REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FIFTEENTH REPORT OVERVIEW OF THIRD COUNTRY TRADE DEFENCE ACTIONS AGAINST THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE YEAR 2017
Date: 2018-10-18
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: World Trade Organisation, anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, export (EU), protectionism, third country, trade dispute

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 18.10.2018  COM(2018) 701 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT FIFTEENTH REPORT      OVERVIEW OF THIRD COUNTRY TRADE DEFENCE ACTIONS   AGAINST THE EUROPEAN UNION FOR THE YEAR 2017 {SWD(2018) 442 final}  
 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

Trade defence instruments (TDI) are important tools for industries to defend themselves when 
faced with unfair trade practices. 

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

One of the pillars of the EU trade policy is to ensure a level playing field for EU businesses 
on  export  markets.  Unwarranted  trade  defence  measures  unfairly  block  EU  exporters'  free 
access  to  the  world's  markets,  and  their  negative  impact  should  be  minimised  whenever 
possible. 

As the world's leading exporter, the EU is increasingly subject to trade defence investigations 
initiated  by  third  countries.  Actually,  by  number  of  TDI  measures  in  force,  the  EU  and  its 
Member States are the second most targeted exporter in the world after China. 

The  European  Commission  monitors  and  assists  affected  EU  industries  when  non-EU 
countries  take  trade  defence  measures  against  EU  exporters.  The  Commission  also  plays  a 
more  direct  role  by  replying  to  questionnaires  in  AS  investigations  when  EU  subsidies  are 
involved and in SFG investigations when the EU as a whole is targeted. 

When a third country opens a trade defence investigation against EU exports, the role of the 
Commission is to actively intervene, whenever necessary, in order to rebut undue allegations 
and  findings  raised  in  the  proceeding  that  are  at  odds  with  WTO  rules.  This  is  for  instance 
done through written submissions to the investigating authority in third countries, as well as 
through  regular  participation  in  hearings,  in  order  to  ensure  that  EU  exporters’  rights  and 
interests  are  respected.  The  Commission  also  intervenes  in  the  framework  of  bilateral 
agreements (e.g. regular bilateral high level meetings with the trade partner in question) and 
in the multilateral context (e.g. regular WTO committee meetings in Geneva). 

This report describes: the overall trends in trade defence activities by third countries, which 
adversely  impact  or  may  impact  EU  exports;  the  main  problems  identified;  and  the  results 
achieved in 20171. The Commission staff working document annexed to this report contains a 
detailed  country-by-country  analysis  of  third  countries'  TDI  investigations  and  measures, 
including the interventions made by the Commission, together with a complete set of data by 
country and by type of TDI instrument. 

1 Statistical data covers trends up to the end of 2017, the narrative also includes developments during the first 
quarter of 2018. 

1 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
2.  STATISTICS 

2.1.  Measures in force at the end of 2017 

At  the  end  of  2017,  there  were  162  TDI  measures  in  force  affecting  EU  exports,  which 
represents a slight increase when compared to the 156 measures in force at the end of 2016. 
As  shown  in  the  graph  below,  there  is  nevertheless  a  clear  upward  trend  in  the  number  of 
measures in force affecting EU exports since 2010.  

Total number of measures in force at the end of 2017 

170

160

150

140

130

120

110

162 

152 

156 

151 

138 

140 

147 

146 

138 

133 

123 

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

Just  four  EU  trade  partners  continue  to  account  for  more  than  50%  of  all  TDI  measures  in 
force against the EU (namely, the US, China, India and Brazil). However, the order of these 
countries changed in 2017 compared with 2016. In 2017, the United States became the most 
active user of TDI against the EU with 26 measures in force, 22 of which are AD and four are 
AS (the US had no SFG measure in place in 2017). India follows with 21 measures (19 AD, 
two SFG). China stands in third position with 20 measures in force at the end of 2017 (17 AD, 
two AS and one SFG), Brazil being the fourth with 16 measures (all AD). 

