COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 37th Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities and the Use of trade defence instruments by Third Countries targeting the EU in 2018
Date: 2019-03-27
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: anti-dumping measure, anti-subsidy proceeding, countervailing charge, import (EU), import restriction, originating product, surveillance concerning imports, third country, trade dispute

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 27.3.2019 SWD(2019) 141 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 37th Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament  on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities and the Use of trade defence instruments by Third Countries targeting the EU in 2018   {COM(2019) 158 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

37th Annual Report from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament  
on the EU's Anti-Dumping, Anti-Subsidy and Safeguard activities and the Use of trade 
defence instruments by Third Countries targeting the EU in 2018 

Table of Contents 

1. Overview of the legislation .................................................................................................................. 4 

1.1. 

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy ................................................................................................. 4 

1.1.1. 

The international framework ..................................................................................................... 4 

1.1.2. 

The EU legislation .................................................................................................................... 4 

1.2 

Safeguards ................................................................................................................................. 5 

1.2.1. 

The international framework ..................................................................................................... 5 

1.2.2. 

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

2. General overview of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations and measures .............................. 6 

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3 

Measures in place ...................................................................................................................... 6 

New investigations .................................................................................................................... 7 

Review investigations ............................................................................................................... 8 

3. Overview of activities in 2018 ............................................................................................................. 9 

3.1. 

New investigations .................................................................................................................... 9 

3.1.1. 

Initiations .................................................................................................................................. 9 

3.1.2. 

Provisional measures ................................................................................................................ 9 

3.1.3.  Definitive measures ................................................................................................................ 10 

3.1.4.  Details on individual cases with application of new provisional or definitive duties ............. 10 

3.1.5. 

Investigations terminated without measures ........................................................................... 17 

3.1.6.  Details on some individual cases of termination without measures........................................ 18 

3.2. 

Review investigations ............................................................................................................. 19 

3.2.1. 

Expiry reviews ........................................................................................................................ 19 

3.2.2. 

Interim reviews ....................................................................................................................... 23 

EN 

1 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.3.  New exporter reviews ............................................................................................................. 30 

3.2.4.  Absorption investigations ....................................................................................................... 33 

3.2.5.  Anti-circumvention investigations .......................................................................................... 33 

3.2.6. 

“Other” reviews (reinvestigations).......................................................................................... 34 

3.3. 

Safeguard investigations ......................................................................................................... 37 

4. Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures..................................................................... 40 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Follow-up of measures ............................................................................................................ 41 

Monitoring of undertakings .................................................................................................... 41 

OLAF activity ......................................................................................................................... 41 

5. Refunds ............................................................................................................................................... 42 

6. TDI Modernisation ............................................................................................................................. 42 

7. Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts ......................................................... 44 

7.1. 

7.2. 

Small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) ......................................................................... 44 

Bilateral contacts/information activities – EU economic operators including their key 
stakeholder associations and third countries ........................................................................... 45 

8. Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice (CJ) and the General Court (GC) .............. 45 

8.1. 

8.2. 

8.3. 

8.4. 

8.5. 

Overview of the judicial reviews in 2018 ............................................................................... 45 

Cases pending ......................................................................................................................... 45 

New cases................................................................................................................................ 45 

Judgments rendered by the General Court (a selection) ......................................................... 45 

Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice (a selection) ....................................................... 50 

9. Activities by third countries targeting the EU .................................................................................... 55 

10. Activities in the framework of the WTO .......................................................................................... 60 

10.1. 

10.2. 

Dispute settlement in the field of trade defence ...................................................................... 60 

Other WTO activities .............................................................................................................. 62 

11. Activity of the hearing officer .......................................................................................................... 63 

LIST OF ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................. 65 

ANNEX A .............................................................................................................................................. 66 

ANNEX B .............................................................................................................................................. 67 

EN 

2 

  EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX D .............................................................................................................................................. 70 

ANNEX E .............................................................................................................................................. 71 

ANNEX F ............................................................................................................................................... 72 

ANNEX G .............................................................................................................................................. 74 

ANNEX H .............................................................................................................................................. 76 

ANNEX I ................................................................................................................................................ 77 

ANNEX J ............................................................................................................................................... 79 

ANNEX K .............................................................................................................................................. 80 

ANNEX L .............................................................................................................................................. 81 

ANNEX M ............................................................................................................................................. 82 

ANNEX N .............................................................................................................................................. 83 

ANNEX O .............................................................................................................................................. 84 

ANNEX P ............................................................................................................................................. 100 

ANNEX Q ............................................................................................................................................ 102 

ANNEX R ............................................................................................................................................ 103 

ANNEX S ............................................................................................................................................. 106 

ANNEX T ............................................................................................................................................ 109 

ANNEX U ............................................................................................................................................ 110 

EN 

3 

  EN 

 
1. 

OVERVIEW OF THE LEGISLATION 

1.1. 

Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy 

1.1.1.  The international framework 

On an international level, unfair trading practices such as dumping and the granting of 
subsidies  were  identified  as  a  threat  to  open  markets  as  early  as  1947,  when  the  first 
GATT  agreement  was  signed.  The  agreement  contained  specific  provisions  allowing 
GATT members to take action against these practices if they caused material injury to 
the  domestic  industry  of  a  GATT  member.  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  (AD)  and  anti-subsidy  (AS) 
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  anti-dumping  (AD) 
Regulation"  and  the  “basic  anti-subsidy  (AS)  Regulation”.  Both  regulations  were 

1 

2 

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) 

 EN 

4 

     EN 

 
                                                 
recently modified by Regulation (EU) 2017/2321 of 12 December 20173 and Regulation 
(EU) 2018/825 of 30 May 2018.4   

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  cannot  be 
applied if it is established that they are contrary to the overall economic 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  (although,  as  a 
result of the recent TDI modernisation, the latter rules have been further elaborated, as 
explained below). 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  worldwide 
level that applies the lesser duty rule in such a coherent and comprehensive way.  

1.2. 

Safeguards 

1.2.1.  The international framework 

The  principle  of  liberalisation  of  imports  was  set  under  the  GATT  1947  and 
strengthened  under  the  1994  WTO  Agreements.  As  safeguard  measures  consist  of  the 
unilateral withdrawal or suspension of a tariff concession or of other trade liberalisation 
obligations  formerly  agreed,  they  have  to  be  considered  as  an  exception  to  this 
principle. Article XIX GATT 1994 and the WTO Agreement on Safeguards do not only 
impose strict conditions for the application of this "escape clause”, but also put in place 
a multilateral control mechanism under the WTO Committee on Safeguards. 

Under WTO rules, safeguard action has to be viewed as a temporary defence measure 
that applies to  all imports of the product  covered by  a measure, irrespective of origin. 
As  regards  non-WTO  members,  safeguard  measures  may  be  selective  and  apply  to 
products originating in a specific country. WTO Accession Protocols may also provide 
for  such  selective  safeguard  mechanisms,  as  was  the  case  in  China's  Protocol  of 
Accession, although the provision has now expired.  

Definitive WTO safeguards should only be adopted after a comprehensive investigation 
that  provides  evidence  of  the  existence  of  a)  unforeseen  developments  leading  to  b) 
increased  imports,  c)  the  existence  of  a  serious  injury  or  a  threat  of  injury  for  EU 
producers and d) a causal link between the imports and the injury. 

3 
4 

  OJ L 338, 19.12.2017, p.1 
  OJ L 143, 07.06.2018, p.1 

 EN 

5 

     EN 

 
                                                 
1.2.2.  The EU legislation5 

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,  as  per  Article  XIX  of  GATT  1994). 
Additionally,  the  adoption  of  measures  in  the  EU  requires  an  analysis  of  all  interests 
concerned, i.e. the impact of the measures on producers, users and consumers. In other 
words, safeguard action can only be taken when it is in the EU’s interest to do so. The 
current EU safeguard instruments are covered by the following regulations: 

- Regulation  (EU) 2015/478  of the European Parliament  and of the Council of 
11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (codification),6  

- 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),7 

-  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)". 

2. 

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

The  number  of  new  investigations  initiated  in  2018  remained  similar  compared  to  the 
previous  year,  with  10  initiations  (compared  to  11  in  2017).  In  addition,  the 
Commission  reopened  three  cases  to  implement  findings  following  court  rulings  (see 
"Other  reviews").  The  number  of  measures  imposed  in  2018  somewhat  decreased  as 
compared  to  2017:  four  new  definitive  measures  (as  compared  to  12)  and  two 
provisional measures were imposed. At the same time, 8 investigations were terminated 
without  the  imposition  of  measures,  which  brought  the  total  number  of  investigations 
concluded  in  2018  to  12  (only  slightly  less  than  in  2017).  Moreover,  during  2018,  as 
many  as  21  review  investigations  were  initiated.  Among  the  latter,  there  were  17 
initiations of expiry reviews. Seven such expiry reviews have been concluded in 2018, 
all  with  a  confirmation  of  the  duty.  In  other  words,  2018  stood  again  as  a  busy  year, 
with  significant  new  casework  and  reviewing  activity.  Below  are  details  on  new 
investigations and review investigations.  

2.1.  Measures in place 

At  the  end  of  2018,  the  EU  had  in  force  93  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  (which 
were  extended8  in  27  cases)  and  12  countervailing  measures  in  force  (which  were 
extended in one case).9  

5  

6 
7 
8 

9 

 EN 

The state of play does  not take into account the  process of adoption of  the  horizontal bilateral 
safeguard regulation, which was ongoing at the moment of the preparation of this Report. 

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

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. 

