EU  notified  the  Dispute  Settlement  Body  on  30  August  2017  of  its  decision  to 
appeal the Panel's report to the Appellate Body. 

European Union – Measures related to Price Comparison Methodologies (DS516) 

On 12 December 2016, China requested consultations with the EU on the provisions of 
the  EU’s  basic  anti-dumping  Regulation  which  govern  the  establishment  of  normal 
value in relation to imports from China (DS516). In its request, China argued that when 
it acceded to the WTO, China and other WTO Members agreed that, for a transitional 
the 
period  of  fifteen  years,  China-specific  treaty  provisions  would  apply 
determination  by  other  Members  of  certain  elements  of  "price  comparability"  in  anti-
dumping proceedings involving Chinese imports. Specifically, under paragraph 15(a)(ii) 
of  the  Protocol  on  the  Accession  of  China,  importing  WTO  Members  are,  subject  to 
certain  conditions,  exceptionally  permitted  to  use  a  methodology  not  based  on  a  strict 
comparison with domestic prices or costs in China. China argues that, from the date of 
expiry  of  paragraph  15(a)(ii)  on  11 December  2016,  the  European  Union  is  no  longer 
entitled to determine normal value on the basis of a special calculation methodology. A 
first round of consultations was held on 23 January 2017. The panel was subsequently 
established  on  3  April  2017.  The  panel  members  were  appointed  by  the  Director 
General  of  the  WTO  on  10  July  2017.  On  8  December  2017,  the  Chair  of  the  panel 
informed that the beginning of the panel's work had been delayed as a result of a lack of 
available lawyers in the Secretariat. The panel also informed that it expected to issue its 
final report to the parties not before the second half of 2018. 

to 

It should be noted that, on 12 December 2016, China also requested consultations with 
the  USA  on  the  continued  application  by  the  US  of  non-market  economy  dumping 
calculation methodology in relation to imports from China (DS515). 

12.2.  Other WTO activities 

In  the  course  of  2017,  intensive  negotiations  on  the  fisheries  subsidies  file  were 
conducted  in  Geneva.  These  negotiations  culminated  at  the  11th  WTO  Ministerial 
Conference  that  took  place  in  December  2017  in  Buenos  Aires.  However,  no 
substantive outcome was achieved there. At the same time, WTO members agreed on a 
work  programme  that  will  form  a  basis  for  further  negotiations  in  view  of  adopting  a 
comprehensive  agreement  at  the  next  Ministerial  Conference  in  2019.  Members  also 
committed  to  fully  respect  their  notification  obligations  in  the  area  of  fisheries 
subsidies.  

In  2017,  the  EU  submitted  a  new  notification  of  subsidies  in  line  with  its  WTO 
obligations  covering  the  years  2015  and  2016.  The  notification  included  all  subsidies 
granted  at  EU  level  as  well  as  subsidies  granted  by  each  of  the  Member  States.  In 
October 2017, a review of the submission began in the special session of the Subsidies 
and Countervailing Committee which will continue into 2018. In the special Committee, 

EN 

71 

EN 

 
the EU also participated in the continued review of the 2015 subsidy notification at the 
meetings held in April and October 2017.  

In addition, the EU participated in the work of the regular Subsidies and Countervailing 
and  Safeguards  Committees  in  April  and  October  2017.  In  April,  the  EU  (along  with 
Canada, Japan and the US) presented a paper in the WTO Subsidies and Countervailing 
Committee regarding the role of subsidies as a contributor to excess capacity in various 
sectors  of  economic  activity.  The  EU  also  organized  a  seminar  on  the  same  issue  in 
October  2017  at  the  WTO  and  presented  the  main  conclusions  of  that  seminar  at  the 
October session of the Committee. In addition to these discussions, the problem of poor 
transparency on subsidies by many WTO members was also addressed. 

Moreover, the EU participated actively in the regular work of the WTO Anti-Dumping 
and  Safeguards  Committees  answering  questions  on  EU  cases  and  raising  issues  of 
concern on trade defence activity by other countries which affect EU exporters.  

In  the  Informal  Group  on  Anti-Circumvention,  in  April  2017,  the  EU  made  a 
presentation  on  the  EU's  legislation  and  practice  in  dealing  with  the  circumvention  of 
anti-dumping measures. The EU also actively participated in both sessions of the Anti-
dumping  Working  Group  on  Implementation  (WGI)  which  discussed  standards  for 
initiation,  the  standing  test  and  ensuring  effective  participation  in  anti-dumping 
investigations  (April  2017)  and  injury-related  issues,  as  well  as  the  analysis  of  the 
effects  of  imports  on  domestic  industry  prices  and  the  methodology  for  analysing 
imports by the domestic industry (October 2017).  For the October session of the WGI, 
the discussant was Mr. Wolfgang Mueller, from the EU's trade defence services. 

13. 

CONCLUSION 

2017  was  a  year  with  intensive  trade  defence  work.  The  number  of  investigations 
remained at a high level. The pressure related to industrial overcapacities in China was 
persisting. This reflects again the number of complaints received from EU industry that 
included sufficient evidence to support allegations of injurious dumping or subsidies. At 
the same time, the number of provisional and definitive measures imposed remained at 
the same demanding level as compared to 2016. A further feature of the trade defence 
activity  in  2017  is  that  the  vast  majority  of  the  new  investigations  that  came  up  at 
definitive stage in that year resulted in the imposition of definitive measures. Indeed, the 
number of proceedings terminated without the imposition of measures was particularly 
low. Additionally, the number of review investigations initiated increased substantially, 
by  75%  over  the  previous  year.  As was  the  case  with  previous  years,  the  EU  took  no 
safeguard action. 

2017 stood out in terms of legislative activity. It led to the introduction of a new anti-
dumping  methodology  for  calculating  normal  value  in  investigations  relating  to 
countries where serious market distortions occur, as well as a strengthened anti-subsidy 
instrument. The new regulation was accompanied by the publication of a report on state-
induced market distortions existing in China. Last but not least, 2017 paved the way for 
the modernisation of EU trade defence instruments. Taken together, these amendments 
to  the  basic  Regulations  constitute  a  major  overhaul  of  the  EU's  trade  defence  policy 
and instruments for the benefit of its stakeholders. This has served to ensure that the EU 
is equipped with sufficiently robust trade defence instruments to deal with distortions in 
the global economy.  

EN 

72 

EN 

 
 
 
ANNEXES  

ANNEX A 

LIST OF ANNEXES 

SUMMARY 

New investigations, including reopenings, initiated during the period 1 January 
– 31 December 2017 

ANNEX B 

New investigations initiated  

ANNEX C 

Imposition of provisional duties in the course of new investigations during the 
period 1 January – 31 December 2017 

ANNEX D 

New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties during the 
period 1 January – 31 December 2017 

ANNEX E 

ANNEX F 

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures during the period 
1 January – 31 December 2017 

Expiry reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2017 

ANNEX G 

Interim reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2017 

ANNEX H 

Other reviews concluded during the period 1 January – 31 December 2017 

ANNEX I 

ANNEX J 

ANNEX K 

ANNEX L 

New exporter reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2017 

Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January 
– 31 December 2017 

Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 
January – 31 December 2017 

Safeguard investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2017 

ANNEX M 

Undertakings accepted or repealed during the period 1 January – 31 December 
2017 

ANNEX N 

Measures which expired during the period 1 January – 31 December 2017 

ANNEX O 

Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2017 

ANNEX P 

Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2017 

ANNEX Q 

Undertakings in force on 31 December 2017 

ANNEX R 

Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2017 
(including cases were provisional measures were imposed) 

ANNEX S 

Court cases pending on 31 December 2017 

ANNEX T 

Safeguard and surveillance measures in force on 31 December 2017 

EN 

73 

EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX A 

New investigations initiated 
during the period 1 January – 31 December 2017 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

P.R.China, 

OJ Reference 

Low carbon ferro-chrome 

Russia, 

C 200; 23.06.2017, p.17  

Ferro-silicon 

Turkey 

Egypt, 

Ukraine 

C 251; 02.08.2017, p.5 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 

P.R.China, 

C 264; 11.08.2017, p.14 

Electric bicycles 

P.R.China 

C 353; 20.10.2017, p.19 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, 
Brazil 

C 438; 19.12.2017, p.39 

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

OJ Reference 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 

P.R.China 

C 346; 14.10.2017, p.9  

Electric bicycles 

P.R.China 

C 440; 21.12.2017, p.22 

C. 