2 

 
 
 
 
Measures in force at the end of 2017 by country 

26 

21 

20 

16 

12 

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

7 

7 

7 

7 

5 

4 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

12 

By type of instrument, out of the 162 measures in force2, 125 are AD, seven are AS and 30 
are  SFG.  Very  few  trade  partners  have  AS  measures  in  place  against  the  EU:  only  the  US 
(four),  China  (two)  and  Canada  (one).  For  their  part,  SFG  measures  are  maintained 
predominantly  by  East-Asian  countries,  namely  Indonesia  and  Vietnam  (four  each),  and 
Thailand, Morocco, Malaysia and the Philippines (three each).  

2.2.  New investigations initiated in 2017 

In terms of new investigations against the EU or its Member States, the situation is stable in 
2017 compared with 2016, with a total of 31 new investigations initiated in 2017. 

However, the composition by type of instrument changed slightly in 2017. Whereas initiations 
of AD  and AS  investigations increased in  2017  when compared to  2016 from  18 to  22  and 
from zero to two, respectively, SFG investigations initiations decreased from twelve to seven. 

It is worth noting that, among all countries, the US stands out as the country which opened the 
highest  number  of  new  investigations:  ten  proceedings,  of  which  six  were  AD.  India  and 
Turkey come second with four new investigations each. 

Sectorwise, out  of a total  of 31 new investigations initiated in 2017 against  EU exports, six 
new investigations were initiated in the steel sector (four of which by the US). This contrasts 
sharply  with  the  years  2015  and  2016,  during  which,  respectively,  19  and  17  new  steel 
investigations accounted for more than 50% of the total new investigations. Conversely, it is 
worth noting that 13 new investigations were opened against EU exports of chemicals, which 
now stands out as the single most targeted sector. 

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

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
New investigations against the EU in steel and other sectors 

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0

70,00%

60,00%

50,00%

40,00%

30,00%

20,00%

10,00%

0,00%

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

Other sectors new investigations

Steel sector new investigations

% share of steel

Source: WTO and EU statistics 

2.3.  Measures imposed in 2017 

A total of 26 new measures were imposed in 2017 on EU exports. This represents, a decrease 
as compared to 2016 (30) and 2015 (37). The drop was particularly marked in AD measures 
(19  in  2016  and  15  in  2017).  Two  AS  measures  were  imposed  in  2017  (against  just  one  in 
2016), while nine SFG measures were imposed in 2017 (against 10 in 2016). Countrywise, the 
US  have  imposed  six  new  measures  followed  by  India  which  have  imposed  four  measures 
against the EU in 2017 (eight of them being AD measures and two AS measures), followed 
with  two  measures  each  by  Canada  (AD  measures  only),  Malaysia  (SFG  measures  only), 
Turkey (AD only) and Vietnam (SFG measures only) . 

Sectorwise, the steel sector represents 16 measures out of the total 26 new measures imposed 
upon EU exports. In other words, in 2017, the new steel measures outnumbered those in any 
other sector. Measures imposed in 2017 are the direct consequence of the  steep rise in steel 
investigations  observed  in  the  recent  past.  In  fact,  in  2015  and  2016  excess  capacity  and 
overproduction  in  China  triggered  a  global  wave  of  TDI  investigations,  very  often  causing 
collateral damage to EU steel interests (erga omnes nature of SFG, overly broad geographical 
scope of AD). 

3. 

ISSUES OF CONCERN IN 2017 

3.1.  A more aggressive use of TDIs by the US across the board 

Undeniably,  the  hallmark  of  2017  has  been  the  rise  of  the  US  TDI  activity.  Although  this 
offensive  was  not  primarily  and  specifically  targeted  at  EU  exports,  it  did  not  leave  EU 
interests unscathed , as statistics in Section 2 above show. 