6 

     EN 

 
                                                 
The anti-dumping measures  covered 67 products  and 16 countries (see Annex O);  the 
countervailing  measures  covered  12  products  and  four  countries  (see  Annex  P).  The 
large majority of measures was in the form of duties. In one case, undertakings were in 
place. 

Of all the 120 anti-dumping measures in force at the end of 2018, the countries affected 
were China (85), Russia (9), USA (4), India and Korea (three each), Belarus, Indonesia, 
Taiwan, Thailand  and Ukraine (two each),  Brazil,  Iran, Japan, Malaysia,  South  Africa 
and Turkey (one each).  

Of  the  12  anti-subsidy  measures  and  one  extension  in  place,  half  concerned  imports 
from China (6) whereas India was subject to four measures, USA to two measures and 
Turkey to one measure.  

2.2. 

New investigations 

In  the  five-year  period  from  2014  to  2018,  66  new  investigations  were  initiated  on 
imports from 22 countries. The sectors concerned by the investigations were: 'iron and 
steel'  –  32  investigations,  'chemical  and  allied  industries'  –  19  investigations,  'other 
metal products' – five investigations, the 'mechanical engineering' sector and the 'wood 
and  paper'  sector  –  one  investigation  each,  and  finally 
'other  products'  –  8  
investigations. A breakdown of the product sectors is available in Annex B(A). 

The breakdown of the countries concerned by initiations during the period from 2014 to 
2018  include  China  –  24    investigations,  Russia  –  seven,  India  and  Turkey  –  five, 
Brazil, Korea – three each, Taiwan, Ukraine and USA – two each, Argentina, Belarus, 
Bosnia  and  Herzegovina,  Egypt,  Georgia,  Indonesia,  Iran,  Japan,  North  Macedonia, 
Malaysia,  Mexico,  Serbia,  Trinidad  and  Tobago  –  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  1  below  provides  statistical  information  on  the  developments  regarding  new 
investigations for the years 2014 – 2018.  

TABLE 1 

Evolution of new anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations 
during the period 1 January 2014 - 31 December 201810 

Investigations in progress at the beginning of the 
period 

Investigations initiated during the period 

Investigations in progress during the period 

Investigations concluded : 

imposition of definitive duty or acceptance 
of undertakings 
terminations11 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

11 

20 

20 

20 

17 

16 

27 

3 

4 

14 

34 

11 

3 

15 

35 

7 

8 

11 

31 

12 

2 

10 

27 

4 

8 

- 

- 

10 

 EN 

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

7 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Total investigations concluded during the period 

Investigations in progress at the end of period 

Provisional measures imposed during the period 

7 

20 

2 

14 

20 

10 

15 

20 

9 

14 

17 

2 

12 

15 

2 

2.3. 

Review investigations 

Anti-dumping measures, including price undertakings, may be subject, under the basic 
AD  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).  The 
Commission also carries out “other” reviews consisting in re-opening of investigations 
to implement court rulings. 

Also  anti-subsidy  measures  may  be  subject,  under  the  basic  AS  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).  In  addition,  here  also,  the  Commission  can 
re-open investigations to implement court rulings. 

Reviews  continue  to  represent  a  major  part  of  the  work  of  the  Commission's  TDI 
services. In the period from 2014 to 2018, 132 such review investigations were initiated. 
Reviews represented two-thirds of all TDI investigations initiated.  

In  2018,  24  reviews  were  initiated.  These  comprised  17  expiry  reviews,  three  interim 
reviews, one anti-absorption investigation and three re-openings. 

An  overview  of  the  review  investigations  in  2018  can  be  found  in  Annexes  F  to  K. 
Table 2 below provides statistical information for the years 2014 – 2018. 

TABLE 2 
Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations 
during the period 1 January 2014 - 31 December 201812 

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 period13 

Reviews in progress at the end of the period 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

41 

22 

63 

27 

36 

36 

33 

69 

36 

33 

33 

23 

56 

27 

29 

29 

30 

59 

31 

28 

28 

24 

52 

22 

30 

11 

12 

13  

Investigations  might  be  terminated  for  reasons  such  as  the  withdrawal  of  the  complaint,  de 
minimis dumping or injury, lack of causal link etc. 
The  simultaneous  initiation  of  a  case  concerning  several  countries  but  the  same  product  is 
accounted as separate investigation/proceeding per country involved. The table has been updated 
to take into proper account the reopening of investigations. 
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 

8 

     EN 

 
 
                                                                                                                                               
3. 

OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES IN 2018 

3.1. 

New investigations 

3.1.1. 

Initiations 

In 2018, eight new anti-dumping and two new anti-subsidy investigations were initiated. 
The  anti-dumping  investigations  involved  four  different  products  from  seven  different 
countries. No country stood out  in  terms  of number of these initiations. Details  of the 
investigations  are  given  in  Annex  A.  The  anti-subsidy  investigations  both  concerned 
biodiesel-producing  countries.  Notably  also,  in  2018,  the  EU  initiated  three  safeguard 
investigations. 