Reopenings (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Tartaric acid 

Stainless steel wires 

Country of 
origin 

P.R. China 

OJ Reference 

C 296; 07.09.2017, p.16 
AD 

India 

C 334; 06.10.2017, p.3 
AD  

EN 

74 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX B 

New  investigations  initiated  by  product  sector  during  the  period  2013  –  2017 

A. 
(excluding the reopenings) 

Product sector 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

Chemical and allied 

Textiles and allied 

Wood and paper 

Electronics 

Other mechanical engineering 

Iron and Steel 

Other metals 

Other 

Of which 

anti-dumping 

anti-subsidy 

1 

3 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

4 

9 

4 

5 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

9 

3 

2 

16 

14 

2 

6 

- 

- 

- 

- 

6 

- 

2 

14 

12 

2 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

13 

- 

- 

- 

14 

1 

5  

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

2 

3 

- 

9 

2 

EN 

75 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
New investigations initiated by country of export during the period 2013 – 2017 

B. 
(excluding the reopenings) 

Country of origin 

2013 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

Argentina 

Belarus 

Bosnia Herzegovina 

Brazil 

P.R. China 

Egypt 

India 

Indonesia 

Iran 

Georgia 

Japan 

Kazakhstan 

Korea (Rep. of) 

F.Y.R.O.M. 

Mexico 

Oman 

Russia 

Serbia 

Taiwan 

Thailand 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

U.S.A. 

Vietnam 

Total  

- 

- 

- 

- 

6 

- 

1 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

9 

- 

- 

- 

- 

6 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

2 

- 

1 

- 

2 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

6 

- 

2 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

6 

- 

1 

0 

1 

- 

- 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

1 

1 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1  

1 

5  

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1  

- 

- 

- 

1  

1 

- 

- 

16 

14 

15 

11 

EN 

76 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX C 

Imposition of provisional duties in the course of new investigations  
during the period 1 January – 31 December 2017 

A. 

Anti-dumping 

investigations 

(chronological  by  date  of  publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Regulation N° 

OJ Reference 

Corrosion resistant steels 

P.R.China 

Cast iron articles 

P.R.China 

Commission 
Regulation  
 (EU) 2017/1444 
Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/1480 

L 207; 10.08.2017, 
p.1 

L 211; 17.08.2017, 
p.14 

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Regulation N° 

OJ Reference 

None 

EN 

77 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
ANNEX D 

New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties 
during the period 1 January – 31 December 2017 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Regulation N° 

OJ Reference 

Stainless steel tube and pipe 
butt-welding fittings 

Heavy plate of non-alloy or 
other alloy steel 

Hot-rolled flat products of 
iron, non-alloy or other alloy 
steel 

P.R. China, 

Taiwan 

P.R. China 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/141 

L 22; 27.01.2017, 
p.14 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/336 

L 50; 28.02.2017, 
p.18 

P.R. China 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/649 

L 92; 06.04.2017, 
p.68 

Lightweight thermal paper 

Rep. Of Korea 

Seamless pipes and tubes of 
iron (other than cast iron) or 
steel (other than stainless 
steel), of circular cross 
section, of an external 
diameter exceeding 406,4 
mm 

P.R. China 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/763 

L 114; 03.05.2017, 
p.3   

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/804 

L 121; 12.05.2017, 
p.3   

Concrete reinforcement bars 
and rods (rebars) 

Belarus 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/1019 

L 155; 17.06.2017, 
p.6  

Hot-rolled flat products of 
iron, non-alloy or other alloy 
steel 

Brasil, Iran, Russia, 
Ukraine 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/1795 

L 258; 06.10.2017, 
p.24  

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Regulation N° 

OJ Reference 

Hot-rolled flat products of 
iron, non-alloy or other alloy 
steel 

P.R. China 

Commission Regulation 

 (EU) 2017/969 

L 146; 09.06.2017, 
p.17  

EN 

78 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX E 

New investigations terminated without the imposition of measures 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

Purified terephthalic acid 

Rep. Of Korea 

Commission Decision 
(EU) 2017/957 

L 144; 
07.06.2017, p.27  

Hot-rolled flat products of 
iron, non-alloy or other alloy 
steel 

Serbia 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/1795 

L 258; 
06.10.2017, p.24 

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

None 

EN 

79 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX F 

Expiry reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

OJ Reference 

Initiated 

Steel ropes and cables 

P.R. China 

C 41; 08.02.2017, p.5 AD 

Oxalic acid 

P.R. China 

 India 

C 117; 12.04.2017, p.15  AD 

Tartaric acid 

P.R. China 

C 122; 19.04.2017, p.8 AD 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 

Russia 

C 214; 04.07.2017, p.9 AD  

Ukraine 

C 214; 04.07.2017, p.9 AD  

Lever arch mechanisms 

P.R. China 

C 290; 01.09.2017, p.3 AD 

Aluminium Radiators 

P.R. China 

C 377; 09.11.2017, p.11  AD 

Chamois leather 

P.R. China 

C 416; 06.12.2017, p.15 AD  

Product 

Concluded: confirmation of duty 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Deci
sion N° 

Sodium gluconate 

P.R. China 

Aluminium road wheels 

P.R. China 

High tenacity yarn of 
polyester 

P.R. China 

Solar panels (crystalline 
silicon photovoltaic modules 
and key components)  

P.R. China 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/94 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/109 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/325 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/367 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/366 

OJ Reference 

L 16; 20.01.2017, p.3 AD 

L 18; 24.01.2017, p.1 AD 

L 49; 25.02.2017, p.6 AD 

L 56; 03.03.2017, p.131 
(AD)  

L 56; 03.03.2017, p.1 
(AS)  

Graphite electrode systems 

India 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) 

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.46 
(AD)  

EN 

80 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Product 

Concluded: confirmation of duty 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Deci
sion N° 

OJ Reference 

2017/422 

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.10 
(AS)  

Okoume plywood 

P.R. China 

Filament glass fibre products 

P.R. China 

Tungsten carbide 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel bars and rods 

India 

Melamine 

Coated fine paper 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Barium carbonate 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass 
fibres 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tiles 

P.R. China 

Hand pallet trucks and their 
ess. parts 

P.R. China 

trichloroisocyanuric acid  

P.R. China 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/648 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/724 

Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/942 
Commission 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/1141 