4 

 
 
 
 
 
The US, normally not a user of the SFG instrument, opened two SFG investigations in 2017, 
respectively on large  residential  washers (June 2017) and crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic 
cells  and  modules  (May  2017)3.  Even  though  there  are  no  EU  exports  of  the  former,  and 
exports  of  the  latter  are  relatively  limited  as  compared  to  Asian  exporting  countries,  these 
measures  may,  beyond  their  direct  effect,  cause  collateral  damage  to  EU  producers,  due  to 
trade diversion.4 The Commission underlined that imports from the EU were not causing any 
injury  due  to  their  low  volume  and  higher  prices.  The  Commission  raised  doubts  on  the 
compatibility  of  the  measure  with  WTO  rules,  and  on  the  appropriateness  of  the  SFG 
instrument when the actual aim is to address circumvention of US AD measures imposed on 
China.  The  Commission  suggested  a  form  of  measure  that  would  be  less  penalising  for  EU 
imports such as a quota allocated by country or a minimum import price. The United States 
rejected  both  suggestions  and  also  rejected  providing  any  compensation  for  the  adverse 
effects of the safeguard measure. 

In  April  2017,  the  US  initiated  an  investigation  on  imports  of  steel  and  aluminium  on  the 
basis of Section 232 of the US 1962 Trade Expansion Act5. Strictly speaking, Section 232 of 
the  US  1962  Trade  Expansion  Act  is  not  a  Trade  Defence  Instrument  (AD,  AS,  SFG). 
Measures  under  Section  232  are  meant  to  "adjust  the  imports"  in  case  there  is  a  threat  to 
national  security.  However,  the  consequences  of  Section  232  measures  are  very  similar  to 
those  of  SFG  and  therefore  the  Commission  considers  Section  232  measures  as  SFG  in 
disguise. 

In July 2017, the United States initiated an AD and an AS investigation concerning imports of 
Spanish  ripe  olives  (Spanish  exports  represent  around  60  million  EUR).  Due  to  the 
Commission's  numerous technical  and political  interventions, in  close coordination  with  the 
Spanish  authorities  and  industry,  the  number  of  investigated  alleged  subsidy  schemes  was 
reduced  from  ten  to  six.  However,  several  support  schemes  granted  by  Spain  and  the  EU, 
including the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) which is a cornerstone of the reformed Common 
Agricultural  Policy  (CAP),  remained  targeted.  The  Commission  has  strongly  emphasised  in 
the  course  of  the  proceedings  that  the  targeted  EU  CAP  schemes  are  non-distortive,  non-
specific  and  thus  non-countervailable  under  WTO  law.  According  to  WTO  rules,  these 
support  schemes  are  considered  "green  box".  The  Commission  has  been  very  actively 
intervening  throughout  all  phases  of  these  investigations  and  has  provided  the  necessary 
assistance  to  the  Spanish  authorities,  both  central  and  regional,  as  well  as  to  the  exporters 

3 SFG measures in the form of a 30% tariff rate quota for crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells and modules and a 20% tariff 
rate quota for large residential washers of have been imposed in January 2018. 
4 Therefore, the Commission requested consultations under Article 12.3 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards in February 
2018. 
5 In March 2018, the US imposed tariffs on imports of steel and aluminium (respectively of 25% and 10%). 

5 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
concerned, and will continue to do so in order to dissuade the US authorities from imposing 
unjustified measures. Final injury determination was expected by July 20186.  

Evidence also shows that the US is adopting a tougher stance in the enforcement of AD rules, 
not only in terms of number of investigations but also in terms of the methodology used. 

In  cases  where  an  exporter  subject  to  an  AD/AS  investigation  does  not  provide  necessary 
information, WTO rules allow the investigating authority to replace this missing information 
with “best facts available”, i.e. information from a secondary source. The US however usually 
takes a stricter approach by frequently dismissing all information provided by the respondents, 
often on weak grounds, and applying "adverse facts available" (AFA). This always results 
in much higher duties than if the company's data or alternative best facts available were used. 
This approach is used by the US in many of its investigations and has recently been brought to 
a  WTO  dispute  by  Korea  (anti-dumping  and  countervailing  duty  determinations  on  certain 
products from Korea, WT/DS 539/1), which will be followed up actively by the Commission. 