The list of cases initiated in 2018 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) 

Origin 

Complainant 

Biodiesel (AS) 

Argentina 

European Biodiesel Board 

Solar Glass (AD) 

Malaysia 

EU ProSun Glass 

Hot-rolled sheet steel piles (AD) 

China 

EUROFER 

Urea and ammonium nitrate (AD) 

Trinidad and Tobago 

Fertilizers Europe 

Russia 

USA 

Russia 

Hollow sections (AD) 

North Macedonia 

Turkey 

Defence Committee of the 
welded steel tubes Industry 
of the European Union  

Biodiesel (AS) 

Indonesia 

European Biodiesel Board 

3.1.2.  Provisional measures 

In 2018, provisional duties were imposed in two anti-dumping 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 2018 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. 

 EN 

9 

     EN 

 
 
Product 

Origin 

Type14 and level of measure 

New and retreaded tyres for 
buses or lorries 

Electric bicycles 

China 

China 

AD: 52,85 – 82,17% 

AD: 21,8 – 83,6% 

3.1.3.  Definitive measures 

During 2018, definitive duties were imposed in three anti-dumping investigations and in 
one  anti-subsidy  investigation.  The  list  of  cases  where  definitive  measures  were 
imposed during 2018 can be found below, together with the measure(s) imposed. More 
information  can  be  obtained  from  the  Official  Journal  to  which  reference  is  given  in 
Annex D. 

Product 

Origin 

Type15 and level of measure 

Cast iron articles 

Corrosion resistant steels 

New and retreaded tyres for 
buses or lorries 

China 

China 

China 

AD: 15,5 – 38,1% 

AD: 17,2 – 27,9% 

AD: 0,37 – 38,98 EUR  

CVD: 3,75 – 57,28 EUR 

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

duties 

Electric bicycles from China 

On  8  September  2017,  the  Commission  received  a  complaint  lodged  by  the  European 
Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) representing more than 25% of total Union 
production  of  electric  bicycles  regarding  imports  of  electric  bikes  from  China.  The 
complaint  contained  evidence  of  dumping  and  of  resulting  material  injury  that  was 
sufficient to justify the initiation of an investigation.  

On  20  October  2017,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  investigation  in  the 
matter and, on 21 December 2017, initiated a separate anti-subsidy investigation16 (not 
covered by this description).17 The complainant also submitted a request for registration 

14 
15 
16  

17  

  AD; anti-dumping duty, CVD; countervailing duty; UT: undertaking. 

See footnote 14. 
Notice  of  initiation  of  an  anti-subsidy  proceeding  concerning  imports  of  electric  bicycles 
originating in the People's Republic of China (2017/C 440/11). 
It is to be noted that the two recent amendments of the basic Regulations, i.e. modernisation and 
the new calculation methodology, did not apply to these cases as the initiations took place before 
the entry into force of the legislative amendments. 

 EN 

10 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
 
of imports. The Commission agreed to make the product subject to registration from 4 
May 2018 onwards. 

Product definition  

During the anti-dumping investigation there were several claims regarding the scope of 
the product given that it was not clear whether the product under investigation covered 
all  types  of  cycles  or  only  bicycles.  There  were  also  claims  on  the  different  use  and 
consumer perception of electric bicycles compared to “speed” electric bicycles.  

After  examination  of  the  different  options  and  considering  all  comments,  the 
Commission stated that the product scope of the complaint covered “cycles” including 
bicycles, tricycles and quadricycles and that the intended use and consumer perception 
overlap to a significant extent, therefore not warranting a product exclusion. 

Dumping 

One  exporting  producer  requested  Market  Economy  Treatment.  The  Commission 
decided  to  reject  the  request  as  it  did  not  comply  fully  with  the  required  criteria.18  In 
fact, the company failed to demonstrate that there was no significant State interference 
in  the  company’s  business  decisions  and  that  costs  of  major  inputs  substantially 
reflected market values. 

Normal value had to be established on the basis of the price or constructed value in a 
market  economy  third  country.  The  Commission  tried  to  identify  producers  in  several 
third countries but, based on the information received, only Switzerland appeared as a 
viable analogue country. 

However,  parties  contested  the  choice.  They  argued  that  Switzerland’s  overall 
production scale is much smaller than China’s and that Swiss electric bicycles seemed 
to  be significantly different  from  Chinese ones.  Swiss  electric bicycles use a different 
technology  -  they  have  a  central  motor  whereas  Chinese  electric  bicycles  have 
predominantly hub motors. Also, Swiss manufacturers produce under their own brands 
and  import  their  parts  from  the  Union  and  Japan,  whereas  Chinese  ones  are  mainly 
original  equipment  manufacturers  (‘OEM’)  for  the  Union  importers  and  source 
domestically. Therefore, the Commission decided to construct the normal value on the 
basis of the prices actually paid or payable in the Union for the like product, due to the 
inappropriateness of Switzerland. The normal value of each product type was based on 
the actual sales price adjusted to include the target profit of the Union industry.  