Commission 
Regulation (EU)  
2017/1171 

Commission 
Regulation (EU)  
2017/1188 

Commission 
Regulation (EU)  
2017/1759 
Commission 
Regulation (EU)  
2017/1993 

Commission 
Regulation (EU)  
2017/2179 

Commission 
Regulation (EU)  
2017/2206 

Commission 
Regulation (EU)  
2017/2230 

L 92; 06.04.2017, p.48 
AD  

L 107; 25.04.2017, p.4  
AD 

L 142; 02.06.2017, p.53  
AD 

L 165; 28.06.2017, p.2 

AS  

L 170; 01.07.2017, p.62 

AD  

L 171; 04.07.2017, 
p.168 AD  

L 171; 04.07.2017, 
p.134 AS  

L 250; 28.09.2017, p.34 
AD  

L 288; 07.11.2017, p.4 
AD  

L 307; 23.11.2017, p.25 

L 314; 30.11.207, p.12 

L 319; 05.12.2017, p.10  

Concluded: termination and repeal of the measures 

Product 

Country 
of origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

P.R. China  Commission Decision (EU) 

2017/206 

L 32; 07.02.2017, 
p.53 AD  

EN 

81 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX G 

Interim reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

Initiated 
Country of origin 
(consigned from) 

OJ Reference 

P.R. China 

C 67; 03.03.2017, p.16 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 

P.R. China 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of 
malleable cast iron 

P.R. China,  

Thailand 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

India 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

India 

Rainbow trout 

Ammonium nitrate 

Ammonium nitrate 

Turkey 

Russia 

Russia 

(AD) 

C 67; 03.03.2017, p.16 

(AS) 

C 117; 12.04.2017, p.12  
AD 

C 162; 23.05.2017, p.12 
AD 

C 216; 06.07.2017, p.26 
AS 

C 216; 06.07.2017, p.30 
AS 

C 234; 20.07.2017, p.6 AS 

C 271; 17.08.2017, p.9 AD 

C 271; 17.08.2017, p.15 
AD 

Product 

Stainless steel wires 

Concluded: amendment of duty 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

India 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/220 

L 34; 
09.02.2017, 
p.21 AD  

EN 

82 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Concluded: termination without amendment of duty 
Regulation/Decision 
N° 

Product 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

P.R. China 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/367 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/366 

OJ 
Reference 

L 56; 
03.03.2017, 
p.131 (AD) 

L 56; 
03.03.2017, 
p.1 (AS)  

Concluded: termination and repeal of measures 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

EN 

83 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX H 

Other reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

OJ Reference 

Initiated 

Tartaric acid 

Stainless steel wires 

P.R. China 

C 296; 07.09.2017, p.16 
AD 

India 

C 334; 06.10.2017, p.3  
AD  

Concluded: confirmation/amendment of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

P.R. China, 
Vietnam 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/423 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/1982 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/2232 

Commission Regulation 
(EU)  2017/1146 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/1578 

P.R. China 

Argentina, 
Indonesia 

L 64; 
10.03.2017, 
p.72 AD 

L 285; 
01.11.2017, 
p.14 

L 319; 
05.12.2017, 
p.30 

L 166; 
29.06.2017, 
p.23  AD 

L 239; 
19.09.2017, 
p.9 AD  

Footwear 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of 
malleable cast iron 

Biodiesel 

None 

Concluded: termination and repeal of measures 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

EN 

84 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I 

New exporter reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 
(chronological by date of publication) 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations 

Product 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

Initiated 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Malaysia 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/242 

L 36; 
11.02.2017, 
p.47 

L 116; 
05.05.2017, 
p.20   

L 226; 
01.09.2017, 
p.1  

L 288; 
07.11.2017, 
p.30  

Bicycles 

Tunisia 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/777 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres 

India 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/ 1514 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

P.R. China 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/ 1994 

Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty 

Product 

Product 

None 

None 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Concluded: termination 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

EN 

85 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L 36; 
11.02.2017, 
p.47 

L 288; 
07.11.2017, 
p.30  

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations ("accelerated" investigations) 

Product 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

Initiated 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Malaysia 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/242 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

P.R. China 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/ 1994 

Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Concluded: termination 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Product 

None 

Product 

None 

EN 

86 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX J 

Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Initiated 

Country of 
origin 

OJ Reference 

Concluded with increase of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

None 

Concluded without increase of duty / termination 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat 
products 

Taiwan 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/679 

L 98; 
11.04.2017, 
p.10  AD 

EN 

87 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX K 

Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Initiated 

Product 

Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless 
steel 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

P.R. China 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/272 

L 40; 17.02.2017, 
p.64 AD  

Hand pallet trucks and their ess. 
parts 

Vietnam 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/ 1348 

Citric Acid 

Cambodia 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/ 2300 

L 188; 
20.07.2017, p.1 
AD 

L 329; 
13.12.2017, p.39 
AD  

Concluded with extension of duty 

Product 

Aluminium foil 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

P.R. China 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/271 

L 40; 17.02.2017, 
p.51 AD  

Concluded without extension of duty / termination 

Product 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless 
steel 

India 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 2017/2093 

L 299; 
16.11.2017, p.1 
AD 

Exemptions granted and/or rejected 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Product 

None 

EN 

88 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX L 

Safeguard investigations initiated and concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 
(chronological by date of publication) 

New investigations initiated 

Country of origin 

OJ Reference 

Product 

None 

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures 

Product 

None 

Product 

None 

Product 

None 

Country of origin  Regulation/
Decision N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Issue of licences 

Country of origin  Regulation/
Decision N° 

OJ 
Reference 

New investigations initiated 

Country of origin 

Date of expiry 

EN 

89 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX M 

Undertakings accepted or repealed 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

Undertakings accepted 

None 

Undertakings withdrawn or repealed 

Product 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
(AD + AS) 

Country of 
origin 

P.R. China 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
(AD + AS) 

P.R. China 

Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

12 withdrawals: 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/454 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/941 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/1408 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/1497 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/1524 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/1589 

87 repeals:   

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2017/1570 

L 71; 16.03.2017, p.5 

L 142; 02.06.2017, p.43 

L 201; 02.08.2017, p.3 

L 218; 24.08.2017, p.10 

L 230; 06.09.2017, p.11 

L 241; 20.09.2017, p.21 

L 238; 16.09.2017, p.22 

Product 

None 

Undertakings which expired/lapsed 
Original measure 
(s) & OJ 
Reference 

Country of 
origin 

OJ Reference 

EN 

90 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX N 

Measures which expired / lapsed 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2017 
(chronological by date of publication) 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin  Original measure & 

OJ Reference 

OJ 
Reference 

Stainless steel fasteners and 
parts thereof 

P.R. China, Taiwan,  

Council Regulation (EU) 
2/2012 (L 5, 07.01.2012, 
p. 1) 

NoE C 5; 
07.01.2017, 
p.2 

Philippines 

Commission Regulation 
(EU) 502/2012 (L 153, 
14.06.2012, p. 8) 

Steel ropes and cables 

Ukraine, Moldova 

Council Regulation (EU) 
102/2012 (L36, 
09.02.2012; p. 1) 

NoE C 41; 
08.02.2017, 
p.4 

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin  Original measure & 

OJ Reference 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

EN 

91 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2017  

ANNEX O 

a. Ranked by product (alphabetical) 

Case 

Country 

Extension 

Acesulfame Potassium (ACE-K) 

P.R. China 

Aluminium foil 

Aluminium foil 

P.R. China 

Russia 

Aluminium Foil in small rolls 

P.R. China 

Aluminium radiators 
Aluminium road wheels 

Ammonium nitrate 

Aspartame 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Russia 

P.R. China 

Barium carbonate 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles (parts) 