In 2017, the United States, continued to apply the controversial zeroing methodology in AD 
investigations. Dumping occurs when the export prices are lower than the normal value. Both 
are determined on the basis of a number of transactions that were effected during a defined 
period. When applying zeroing, the investigating authority compares the price of the product 
on  the  export  market  with  the  price  of  the  product  on  the  home  market,  but  disregards  all 
transactions in which the price of the product on the export market is higher than the price on 
the  home  market  by  setting  them  at  zero.  The  result  of  this  methodology  is  that  dumping 
margins are inflated. Zeroing has been subjected to WTO dispute settlement since 2001, and 
the WTO Appellate Body has consistently condemned this practice since then. More recently, 
in  2016  (DS464:  US  –  AD  and  AS  measures  on  large  residential  washers  from  Korea, 
confirmed in DS471: US – Anti-dumping Methodologies (China)), the WTO Appelate Body 
has shut the door to the last remaining zeroing option used by the US, by ruling that even in 
case of "targeted dumping", the zeroing methodology was inconsistent with WTO rules. The 
Commission is closely following up this matter, and will take necessary action to ensure that 
the US eventually complies with WTO obligations. 

3.2.  Different users, but still the same questionable use of the SFG instrument 

As explained before, SFG is the most trade-restrictive instrument, as it applies to all imports 
regardless  of  their  origin.  This  is  why  it  should  only  be  used  in  strictly  defined  and  very 
exceptional  circumstances,  in  order  to  temporarily  protect  the  domestic  industry  from  a 
sudden  and  sharp  increase  of  imports.  Although,  the  number  of  initiations  of  SFG 
investigations  has  substantially  decreased  in  2017,  the  Commission  continues  to  intervene 
systematically  in  all  SFG  investigations,  as  many  investigating  authorities  do  not  seem  to 

6 On  10  July  2018  the  US  International  Trade  Commission  announced  its  final  affirmative  injury  determination,  thus 
definitive AD and AS duties will enter into force, marking the end of both investigations. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
respect  the  strict  rules  provided  for  in  the  WTO  Safeguards  Agreement.  Many  SFG 
investigations  concern  imports  that  are  actually  originating  mainly  in  one  country,  thus  the 
AD  or  AS  instruments  would  be  more  appropriate  in  providing  a  targeted  response  to  the 
problem, without unduly limiting market access to other countries.  

The  SFG  measures  in  place  in  2017  are  predominantly  from  South  East  Asian  countries, 
namely Indonesia and Vietnam (four each), and Thailand, Malaysia and the Philippines (three 
each). Often, these SFG measures were (inappropriately) imposed in order to address massive 
inflows of Chinese steel products, and possible circumvention via other countries. However, 
SFG measures do not differentiate between origins and thus often cause collateral damage to 
non-injurious trade. 

In terms of new SFG investigations,  the  novelty  of  2017 is that South East Asian countries 
are no longer the primary "initiators" of investigations. In 2017, the main "initiators" were the 
US  (two  new  SFG  investigations,  concerning  crystalline  silicon  photovoltaic  cells  and 
modules and large  residential  washers) and Turkey  (two new SFG investigations as well, 
one  concerning  tyres,  which  entails  significant  EU  economic  interest,  the  second  one 
concerning toothbrushes, which involves little EU economic interest). 

The  two  US  SFG  investigations  were  the  first  SFG  investigations  initiated  by  the  United 
States in more than a decade. The Commission complained that they should not have been 
initiated, since the allegedly problematic surge of imports originated from a limited number of 
Asian  countries  only.  In  fact,  the  United  States  should  have  used  other  more  targeted 
instruments,  such  as  AD  and/or  AS,  in  order  to  address  those  imports  and  avoid  creating 
collateral damage to fair imports that were not at the root of the problem. 

As concerns the Turkish SFG investigation into imports of tyres, the Commission intervened 
successfully  and  obtained  the  termination  of  the  investigation  without  measures  (see  details 
under Section "Main Achievements" below). 