Normal value was then compared to the export price for differences affecting prices and 
price comparability. The Commission adjusted the export prices using the data provided 
by  the  sampled  exporting  producers  in  their  questionnaire  replies  and  during  the 
verification  visits  on  bank  charges,  handling  and  loading  charges  in  the  exporting 
country, credit costs, and profits for traders. This resulted in dumping margins ranging 
from 34,6% to 106,4%. 

18  

For reference, Market Economy Treatment (MET) criteria are as follows: 
—  business decisions are made in response to market conditions and without significant State 
interference, and costs reflect market values,  
—  firms have one clear set of basic accounting records, which are independently audited, in line 
with international accounting standards and applied for all purposes,  
—  there are no significant distortions carried over from the former non-market economy system,  
—  legal certainty and stability is provided by bankruptcy and property laws, and  
—  currency exchanges are carried out at the market rate. 

 EN 

11 

     EN 

 
                                                 
Injury and causation 

Confronted  with  an  accelerating  flow  of  dumped  imports  from  China,  the  Union 
Industry was not able to capitalize on the growth of the electric bicycle market.  Prices 
of dumped imports undercut  the EU industry  prices during the investigation period (1 
October  2016  to  30  September  2017).  The  volume  of  imports  from  China  more  than 
tripled  and  the  pace  of  import  growth  accelerated  between  2016  and  the  investigation 
period.  Moreover,  the  share  of  the  Union  market  held  by  imports  had  increased  from 
17%  in  2014  to  35%  in  the  investigation  period.  In  fact,  between  2014  and  the 
investigation  period,  Chinese  imports  grew  by  250%,  while  the  consumption  in  the 
Union increased at a much slower pace of 74%. All this had negative consequences on 
the  situation  of  the  Union  industry.  Thus,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  Union 
industry had suffered material injury. 

Further, the Commission also analysed the effects of other factors such as the imports 
from  countries other than China, investment  and expansion of capacity,  as well as the 
export performance of the Union industry. It concluded that the causal link between the 
Chinese  dumped  imports  and  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Union  industry  could  not  be 
broken. 

Union interest and provisional measures 

The Commission concluded that the imposition of an anti-dumping duty would not be 
against  the  interest  of  the  Union  industry  and  considered  provisionally  that  the 
imposition  of  measures  would  allow  all  producers  to  operate  under  conditions  of  fair 
trade  on  the  Union  market.  In  the  absence  of  measures,  a  further  deterioration  of  the 
Union industry's economic and financial situation was very likely to take place.  

The  Collective  of  European  Importers  of  Electric  Bicycles  disagreed  with  the 
imposition  of  anti-dumping  measures.  They  argued  that  the  imposition  of  duties  was 
likely  to  disrupt,  at  least  temporarily,  their  supply  chains  and  threaten  their  financial 
position if they were not able to pass on the increased costs related to the duty to their 
customers.  However,  import  statistics  showed  that  Vietnam  and  Taiwan  provided 
significant  volumes  of  electric  bicycles  to  European  importers.  It  was  also  likely  that 
other  countries,  which  are  well  positioned  in  the  manufacturing  of  conventional 
bicycles, could supply importers. 

The  Commission  also  considered  that  the  imposition  of  duties  on  imports  of 
conventional bicycles from China did not have the effect of closing the Union market to 
imports and, on the contrary, expanded the number of countries supplying conventional 
bicycles.  

Therefore,  the  Commission  found  no  compelling  reason  that  it  was  not  in  the  Union 
interest  to  impose  provisional  measures.  To  determine  the  level  of  the  measures,  the 
Commission  first  established  the  amount  of  duty  necessary  to  eliminate  the  injury 
suffered  by  the  Union  industry.  The  Commission  established  that  the  injury  would  be 
eliminated if the Union industry were able to cover the costs of production and to obtain 
a profit before tax on sales that could be reasonably achieved under normal conditions 
of competition if there were no dumped imports. The target profit was provisionally set 
at  4,3%,  which  is  the  highest  average  profit  margin  of  the  Union  industry  during  the 
period  considered.  The  injury  margins  established  ranged  between  21,8%  and  83,6%. 
On  this  basis,  the  Commission  decided  to  impose  a  provisional  anti-dumping  duty  in 
accordance with the lesser duty rule, ranging between 21,8% and 83,6%.  

 EN 

12 

     EN 

 
On  17  January  2019,  the  Commission  adopted  a  Regulation  imposing  definitive 
measures  on  electric  bicycles.  The  injury  margins  were  modified  on  the  basis  of  data 
provided  by  the  interested  parties.  The  adjustment  took  into  account  certain  costs  for 
R&D  and  design  incurred  by  the  sampled  Union  producers.  Subsequently,  the  injury 
margins were established between 18,8% and 79,3%. 