Biodiesel 

EN 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Indonesia 

P.R. China 

Malaysia 

P.R. China 

Sri Lanka 

P.R. China 

Tunisia 

P.R. China 

Cambodia 

P.R. China 

Pakistan 

P.R. China 

Philippines 

China (bicycle 
parts) 

P.R. China 

Argentina 

92 

Regulation 
L 125, 21.05.2015, p. 15 
L 287, 31.10.2015, p. 52 
L332;18.12.2015, p.63 
Extension (circum.) 
L 40; 17.02.2017, p.51 
L 175, 04.07.2015, p. 14 
L 332; 18.12.2015, p 91 
L 251, 18.09.2012, p. 29 
L 69, 13.03.2013, p. 11 
L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 17 
L 310, 09.11.2012, p. 1 
L 18; 24.01.2017, p.1 
L 280, 24.09.2014, p. 19 
L41; 18.02.2016, p.13 
L 50; 26.02.2016, p.4 
L 204; 29.07.2016, p.92 
L 27; 28.01.2005, p.4 
L189; 18.07.2005. p.15 
L 250; 28.09.2017, p.34 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 17 
Amendment 
L 47; 24.02.2017, p.13 
Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4 
Extension (circum.) 
L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4 
Extension (circum.) 
L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4 
C 299, 05.09.2014, p. 7 
L 132, 29.05.2015, p. 32 
Amendment 
L 331, 17.12.2015, p.30 
L 141, 28.05.2013, p. 6 
L 315, 26.11.2013, p. 67 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Case 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 
Biodiesel 
Bioethanol 

Country 

Extension 

Indonesia 

USA 
USA 
USA 

Canada 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tiles 
Chamois leather 
Citric acid 
Citric acid 

Citrus fruits 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Malaysia 

Coated fine paper 

P.R. China 

cold-rolled flat steel products 

P.R. China 

cold-rolled flat steel products 

Russia 

Fatty alcohols and their blends 

Malaysia 

Fatty alcohols and their blends 

Indonesia 

Fatty alcohols and their blends 
Ferro-silicon 
Ferro-silicon 

Filament glass fibre products 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 

India 
Russia 
P.R. China 

P.R. China 

USA 

Russia 
Korea (Rep. 
of) 

93 

EN 

Regulation 
L 141, 28.05.2013, p. 6 
L 315, 26.11.2013, p. 67 
L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 69 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, p.31 
L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1 
L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 10 
L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 28 
L 131, 15.05.2013, p. 1 
Amendment 
L 314; 30.11.2017, p.31 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 67, 12.03.2015, p. 23 
L 307; 23.11.2017, p.25 
L 334, 06.12.2012, p. 31 
L 10; 15.01.2016, p.3 
L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 15 
Reopening 
L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 29 
L 354, 11.12.2014, p. 17 
L 299; 16.11.2010, p.7 
L 128; 06.05.2011, p.1 
L 171; 04.07.2017, p.168 
L 37;  12.02.2016, p.1 
L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1 
L 37;  12.02.2016, p.1 
L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1 
Amendment/confirmation 
(foll. Court ruling) 
L 352, 21.12.2012, p. 1 
Amendment/confirmation 
(foll. Court ruling) 
L 352, 21.12.2012, p. 1 
Amendment/confirmation 
(foll. Court ruling) 
L 352, 21.12.2012, p. 1 
L 107, 10.04.2014, p. 13 
L 107, 10.04.2014, p. 13 
L 243; 16.09.2010, p.40 
L 67; 15.03.2011, p.1 
L 107; 25.04.2017, p.4 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Case 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 
Graphite electrode systems 
Hand pallet trucks and their essential 
parts 

Country 

Extension 

Japan 

P.R. China 
India 

P.R. China 

Thailand 

Hand pallet trucks and their essential 
parts 
Heavy plates 
High fatigue performance steel concrete 
reinforcement bars 
Hot rolled flat products 
Hot rolled flat products 
Hot rolled flat products 
Hot rolled flat products 

Hot rolled flat products 
Ironing boards 

Ironing boards 
Lever Arch Mechanisms 
Manganese Dioxides 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

P.R. China 
Ukraine 
Russia 
Iran 
Brazil 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
South Africa 

Melamine 

P.R. China 

Molybdenum wires 

P.R. China 

Malaysia 

Molybdenum wires 
Monosodium glutamate 

Monosodium glutamate 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Indonesia 

Okoumé plywood 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China 

India 

Regulation 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 
L 64; 10.03.2017, p.46 

L 151; 11.06.2009, p.1 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 112, 24.04.2013, p. 1 
Amendment (newcomer) 
L 265, 05.09.2014, p. 7 
Extension (circum.) 
L 214; 09.08.2016, p.1 
L 50; 28.02.2017, p.18 
L 23; 29.01.2016, p.16 
L 204; 29.07.2016, p.70 
L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 
L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 
L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 
L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 
L 272; 07.10.2016, p.33 
L 92; 06.04.2017, p.68 
L 338; 20.12.2010, p.22 
Reopening 
L 297, 26.10.2012, p. 5 
L 198, 23.07.2013, p. 1 
L 238, 04.09.2012, p.5 
L 59, 28.02.2014, p. 7 
L 298; 15.11.2010, p.10 
L 124; 10.05.2011, p.2 
L 170; 01.07.2017, p.62 
Extension (circum.) 
L8, 12.01.2012, p. 22 
Extension (circum.) 
L 243, 12.09.2013, P. 2 
Extension (circum.) 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 100 
L 170; 19.06.2016, p.19 
L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 31 
L 246, 21.08.2014, p. 1 
L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 54 
L 181; 17.05.2004, p.5 
L 336; 02.11.2004, p.4 
L 92; 06.04.2017, p.48 
Extension (circum.) 
L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20 
Extension (circum.) 

EN 

94 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Case 

Country 

Extension 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China 

Indonesia 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China 

Thailand 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China 

Taiwan 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China 

Malaysia 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China 

Organic coated steel products 

P.R. China 

Oxalic acid 
Oxalic acid 
Peroxosulphates (persulphates) 
Polyester high tenacity filament yarn 

P.R. China 
India 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

PSC wires and strands 

Rebars 
Ringbinder mechanisms 
Ringbinder mechanisms 
Ringbinder mechanisms 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 
Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 
Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 
Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless 
steel 
Seamless pipes, of iron or steel, external 
diameter exceeding 406.4 mm 

Silicon metal (silicon) 
Silicon metal (silicon) 
Silicon metal (silicon) 
Sodium Cyclamate 

P.R. China 

Belarus 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Ukraine 

Russia 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Laos 
Vietnam 

Taiwan 
Korea (Rep. of) 

Sodium Cyclamate 

P.R. China 

EN 

95 

Regulation 
L 236, 10.09.2015, p. 1 

L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20 
Extension (circum.) 
L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 196, 24.07.2012, p. 1 
L 204; 09.08.2011, p.1 
Expiry review 
L 288; 07.11.2017, p.4 
L 252, 19.09.2012, p. 33 
L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 1 
L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1 
L 321; 29.11.2016, p.48 
L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1 
L 338, 17.12.2013, p. 11 
L 49; 25.02.2017, p.6 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 297, 26.10.2012, p.1 
L 139, 05.06.2015, p. 12 
L 345; 20.12.2016; p.4 
L 155; 17.06.2017, p.6 
L 7; 12.01.2006, p.1 
L 232; 28.06.2004, p.1 
L 122; 12.05.2016, p.1 
L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 238, 04.09.2012, p. 1 
L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5 
L 357, 28.12.2012, p. 1 