4.  MAIN ACHIEVEMENTS 

US – Termination of the AD/AS investigations concerning large civil aircraft from Canada 

In  January  2018,  the  US  International  Trade  Commission  (ITC)  found  that  imports  of 
Bombardier's  large  civil  aircraft  C-series  did  not  injure  the  US  industry  and,  therefore, 
blocked the imposition of 292% tariffs on imports of certain aircraft from the Montreal-based 
manufacturer.  The  US  Commerce  Department  had  previously  investigated  and  found 
cumulated AD and AS margins of 292%. This is a major achievement for Canada, but also for 
the UK and the EU. Thousands of jobs were at stake at Bombardier's plant in Northern Ireland 
(where the wings of the C-series jet are produced) and also at downstream suppliers in other 
EU Member States. The Commission strongly supported Bombardier and the UK government 
in these US AD/AS investigations. The Commission inter alia objected to the US findings of 
subsidization,  argued  that  there  is  no threat  of  injury  to  the  domestic  industry  (i.e.  Boeing), 

7 

 
 
 
 
 
and that any difficulties the domestic industry may be experiencing are due to other factors, in 
particular a lack of newest technology and matching for the type of aircraft in demand. The 
US  investigation was  based on one 2016 order of 75 Bombardier C-series jets by Delta Air 
Lines (to be delivered from 2018 onwards), which Boeing claimed were subsidised and were 
offered at a lower price on the US market than on the Canadian market. 

Brazil – Termination of measures on imports of synthetic rubber 

The Brazilian AD measures on EU exports of synthetic rubber (E-SBR) that were imposed 
and  immediately  suspended  in  2015  were  finally  terminated  in  November  2017  on  public 
interest grounds. In collaboration with the EU industry and Member States, the Commission 
made numerous submissions to the Brazilian authorities, pointing notably to the fact that EU 
exports did not cause any injury to the domestic industry. This has been confirmed, inter alia, 
by  the  fact  that  during  the  above-mentioned  2-year  suspension  of  measures,  the  domestic 
industry  has  managed  to  increase  its  market  share.  EU  exports  to  Brazil  amounted  to  80 
million EUR in 2013, prior to the imposition of measures. 

Turkey – Termination of SFG investigation regarding tyres without imposing measures 

In  January  2018,  Turkey  terminated  the  SFG  investigation  concerning  imports  of  tyres 
(passenger vehicle, bus,  truck) without imposing measures. The SFG investigation had been 
initiated  in  April  2017.  The  Commission,  alongside  the  industry,  intervened  in  the 
proceedings  (submissions,  hearing),  and  seized  any  opportunity  in  bilateral  high-level 
meetings to raise the issue. As a consequence, Turkey did not impose provisional measures as 
it had initially announced, and eventually terminated the SFG investigation without imposing 
any measures. The fact that Turkey did not impose SFG measures is a big success for the EU, 
given the value of EU tyre exports to Turkey (450-500 million EUR per year). 

Israel – Termination of AD investigation on cocoa spread from the EU 

In September 2016, the Israelian authorities initiated an AD investigation on imports of cocoa 
spread from the EU (economic interest 56 million EUR). The main EU exporting producer is 
the  Italian  company  Ferrero,  whose  plants  are  located  in  Italy  and  Poland.  The  exporting 
producer  cooperated  in  the  investigation  and  the  Israelian  authorities  conducted  verification 
visits  in  Italy,  Poland  and  Luxembourg.  In  close  cooperation  with  Italian  authorities,  the 
Commission  intervened  actively  in  support  of  the  Italian  exporting  producer  by  means  of 
written submissions and participation in the public hearing. The main issues outlined by the 
Commission  included  a  questionable  analysis  of  injury  and  causality.  In  January  2018,  the 
Israelian  Ministry  of  Trade  issued  the  official  notification  terminating  the  investigation 
without imposing any measure. 