On 17 January 2019, the Commission also imposed countervailing duties on the same 
product in the range of 3,9% - 17,2%, as a result of a parallel anti-subsidy investigation.  

The definitive injury elimination level was reduced by the amount of the countervailing 
duties,  in  order  to  avoid  double-counting.  On  this  basis,  the  final  anti-dumping  duties 
were ultimately imposed in the range of 10,3% - 70,1%. 

Corrosion resistant steels from China 

On  7  February  2018,  the  Commission  imposed  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on 
imports  of  certain  corrosion  resistant  steels  originating  in  China.19  This  followed  an 
investigation that had been opened in December 2016, further to a complaint from the 
European Steel Association (EUROFER) on behalf of producers representing more than 
53% of total production. Provisional measures were imposed in August 2017.20 

Dumping 

The Commission sampled exporting producers based on the largest volume of exports to 
the  EU.  The  Commission  did  not  receive  any  comments  on  the  selected  sample  even 
though all parties and the authorities of the country concerned had been consulted. 

Three  groups  of  exporting  producers  asked  for  individual  treatment.  The  companies 
concerned  argued  that  they  were  the  only  Chinese  exporting  producers  supplying  the 
Union. However, the Commission decided that no individual treatment could be granted 
as  the  number  of  entities  to  be  additionally  investigated  and  the  number  of  different 
locations to be visited for the verification would have prevented the investigation from 
being completed on time.21 

In  addition,  two  groups  of  non-sampled  cooperating  producers  submitted  Market 
Economy Treatment (MET) claims22 with their request for individual treatment. Given 
that  the  claims  for  individual  treatment  were  rejected,  the  MET  requests  were  not 
assessed. 

Normal value  

The  normal  value  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  data  obtained  from  a  producer  in  a 
market-economy  third  country.  Interested  parties  contested  the  Commission’s  first 
choice  of  Canada  because  of  the  alleged  price  difference  of  the  like  product  and  the 
relationship between a possible cooperating producer and one of the complainants. The 
Commission then selected Brazil as the analogue country.  

19  

20  

21  
22  

Commission Implementing  Regulation (EU) 2018/186 of 7 February 2018, OJ L 34, 8.2.2018, 
p.16 
It is to be noted that the two recent amendments of the basic Regulations, i.e. modernisation and 
the new calculation methodology, did not apply to these cases as the initiations took place before 
the entry into force of the legislative amendments. 
See Article 17(3) of the basic AD Regulation 
For reference, see footnote 18. 

 EN 

13 

     EN 

 
                                                 
The choice was again contested by an exporting producer and the China Iron and Steel 
Association  (CISA),  which  argued  that  the  normal  value  in  the  analogue  country  was 
21% higher than the target price for the Union industry and that the average sale price of 
the  analogue  country  producer  was  higher  than  the  (already  high)  prices  in  Brazil.  It 
also raised doubts about the calculation used by the Commission. 

The  Commission  responded  that  in  case  exported  products  could  not  be  directly 
matched with Brazilian normal values, the normal value was adjusted to take account of 
all  physical  differences.  As  for  the  quality  of  data  and  calculations,  the  data  of  the 
analogue  country  producer  were  verified  for  accuracy  and  found  reliable  and  all  the 
calculations were factually correct. 

Injury and causation 

The  Union  industry  was  in  a  vulnerable  situation  during  the  period  considered.  Even 
though the Union consumption grew by around 27% during the period, the sales volume 
of the Union industry on the Union market increased by only 5% and the Union industry 
lost  17%  of  market  share.  By  contrast,  the  market  share  of  the  imports  from  China 
increased during the period by 93%.  

Imports from China increased by 146% over the period of analysis. Their prices per ton 
fell  by  22%,  exceeding  the  decrease  in  raw  material  prices  of  20%.  In  addition,  these 
imports significantly undercut EU industry prices, by 17% to 28%.  

Moreover,  the  industry  suffered  losses  throughout  the  period  considered  (despite  a 
minor improvement over that period). 

Consequently, the Commission concluded that the material injury to the Union industry 
was caused by the dumped imports and that the other factors, such as imports from third 
countries  or  export  sales  performance  of  EU  producers,  did  not  break  the  causal  link 
between the Union material injury and the dumped imports, even if its effects were to be 
considered in a combined manner. 