L 322, 08.12.2015, p. 21 
L 169; 27.06.2011, p.1 
L 336; 14.12.2011, p.6 
L 305; 12.11.2016, p.1 
L 121; 12.05.2017, p.3 
Extension (circum.) 
L 95, 05.04.2013, p. 1 
L 13; 15.01.2007, p.1 
L 179; 05.07.2016, p.1 
L 192; 16.07.2016, p.23 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 1 
L 192; 16.07.2016, p.49 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Case 
Sodium Cyclamate 
Sodium gluconate 

Extension 

Country 
Indonesia 
P.R. China 

Solar glass 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Taiwan 

P.R. China 

Malaysia 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products 

Taiwan 

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products 
Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-
welding fittings 
Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-
welding fittings 

P.R. China 

Taiwan 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel wire 

India 

Steel ropes and cables 
Steel ropes and cables 
Steel ropes and cables 
Sulphanilic acid 

Korea (Rep. of) 
Morocco 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in 
kernels) 
Tartaric Acid 

Thailand 
P.R. China 

Regulation 
L 192; 16.07.2016, p.49 
L 16; 20.01.2017, p.3 
L 316, 27.11.2013, p. 8 
L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 1 
Amendment 
L 98, 15.04.2015, p. 6 
Amendment (absorption 
reinvestigation) 
L 215, 14.08.2015, p. 42 

Extension (circum.) 
L 37; 12.02.2016, p.76 

Extension (circum.) 
L 37; 12.02.2016, p.76 
L 152, 05.06.2013, p. 5 
L 325, 05.12.2013, p. 1 
Amendment 
L 173; 30.06.2016, p.44 
L 56; 03.03.2017, p.131 
L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23 
L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10 
L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23 
L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10 

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14 

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14 
L 126, 08.05.2013, p. 1 
L 298, 08.11.2013, p. 1 
Amendment (absorption 
reinvestigation) 
L 228, 02.09.2015, p. 1 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 34; 09.02.2017, p.21 
L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1 
Amendment (newcomer) 
L 138, 13.05.2014, p. 80 
Amendment 
L 139, 14.05.2014, p.7 
L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1 
L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1 
L 363, 18.02.2014, p. 82 
L 244, 13.09.2013, p. 1 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 91, 27.03.2014, p. 1 
Amendment ((partial) 

EN 

96 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Case 

Country 

Extension 

Philippines 
Sri Lanka 
Indonesia 
Taiwan 

Thermal paper 
Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of 
malleable cast iron 
Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of 
malleable cast iron 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Thailand 

P.R. China 

Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA) 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 

Turkey 

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 

Russia 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 

Malaysia 

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten 
carbide 
Tungsten electrodes 
Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-
alloy steel 
Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-
alloy steel 
Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-
alloy steel 
Wire rod 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Russia 

P.R. China 

Belarus 
P.R. China 

Regulation 
interim review) 
L 108, 20.04.2012, p. 1 
L 110, 24.04.2012, p. 3 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 182, 13.07.2012, p. 1 
L 310; 17.11.2016, p.1 
L 114; 03.05.2017, p.3 
L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10 
L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1 
L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10 
L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1 
Amendment (newcomer) 
L 157, 27.05.2014, p. 80 
L 319; 05.12.2017, p.10 
L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37 
L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1 
L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37 
L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1 
L 116; 27.04.2006, p.1 
L 355; 22.11.2004, p.9 
L 335; 22.11.2004, p.4 
L 94; 14.04.2000, p.1 
L 282, 28.10.2015, p. 14 
L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L58; 04.03.2016, p.38 
L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L58; 04.03.2016, p.38 
L 244, 19.09.2015, p. 25 
L 73; 18.03.2016, p.53 
Initiation 
C 322; 15.12.1988, p.7 
L 395; 31.12.2004, p.56 
L 78; 24.03.2011, p.1 
L 142; 02.06.2017, p.53 
L 150, 04.06.2013, p. 1 

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6 

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6 

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6 
L 268, 15.10.2015, p. 9 

EN 

97 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2017 

b. Ranked by country (alphabetical) 

Country 

Case 

Extension 

Argentina 

Biodiesel 

Belarus 

Belarus 
Brazil 

India 
India 
India 

Rebars 
Welded tubes and pipes of iron or 
non-alloy steel 
Hot rolled flat products 

Fatty alcohols and their blends 
Graphite electrode systems 
Oxalic acid 

India 

India 

Stainless steel wire 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

Indonesia 

Biodiesel 

Indonesia 

Fatty alcohols and their blends 

Indonesia 
Indonesia 
Iran 

Japan 
Korea (Rep. 
of) 
Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Monosodium glutamate 
Sodium Cyclamate 
Hot rolled flat products 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 

Thermal paper 

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 

Malaysia 

Fatty alcohols and their blends 

Regulation 
L 141, 28.05.2013, p. 6 
L 315, 26.11.2013, p. 67 
L 345; 20.12.2016; p.4 
L 155; 17.06.2017, p.6 

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6 
L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 
Amendment/confirmation 
measures (foll. Court ruling) 
L 352, 21.12.2012, p. 1 
L 64; 10.03.2017, p.46 
L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1 
L 126, 08.05.2013, p. 1 
L 298, 08.11.2013, p. 1 
Amendment (absorption 
reinvestigation) 
L 228, 02.09.2015, p. 1 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 34; 09.02.2017, p.21 
L 244, 19.09.2015, p. 25 
L 73; 18.03.2016, p.53 
L 141, 28.05.2013, p. 6 
L 315, 26.11.2013, p. 67 
Amendment/confirmation 
measures (foll. Court ruling) 
L 352, 21.12.2012, p. 1 
L 246, 21.08.2014, p. 1 
L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 54 
L 192; 16.07.2016, p.49 
L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 
L 310; 17.11.2016, p.1 
L 114; 03.05.2017, p.3 
L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L58; 04.03.2016, p.38 
Amendment/confirmation 
measures (foll. Court ruling) 
L 352, 21.12.2012, p. 1 

EN 

98 

EN 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Country 

Case 

Extension 

Malaysia 

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 

P.R. China 

Acesulfame Potassium (ACE-K) 

P.R. China 

Aluminium foil 

P.R. China 

Aluminium Foil in small rolls 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Aluminium radiators 
Aluminium road wheels 

P.R. China 

Aspartame 

P.R. China 

Barium carbonate 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles (parts) 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tiles 

Indonesia 

Malaysia 

Sri Lanka 

Tunisia 

Cambodia 

Pakistan 

Philippines 

China (bicycle 
parts) 

Regulation 
L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L58; 04.03.2016, p.38 
L 125, 21.05.2015, p. 15 
L 287, 31.10.2015, p. 52 
L332;18.12.2015, p.63 
Extension (circum.) 
L 40; 17.02.2017, p.51 
L 251, 18.09.2012, p. 29 
L 69, 13.03.2013, p. 11 
L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 17 
L 310, 09.11.2012, p. 1 
L 18; 24.01.2017, p.1 
L 50; 26.02.2016, p.4 
L 204; 29.07.2016, p.92 
L 27; 28.01.2005, p.4 
L189; 18.07.2005. p.15 
L 250; 28.09.2017, p.34 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 17 
Amendment 
L 47; 24.02.2017, p.13 
Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4 
Extension (circum.) 
L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4 
Extension (circum.) 
L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4 
C 299, 05.09.2014, p. 7 
L 132, 29.05.2015, p. 32 
Amendment 
L 331, 17.12.2015, p.30 
L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 28 
L 131, 15.05.2013, p. 1 
Amendment 
L 314; 30.11.2017, p.31 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 67, 12.03.2015, p. 23 