Morocco – Termination of AD investigation on exports of ceramic tiles 

The  AD  investigation  opened  by  Morocco  on  exports  of  ceramic  tiles  from  Spain,  was 
terminated in November 2017 without imposing measures. The Spanish industry targeted by 
the Moroccan AD investigation was very concerned, as the economic interest was around 70 
million  EUR  of  annual  exports.  The  Commission  made  several  submissions  in  cooperation 

8 

 
 
 
with  Spanish  authorities  and  industry,  and  closely  followed  the  case  at  every  step  of  the 
proceeding.  The  Commission  pointed  notably  to  the  following  weaknesses  of  the 
investigation:  absence  of  injury,  presence  of  other  factors  breaking  the  causal  link  between 
dumping and injury (notably imports from China and Egypt, increase in production costs and 
unused  production  capacity).  Thanks  to  the  coordinated  efforts  of  the  industry,  Spanish 
authorities and the Commission, a successful outcome was achieved for the Spanish ceramic 
tile industry. 

India – Termination of AD duties on exports of melamine  

The expiry review of the AD duties on melamine was initiated in September 2017 (original 
measures  were  imposed  in  October  2012,  exports  around  4,5  million  EUR  mostly  from 
Germany).  The  Commission  made  a  written  submission  at  initiation,  highlighting  that  there 
was  no  continuation/recurrence  of  injury.  The  domestic  industry  was  highly  profitable  and, 
although running at almost full capacity, was not able to satisfy domestic demand, for which 
reason imports were necessary to fill in the supply gap. This was confirmed in February 2018 
by the Indian authorities, who terminated the investigation without re-imposing the duties.  

Brazil – Termination of AD investigation into imports of X-ray dental machines 

The Brazilian AD investigation on imports of X-ray dental machines (EU economic interest 
is 4 million EUR) from Germany was terminated in February 2017 without measures, since 
Brazil considered that there was no injury to the domestic industry. The collaboration between 
the industry and the Commission was key for the positive conclusion of this case. 

Ukraine – Termination of expiry review of SFG measures on porcelain without prolongation 
of measures  

In May 2017, Ukraine terminated the SFG expiry review investigation concerning the existing 
SFG  measures  on  imports  of  porcelain  tableware  and  kitchenware  without  extending  the 
original measures (EU economic interest is around 2 million EUR). The SFG review had been 
initiated in December 2016. The Commission intervened in the proceedings with submissions 
and participation in  hearings. Eventually, Ukraine terminated the SFG investigation without 
imposing any measures. 

India – Non imposition of AD measures for two EU exporters of wooden flooring 

The AD investigation on imports of wooden flooring from the EU was initiated in February 
2017 (EU economic interest of around 3 million EUR). The Commission raised a number of 
flaws  in  the  investigation,  namely  the  issue  of  data  confidentiality,  the  inconclusive  injury 
picture, the lack of causal link, and the inappropriate cumulation of high-priced EU imports 
with  low-priced  imports  from  other  countries.  In  February  2018,  the  Indian  authorities 
recommended the imposition of definitive AD measures, except for the two cooperating EU 
exporting  producers,  which  were  found  not  to  have  caused  material  injury  to  the  Indian 
industry. 

9 

 
 
 
 
Australia – Decrease of duties for Italian exporters of processed tomatoes  

In 2016, Australia imposed AD measures on imports of processed tomatoes from Italy (more 
specifically,  from  two  main  Italian  exporters  representing  around  45%  of  EU  exports  to 
Australia). Total EU exports of processed tomatoes to Australia were worth around 44 million 
EUR  in  2015.  Supported  by  the  Commission  and  Italian  authorities,  Italian  exporters 
challenged  a  cost  adjustment  for  EU  Common  Agricultural  Policy  support.  As  a  result,  the 
Australian  Anti-Dumping  Review  Panel  (ADRP)  found  in  January  2017  that  the  EU-
decoupled income support to  tomato  growers in  Italy did  not  have a distortive effect  on the 
price  of  tomatoes.  The  dumping  margins  for  the  two  exporting  producers  were  adjusted 
downwards,  resulting in  zero or low duties.  In  a  twin  case  concerning the remaining  Italian 
exporters, the same issue was raised again and, in February 2018, the Australian ADRP was 
consistent  with  its  previous  conclusion  according  to  which  the  cost  adjustment  was  not 
warranted. This is a major success for the Commission and Italian trade diplomacies, which 
jointly intervened technically and politically at all stages of the above procedures. 