Registration 

Imports  of  the  products  concerned  were  subject  to  registration  from  July  to  August 
2017, when the provisional measures were imposed, with a view to possible collection 
of duties. However, the Commission found that a retroactive duty recollection was not 
necessary. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

It was concluded that the imposition of measures would contribute to the recovery of the 
Union industry by allowing price increases that would enable the industry to return to a 
profitable  situation.  Also,  the  investigation  did  not  show  that  the  potential  impact  on 
other  actors  would  outweigh  the  benefits  to  the  EU  industry.  Thus,  it  was  considered 
that the measures would lead to a level playing field, still allowing for imports from the 
country  concerned,  at  fair  prices.  Given  the  findings,  the  Commission  imposed  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  ranging  between  17,2%  and  27,9%,  depending  on  the 
exporting company. 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries from China 

In August 2017, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation on imports of 
certain pneumatic tyres, new or retreaded, of rubber, used for buses or lorries imported 
from China. This followed a complaint lodged by a coalition against unfair tyre imports, 

 EN 

14 

     EN 

 
on  behalf  of  producers  representing  more  than  45%  of  the  total  EU  production.  On  7 
May 2018, the Commission imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of the 
products  concerned.23  In  October  2017,  the  Commission  also  initiated  a  separate  anti-
subsidy investigation on the product.24 

Product definition 

The tyre market is segmented in three tiers. Tier 1 tyres cover premium new tyres with 
the flagship brand of main manufacturers. Brand recognition is a key factor for tyres in 
this tier and justifies significantly higher prices for expected high performance as well 
as particularly strong marketing investments. The quality of tier 1 tyres ensures a high 
level  of  retreadability  of  the  tyres,  which  are  designed  to  be  ‘multi-life’  tyres  further 
increasing the significantly higher mileage of the original product. 

Tier 2 tyres  cover most  non-premium  tyres, both new and  retreaded tyres, with  prices 
ranging  between  approximately  65%  and  80%  of  the  price  of  tier  1  tyres.  Retreaded 
tyres can be classified under tier 2 or tier 3. While some Chinese tyres are retreadable, 
there  is  very  little  retreading  performed  in  China.  Retreading  is,  however,  quite 
widespread in the Union and in other markets.  

Following  further  product  analysis  and  after  consulting  all  interested  parties,  the 
Commission  determined  that  main  EU  producers  focused  on  the  so-called  'tier  1'  and 
'tier 2' tyres. These products are, however, often hard to distinguish from 'tier 3' tyres - 
new  and  retreaded  tyres  with  lower  mileage  performances  and  very  limited 
retreadability, which are also cheaper than 'tier 1' and 'tier 2' tyres. 

Dumping 

Market Economy Treatment (MET) claims were introduced by two exporting producers 
out  of  the  four  that  were  sampled.  However,  the  Commission  found  that  none  of  the 
exporters  fulfilled  the  MET  criteria,25  and  so  the  status  could  not  be  granted.  More 
specifically,  both  failed  to  demonstrate  that  they  had  one  set  of  clear  independently 
audited  accounts  and  that  their  operations  were  not  subject  to  significant  market 
distortions. Additionally, one of them failed to  demonstrate that its business  decisions 
were  made  without  significant  State  interference  and  that  costs  of  major  inputs 
substantially reflect market values. 

The  normal  value  of  the  exports  was  based  on  data  obtained  from  a  producer  in  a 
market-economy  third  country.  The  Commission  concluded  that  the  most  appropriate 
analogue  country  in  this  case  was  Brazil,  given  that  its  volumes  were  substantially 
representative, it had similar conditions of access to raw materials and both China and 
Brazil  were  comparable  in  terms  of  economic  development.  Normal  value  was  then 
compared to the export price. All sampled exporting producers claimed that the method 
for  constructing  the  normal  value,  which  the  Commission  applied  at  the  provisional 
stage resulted in extraordinarily high dumping margins and produced results that did not 
appear  to  correspond  to  reality:  the  normal  value  was  not  inferior  for  tiers  2  and  3, 
although in reality the former tyres are always cheaper. The exporting producers urged 
the  Commission  to  adjust  the  normal  value,  which  the  Commission  accepted.  The 

23  
24  

25  

Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/683 of 4 May 2018, OJ L 116, 7.5.2018, p.8 
It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  two  recent  amendments  to  the  basic  Regulations,  namely  the 
modernisation of trade defence instruments and the new calculation methodology, did not apply 
to  these  cases  as  the  initiations  took  place  before  the  entry  into  force  of  the  legislative 
amendments. 
For reference, see footnote 18. 

 EN 

15 

     EN 

 
                                                 
Commission  finally  constructed  the  normal  value  for  the  non-matching  product  types 
taking into account the differences identified in the costs of manufacturing between the 
three tiers.  

Injury and causation 

The exporting producers sampled were mapped out according to tiers, which resulted in 
several  asking  the  Commission  to  move  them  from  the  ‘tier  3’  allocation  to  ‘tier  2’. 
After analysis, the Commission agreed to two of those requests. 

Prices of dumped imports from China significantly undercut EU industry prices during 
the investigation period and injury indicators showed that the industry had been under 
increasing  pressure.  In  fact,  it  experienced  a  reduction  of  production  capacity, 
investment  and  employment,  as  well  as  a  significant  loss  of  market  share  (the  import 
volumes from China increased significantly resulting in an increase of the market share 
of Chinese imports, in a growing market, from 17,1% to 21,3%). This was of particular 
concern for 'tier 3' tyres, where Chinese imports were mainly focused, forcing many EU 
producers in that tier, especially SMEs, to exit the market.  