EN 

99 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Country 

Case 

Extension 

Malaysia 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Chamois leather 
Citric acid 
Citric acid 

P.R. China 

Citrus fruits 

P.R. China 

Coated fine paper 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

cold-rolled flat steel products 
Ferro-silicon 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Filament glass fibre products 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 
Hand pallet trucks and their essential 
parts 

Thailand 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Hand pallet trucks and their essential 
parts 
Heavy plates 
High fatigue performance steel 
concrete reinforcement bars 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Hot rolled flat products 
Ironing boards 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Ironing boards 
Lever Arch Mechanisms 

P.R. China 

Melamine 

P.R. China 

Molybdenum wires 

Malaysia 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Molybdenum wires 
Monosodium glutamate 

Regulation 
L 307; 23.11.2017, p.25 

L 334, 06.12.2012, p. 31 
L 10; 15.01.2016, p.3 
L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 15 
Reopening 
L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 29 
L 354, 11.12.2014, p. 17 
L 299; 16.11.2010, p.7 
L 128; 06.05.2011, p.1 
L 171; 04.07.2017, p.168 
L 37;  12.02.2016, p.1 
L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1 
L 107, 10.04.2014, p. 13 
L 243; 16.09.2010, p.40 
L 67; 15.03.2011, p.1 
L 107; 25.04.2017, p.4 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 

L 151; 11.06.2009, p.1 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 112, 24.04.2013, p. 1 
Amendment (newcomer) 
L 265, 05.09.2014, p. 7 
Extension (circum.) 
L 214; 09.08.2016, p.1 
L 50; 28.02.2017, p.18 
L 23; 29.01.2016, p.16 
L 204; 29.07.2016, p.70 
L 272; 07.10.2016, p.33 
L 92; 06.04.2017, p.68 
L 338; 20.12.2010, p.22 
Reopening 
L 297, 26.10.2012, p. 5 
L 198, 23.07.2013, p. 1 
L 238, 04.09.2012, p.5 
L 298; 15.11.2010, p.10 
L 124; 10.05.2011, p.2 
L 170; 01.07.2017, p.62 
Extension (circum.) 
L8, 12.01.2012, p. 22 
Extension (circum.) 
L 243, 12.09.2013, P. 2 
Extension (circum.) 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 100 
L 170; 19.06.2016, p.19 
L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 31 

EN 

100 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Country 

Case 

Extension 

P.R. China 

Okoumé plywood 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  
Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

India 
Indonesia 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Thailand 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Taiwan 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Malaysia 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China 

Organic coated steel products 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Oxalic acid 
Peroxosulphates (persulphates) 
Polyester high tenacity filament yarn 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Laos 
Vietnam 

PSC wires and strands 
Ringbinder mechanisms 
Ringbinder mechanisms 
Ringbinder mechanisms 
Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 
Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless 
steel 
Seamless pipes, of iron or steel, 
external diameter exceeding 406.4 
mm 

Silicon metal (silicon) 
Silicon metal (silicon) 
Silicon metal (silicon) 
Sodium Cyclamate 

Taiwan 
Korea (Rep. of) 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Sodium Cyclamate 
Sodium gluconate 
Solar glass 

Regulation 
L 181; 17.05.2004, p.5 
L 336; 02.11.2004, p.4 
L 92; 06.04.2017, p.48 
Extension (circum.) 
L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20 
Extension (circum.) 
L 236, 10.09.2015, p. 1 
L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20 
Extension (circum.) 
L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1 
Extension (circum.) 
L 196, 24.07.2012, p. 1 
L 204; 09.08.2011, p.1 
Expiry review 
L 288; 07.11.2017, p.4 
L 252, 19.09.2012, p. 33 
L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 1 
L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1 
L 321; 29.11.2016, p.48 
L 338, 17.12.2013, p. 11 
L 49; 25.02.2017, p.6 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 297, 26.10.2012, p.1 
L 139, 05.06.2015, p. 12 
L 7; 12.01.2006, p.1 
L 232; 28.06.2004, p.1 
L 122; 12.05.2016, p.1 

L 322, 08.12.2015, p. 21 
L 169; 27.06.2011, p.1 
L 336; 14.12.2011, p.6 

L 305; 12.11.2016, p.1 
L 121; 12.05.2017, p.3 
Extension (circum.) 
L 95, 05.04.2013, p. 1 
L 13; 15.01.2007, p.1 
L 179; 05.07.2016, p.1 
L 192; 16.07.2016, p.23 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 1 
L 192; 16.07.2016, p.49 
L 16; 20.01.2017, p.3 
L 316, 27.11.2013, p. 8 

EN 

101 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Country 

Case 

Extension 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

Taiwan 

Malaysia 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
Stainless steel cold-rolled flat 
products 
Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-
welding fittings 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Steel ropes and cables 
Steel ropes and cables 
Steel ropes and cables 
Sulphanilic acid 

Korea (Rep. of) 
Morocco 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Tartaric Acid 
Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of 
malleable cast iron 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA) 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel  Philippines 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel  Sri Lanka 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
Indonesia 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel  Taiwan 
Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten 
carbide 

Regulation 
L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 1 
Amendment 
L 98, 15.04.2015, p. 6 
Amendment (absorption 
reinvestigation) 
L 215, 14.08.2015, p. 42 

Extension (circum.) 
L 37; 12.02.2016, p.76 

Extension (circum.) 
L 37; 12.02.2016, p.76 
L 152, 05.06.2013, p. 5 
L 325, 05.12.2013, p. 1 
Amendment 
L 173; 30.06.2016, p.44 
L 56; 03.03.2017, p.131 
L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23 
L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10 

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14 
L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1 
Amendment (newcomer) 
L 138, 13.05.2014, p. 80 
Amendment 
L 139, 14.05.2014, p.7 
L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1 
L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1 
L 363, 18.02.2014, p. 82 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 108, 20.04.2012, p. 1 
L 110, 24.04.2012, p. 3 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 182, 13.07.2012, p. 1 
L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10 
L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1 
Amendment (newcomer) 
L 157, 27.05.2014, p. 80 
L 319; 05.12.2017, p.10 
L 116; 27.04.2006, p.1 
L 355; 22.11.2004, p.9 
L 335; 22.11.2004, p.4 
L 94; 14.04.2000, p.1 
L 282, 28.10.2015, p. 14 
Initiation 
C 322; 15.12.1988, p.7 

EN 

102 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Country 

Case 

Extension 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Tungsten electrodes 
Welded tubes and pipes of iron or 
non-alloy steel 
Wire rod 

Russia 

Aluminium foil 

Russia 

Ammonium nitrate 

Russia 
Russia 

Russia 
Russia 

Russia 

Russia 

Russia 
South Africa 

Taiwan 

Taiwan 

Thailand 

Thailand 

Turkey 
Ukraine 

cold-rolled flat steel products 
Ferro-silicon 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 
Hot rolled flat products 
Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
Welded tubes and pipes of iron or 
non-alloy steel 
Manganese Dioxides 
Stainless steel cold-rolled flat 
products 
Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-
welding fittings 

Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in 
kernels) 
Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of 
malleable cast iron 

Tube and pipe fittings, of iron or steel 
Hot rolled flat products 

Ukraine 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or 
steel 

Biodiesel 
Biodiesel 
Bioethanol 
Grain oriented flat-rolled products of 
silicon-electrical steel 