5.  WTO ACTIVITY 

The  Commission  defends  the  interests  of  the  EU  in  specific  cases  at  the  WTO  in  order  to 
ensure full respect of WTO rules. If TDI measures taken by other members are considered to 
violate  WTO  rules,  the  Commission  may  challenge  them  at  the  WTO  through  the  dispute 
settlement mechanism.  

This  was  the  case  of  AD  measures  imposed  by  Russia  against  imports  of  light  commercial 
vehicles  (LCV)  (DS479),  for  which  a  Panel  report  was  issued  in  January  2017.  The  Panel 
declared  such  duties  as  in  breach  of  WTO  rules,  agreeing  with  the  EU  on  all  procedural 
claims  and  recognising  several  problems  with  the  analysis  made  by  Russia,  in  particular 
because  it  disregarded  the  massive  overcapacity  in  the  domestic  LCV  sector.  In  February 
2017,  however,  the  Russian  Federation  appealed  the  Panel  report  on  behalf  of  the  Eurasian 
Economic Union.  The EU cross-appealed and the hearing took place in November 2017. The 
report of the WTO Appellate Body was issued in March 2018. 

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

Finally, the Commission  regularly participates in the relevant  WTO Committees in  Geneva. 
In  the  Anti-dumping  and  Anti-subsidy  Committees,  individual  actions  taken  by  other  WTO 
members are discussed and reviewed in the context of the semi-annual and monthly reporting 
exercises to the WTO. The Commission systematically intervenes and raises individual cases 
also  in  the  framework  of  the  Safeguard  Committee,  in  view  of  the  intensive  use  of  this 
instrument, which is a cause of major concern. 

10 

 
 
 
 
 
6.  CONCLUSION 

The  Commission's  approach  when  confronted  with  TDI  activity  by  third  countries  is  to 
intervene  during  ongoing  proceedings  by  making  technical  interventions.  As  seen  above, 
these interventions are often, albeit not always, successful. 

The  Commission  is  also  using  diplomacy  to  build  a  constructive  dialogue  with  the  TDI 
services  of  the  EU's  trading  partners.  It  is  ultimately  in  the  EU  interest  to  support  the 
development  of  a  network  of  well-informed  TDI  practitioners,  who  are  better  aware  of  the 
importance  of  compliance  with  WTO  rules  in  carrying  out  trade  defence  investigations  in 
their own countries. 

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

For  years,  the  Commission  has  been  organising  a  one  week  seminar  for  TDI  officials  from 
investigating  authorities  of  third  countries.  As  an  example,  20  officials  from  six  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.  In 
addition, bilateral meetings to exchange best practices with TDI officials from the US, China, 
Japan and Korea took place in 2017. 

In  tune  with  the  recovery  of  global  trade,  TDI  activity,  measured  in  numbers  of  new 
investigations and new measures, declined slightly in 2017.  

On  the  other  hand,  significant  new  risks  have  emerged  in  2017,  with,  for  example,  the  US 
deliberately having adopted a more aggressive stance. The Commission  is concerned with the 
possible proliferation of measures taken on alleged national security grounds for the purposes 
of  economic  protection.  These  measures  lack  legitimacy,  factual  basis  and  violate 
international  trade  rules.  They  not  only  shift  the  attention  away  from  shared  strategic 
challenges  that  genuinely  threaten  the  market-based  economic  model,  but  also  trigger 
negative spill overs when trade partners are forced to take rebalancing measures or to shield 
their market from the consequences of important trade diversion. 

The EU (now endowed with modernised trade defence instruments) is prepared to resolutely 
safeguard 
the 
appropriatebilateral  and  multilateral  channels,  including  via  WTO  dispute  settlement,  if 
needed. 

its  producers  and  exporters, 

the  economic 

interests  of 

through 

* * * 

11