Canada 

USA 
USA 
USA 

USA 

EN 

Regulation 
L 395; 31.12.2004, p.56 
L 78; 24.03.2011, p.1 
L 142; 02.06.2017, p.53 
L 150, 04.06.2013, p. 1 

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6 
L 268, 15.10.2015, p. 9 
L 175, 04.07.2015, p. 14 
L 332; 18.12.2015, p 91 
L 280, 24.09.2014, p. 19 
L41; 18.02.2016, p.13 
L 37;  12.02.2016, p.1 
L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1 
L 107, 10.04.2014, p. 13 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 
L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 
L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5 
L 357, 28.12.2012, p. 1 
L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37 
L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1 

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6 
L 59, 28.02.2014, p. 7 
L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23 
L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10 

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14 
L 244, 13.09.2013, p. 1 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 91, 27.03.2014, p. 1 
L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10 
L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1 
L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37 
L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1 
L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 
L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 238, 04.09.2012, p. 1 
L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 69 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, p.31 
L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1 
L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 10 
L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 

103 

EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
ANNEX P 

Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2017  

a. Ranked by product (alphabetical) 

Case 
Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

Coated fine paper 

Filament glass fibre products 

Country  Extension  Regulation 
USA 

USA 

P.R. 
China 
P.R. 
China 

Taiwan 

L 73; 18.03.2016, p.1 
L 126, 08.05.2013, p. 19 
L 240, 07.09.2013, p. 1 
Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 202, 27.07.2013, p. 2 
L 165; 28.06.2017, p.2 
Extension (circum.) 
L 37; 12.02.2016, p.56 
Extension (circum.) 
L 37; 12.02.2016, p.56 
L 325, 05.12.2013, p. 66 
Amendment 
L 173; 30.06.2016, p.44 
L 56; 03.03.2017, p.131 

Graphite electrode systems 

India 

Malaysia 

Hot rolled flat products 

Organic coated steel products 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 
Rainbow trout 

Solar glass 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
modules and key components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
modules and key components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
modules and key components) 

Stainless steel bars 
Stainless steel wire 

P.R. 
China 
P.R. 
China 

India 
Turkey 
P.R. 
China 
P.R. 
China 
P.R. 
China 
P.R. 
China 

India 
India 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 23 
L 319, 06.11.2014, p. 1 
L 56, 27.02.2015, p. 12 
L 208, 05.08.2015, p. 10 

L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 16 

L 146; 09.06.2017, p.17 

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.10 

L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 22 
L 128; 06.05.2011, p.18 
L 171; 04.07.2017, p.134 
L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1 
L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 99 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, p.27 

Canada 

EN 

104 

EN 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
b. Ranked by country (alphabetical) 

Country 

Case 

Extension  Regulation 

India 

Graphite electrode systems 

Malaysia 

India 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

India 
India 

Stainless steel bars 
Stainless steel wire 

Canada 

India 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

P.R. China 

Coated fine paper 

P.R. China 

Filament glass fibre products 

Taiwan 

P.R. China  Hot rolled flat products 
P.R. China  Organic coated steel products 
P.R. China 

Solar glass 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
modules and key components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
modules and key components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
modules and key components) 
Rainbow trout 
Biodiesel 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 
Turkey 
USA 

USA 

Biodiesel 

Extension (circum.) 
L 37; 12.02.2016, p.56 
L 319, 06.11.2014, p. 1 
L 56, 27.02.2015, p. 12 
L 128; 06.05.2011, p.18 
L 171; 04.07.2017, p.134 
L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1 
L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 99 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, p.27 
Amendment ((partial) interim review) 
L 202, 27.07.2013, p. 2 
L 165; 28.06.2017, p.2 
Extension (circum.) 
L 37; 12.02.2016, p.56 
L 325, 05.12.2013, p. 66 
Amendment 
L 173; 30.06.2016, p.44 
L 56; 03.03.2017, p.131 
L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 23 
L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 16 

L 146; 09.06.2017, p.17 

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.10 

L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 22 
L 208, 05.08.2015, p. 10 
L 73; 18.03.2016, p.1 
L 126, 08.05.2013, p. 19 
L 240, 07.09.2013, p. 1 

EN 

105 

EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
ANNEX Q 

Undertakings in force on 31 December 2017 

A. Ranked by product (alphabetical) 

Product 

Origin 

Measure 

Decision N° 

Citric acid 

P.R. China 

Undertakings 

Commission Impl. 
Dec. (EU) 2015/87 
21.01.2015 

B. Ranked by country (alphabetical) 

Origin 

Product 

Measure 

Decision N° 

P.R. China 

Citric acid 

Undertakings 

Commission Impl. 
Dec. (EU) 2015/87 
21.01.2015 

OJ 
Reference 

L 15 
22.01.2015 
p. 75 

OJ 
Reference 

L 15 
22.01.2015 
p. 75 

EN 

106 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX R 

Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2017 
(including cases where provisional measures were imposed) 

A. New investigations (ranked by product – in alphabetical order) 

Case 
Cast iron articles 
Cast iron articles 
Corrosion resistant steels 
electric bicycles 
electric bicycles 
Ferro-silicon 
Ferro-silicon 
Low carbon ferro-chrome 
Low carbon ferro-chrome 
Low carbon ferro-chrome 
new and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 
new and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 
Silicon metal (silicon) 

Case No  AD/AS 
AD637 
AD637 
AD639 
AS646 
AD643 
AD642 
AD642 
AD638 
AD638 
AD638 
AS641 
AD640 
AD645 

AD 
AD 
AD 
AS 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AS 
AD 
AD 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

AD645 

AD 

Country 
India 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
Ukraine 
Egypt 
Turkey 
Russia 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
Brazil 
Bosnia and 
Herzegovina 

Regulation 
C 461; 10.12.2016, p.22 
C 461; 10.12.2016, p.22 
C 459; 09.12.2016, p.17 
C 440; 21.12.2017, p.22 
C 353; 20.10.2017, p.19 
C 251; 02.08.2017, p.5 
C 251; 02.08.2017, p.5 
C 200; 23.06.2017, p.17 
C 200; 23.06.2017, p.17 
C 200; 23.06.2017, p.17 
C 346; 14.10.2017, p.9 
C 264; 11.08.2017, p.14 
C 438; 19.12.2017, p.39 

C 438; 19.12.2017, p.39 

EN 

107 

EN 

 
 
 
 
B. Review investigations (ranked by product - in alphabetical order)  

AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AS 
AS 
AS 
AD 
AD 
AD 

P.R. China 
Russia 
Russia 
Tunisia 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
India 
India 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 
India 
India 
Turkey 
Ukraine 
Russia 
P.R. China 

Case No  AD/AS  Country 
Case 
R676 
Aluminium radiators 
R674 
Ammonium nitrate 
R669 
Ammonium nitrate 
R662 
Bicycles 
R652 
Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 
R678 
Chamois leather 
Citric acid 
R679 
Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts  R668 
R675 
Lever Arch Mechanisms 
R660 
Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  
R672 
Oxalic acid 
R672 
Oxalic acid 
R653 
Polyester high tenacity filament yarn 
R664 
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 
R663 
Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 
R667 
Rainbow trout 
R665 
Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 
R665 
Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 
Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel 
R657 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 
Steel ropes and cables 
Tartaric Acid 
Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of 
malleable cast iron 
Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of 
malleable cast iron 

Malaysia 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

R659 
R655 
R671 

AD 
AD 
AD 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Malaysia 

Malaysia 

Malaysia 

Thailand 

R677 

R677 

R673 

R673 

R659 

R661 

R661 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AS 

AS 

AS 

Regulation 
C 377; 09.11.2017, p.11 
C 271; 17.08.2017, p.15 
C 271; 17.08.2017, p.9 
L 116; 05.05.2017, p.20 
C 117; 12.04.2017, p.12 
C 416; 06.12.2017, p.15 
L 329; 13.12.2017, p.39 
L 188; 20.07.2017, p.1 
C 290; 01.09.2017, p.3 
L 226; 01.09.2017, p.1 
C 117; 12.04.2017, p.15 
C 117; 12.04.2017, p.15 
C 384; 18.10.2016, p.15 
C 216; 06.07.2017, p.30 
C 216; 06.07.2017, p.26 
C 234; 20.07.2017, p.6 
C 214; 04.07.2017, p.9 
C 214; 04.07.2017, p.9 
C 461; 10.12.2016, p.12 

L 288; 07.11.2017, p.30 

L 288; 07.11.2017, p.30 

C 67; 03.03.2017, p.16 

C 67; 03.03.2017, p.16 

L 36; 11.02.2017, p.47 

L 36; 11.02.2017, p.47 
C 41; 08.02.2017, p.5 
C 122; 19.04.2017, p.8 

C 162; 23.05.2017, p.12 

C 162; 23.05.2017, p.12 

EN 

108 

EN 

 
 
C. Reopenings (ranked by product - in alphabetical order) 

Cases 
Seamless pipes and tubes 
of iron or steel 
Stainless steel wire 
Tartaric Acid 

Case No 

AD/AS 

Country 

Regulation 

AD533a 
AD591a 
R529a 

AD 
AD 
AD 

P.R. China 
India 
P.R. China 

C 331; 09.09.2016, p.4 
C 334; 06.10.2017, p.3 
C 296; 07.09.2017, p.16 

EN 

109 

EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
ANNEX S 

Court cases 

A. 

Court cases pending before the Court of Justice of the European Union 

and the General Court on 31 December 2017 

C-256/16 
C-301/16 P 
C-465/16 P 
C-466/16 P 
C-602/16 P  

C-603/16 P 
C-604/16 P 
C-605/16 P 
C-606/16 P  
C-607/16 P  

C-608/16P  

C-609/16 P 

C-612/16 
C-631/16 
C-100/17 P 
C-145/17 P 
C-207/17 
C-236/17 P 
C-237/17 P 
C-592/17 
Case C-
644/17 
C-363/17 P 

T-431/12 
T-487/14 
T-113/15 
T-462/15 
T-607/15 
T-675/15 
T-211/16 
T-230/16 

Court of Justice 

Deichmann (preliminary ruling) 
Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (appeal in T-586/14) 
Council v Growth Energy and Renewable fuels association (appeal T-276/13) 
Council v Marquis Energy LLC (appeal T-277/13) 
Council v Unitec Bio SÁ, Commission and European 
Biodiesel Board (appeal T-111/14) 
Council v PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia (appeal T-) 
Council v PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri (appeal T-) 
Council v PT Ciliandra Perkasa (appeal T-) 
Council v PT Musim Mas (appeal T-) 
Council v Molino Rio de la Plata SA e.a., Commission and 
European Biodiesel Board (appeal T-)  
Council v Cargill S.A.C.I., Commission and European 
Biodiesel Board (appeal T-) 
Council v LDC Argentina SA, Commission and European 
Biodiesel Board (appeal T-) 
C&J Clark International (preliminary ruling) 
X BV (preliminary ruling) 
Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council (appeal T-) 
International de Productos Metalicos v Commission (appeal T-) 
Rotho Blaas (preliminary ruling) 
Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council (appeal T-162/14) 
Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council (appeal T-163/14) 
Baby Dan (preliminary ruling) 

Eurobolt (preliminary ruling)  
Equipolymers and Others v Council (appeal T-422/13) 

General Court 

Distillerie Bonollo SpA v Council 
CHEMK v Commission 
RFA International v Commission 
Asia Leader v Commission 
Yieh United Steel (Yusco) v Commission 
Taigang v Commission 
Caviro Distillerie and others v Commission 
C&J Clarks v Commission 

EN 

110 

EN 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
T-300/16 
T-301/16 
T-310/16 
T-364/16 
T-442/16 
T-631/16 
T-654/16 
T-741/16 
T-749/16 
T-752/16 
T-753/16 
T-781/16 
T-782/16 
T-783/16 
T-861/16  
T-790/16 
T-154/17 
T-155/17 
T-204/17 
T-228/17 
T-110/17 
T-347/17 
T-383/17 
T-500/17 
T-650/17 
T-469/07 DEP 

Jindal v Commission 
Jindal v Commission 
Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd v Commission 
ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Commission 
Šroubárna Ždánice v EU (claim for damages) 
Remag Metallhandel GmbH and Werner Jaschinsky v Commission 
Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd v Commission 
Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd 
Stemcor v Commission 
NLMK v Commission 
Severstal v Commission 
Puma v Commission 
Timberland v Commission 
C & J Clark v Commission 
C & J Clark International Ltd v Commission 
C & J Clark International Ltd v Commission 
Deichmann v Commission 
Van Haren Schoenen v Commission 
Alfa Laval v Commission 
Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission 
Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission 
FLA Europe v Commission 
Hansol paper v Commission 
Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission 
Jinan Meide v Commission 
Philips Lighting Poland and Philips Lighting v Council 

EN 

111 

EN 

 
 
 
B. 

Judgments, orders or other decisions rendered in 2017 

C-248/15 P 
C-247/15 P 
C-253/15 P 
C-254/15 P 
C-259/15P 
C-260/15P 
C-376/15 P 
C-377/15 P 
C-239/15 P 
C-349/16 
C-156/16 
C-204/16P 
C-205/16P 
C-61/16 P 

T-512/09 RENV 
T-217/16 
T-783/14 
T-162/14 
T-160/14 
T-158/14 
T-161/14 
T-163/14 
T-157/14 
T-422/13 
T-442/12 
T-67/14 
T-152/16 
T-435/15 
T-460/14 

Court of Justice 

Maxcom v City Cycle (appeal T-413/13) 
Maxcom v Chin Haur (appeal T-412/13) 
Chin Haur v Commission (appeal T-412/13) 
City Cycle v Commission (appeal T-413/13) 
Chin Haur Indonesia v Council 
City Cycle Industries v Council 
Changshu City v Council (appeal T-558/12) 
Ningbo Jinding v Council (appeal T-559/12) 
RFAI v Commission (appeal T-466/12) 
T.KUP SAS (preliminary ruling) 
Tigers (preliminary ruling) 
SolarWorld and Others v Council (appeal T-141/14) 
SolarWorld and Others v Council (appeal T-142/14) 
EBMA (appeal T-425/13 Giant) 

General Court 

Rusal Armenal v Council 
IPM v Commission 
SolarWorld AG v Commission 
Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council 
Yingli Energy (China) and Others v Council 
JingAo Solar Co. Ltd and Others v Council 
Yingli Energy (China) and Others v Council 
Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council 
JingAo Solar Co. Ltd and Others v Council 
CPME and Others v Council 
Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Council 
Viraj v Council 
Megasol Energie AG v Commission 
Kolachi Raj Industrial v Commission 
AETMD v Council 

EN 

112 

EN 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX T 

Safeguard and surveillance measures in force on 31 December 2017 

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 

None 

EN 

113 

EN