Thus,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  material  injury  to  the  Union  industry  was 
caused  by  the  dumped  imports  and  that  the  other  factors,  such  as  imports  from  third 
countries or the interconnection between the new and retreaded tyres, did not break the 
causal link between the Union material injury and the dumped imports. 

Union interest  

It  was  determined  that  the  imposition  of  the  anti-dumping  measures  on  the  EU 
producers would be positive for the Union industry, especially for SMEs. They would 
be  able  to  benefit  from  the  growing  consumption  in  a  market  governed  by  fair 
conditions. EU producers would be able to increase their sales and regain a part of the 
market  share  lost.  This  would  in  turn  increase  the  EU  production  and  the  capacity 
utilisation rate. 

In  fair  market  conditions,  the  EU  industry  would  be  able  to  improve  their  financial 
situation. Furthermore, the available capacity in the EU industry and imports from other 
countries would provide alternative offers of supply.  

Given  the  interconnection  between  the  retreading  business  and  the  production  of 
retreadable  tyres,  the  proposed  measures  would  also  improve  the  viability  of  the 
retreading segment. This would bring relief in terms of employment, in particular since 
the retreading segment of the tyre, located throughout the EU, is labour-intensive.  

The  situation  of  importers  was  also  analysed.  The  Chinese  imports  of  the  product 
concerned  represented  a  significant  share  of  their  turnover  in  the  investigation  period. 
Their  business  model  is  mainly  based  on  contracts  with  Chinese  exporting  producers, 
although  they  also  have  alternative  sources  (either  domestically  or  from  other  third 
countries).  Therefore,  the  imposition  of  measures  would  have  an  impact  on  their 
activity.  In  addition,  another  business  model  was  found  to  rely  on  a  ‘container-only 
trading  strategy’.  In  this  case,  importers  have  more  flexibility  to  change  sources  of 
supply.  This  method  was  used  by  some  non-sampled  companies,  which  only 
represented  2%  of  the  total  Chinese  imports.  However,  their  low  level  of  cooperation 
suggested  that  the  imposition  of  measures  would  not  have  any  significant  impact  on 
their activity. 

Moreover,  it  is  a  long-standing  Union  policy  to  reduce  waste  and  to  manage  raw 
materials in a sustainable way. Retreading is crucial for a sustainable circular economy. 

 EN 

16 

     EN 

 
In  fact,  several  interested  parties  underlined  that  premium  tyre  manufacturers  produce 
new  high  quality  tyres  designed  to  have  a  long  life  cycle  as  they  can  be  retreaded. 
Without the retreading business, competition in the tyre industry will end up in a race to 
the  bottom,  resulting  in  industrial  depletion,  loss  of  value  through  the  supply  chain 
while minimising the quality of the offer in the Union. Accordingly, measures that also 
protect high quality tyre producers in the Union, as opposed to single-use tyres, would 
also foster policy coherence with the Union objectives on waste reduction and circular 
economy, as they would support the continued existence of a viable retreading business 
in  the  Union.  Moreover,  given  that  mostly  SMEs  are  active  in  this  sector,  measures 
would also be in line with the Commission's objective to support SMEs. 

On  this  basis,  the  Commission  concluded  that  measures  would  not  be  against  EU 
interest.  

Registration 

Imports  of  these  products  were  subject  to  registration  from  February  until  May  2018, 
when  the  provisional  measures  were  imposed,  with  a  view  to  possible  collection  of 
duties from the imports taking place during those months. However, no significant rise 
in imports was observed during that time if compared to the flow observed during the 
investigated  period.  Therefore,  the  Commission  concluded  that  duties  would  not  be 
collected retroactively. 

Definitive measures 

Given  the  findings,  the  Commission  imposed  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  ranging 
between 42,73 and 61,76 EUR per item.26 Subsequently, definitive countervailing duties 
were imposed on 9 November 2018.27  In order to  avoid  any double counting with  the 
imposition of both anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures, the anti-dumping measures 
were  adjusted  by  the  regulation  imposing  the  anti-subsidy  measures,28  with  final  anti-
dumping duties ranging ultimately from 0,37 to 38,98 EUR per item, depending on the 
exporting company. 

3.1.5. 

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 2018, eight 
new  proceedings  (all  were  anti-dumping  investigations)  were  terminated  without 
measures, as compared to two in 2017. 

The list of cases which were terminated without the imposition of measures during 2018 
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. 

26  

27  

28  

Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1579  of  18  October  2018,  OJ  L  263, 
22.10.2018, p.3 
Commission  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2018/1690  of  9  November  2018,  OJ  L  283, 
12.11.2018, p.1 
Ibid. 

 EN 

17 

     EN 

 
 
                                                 
Product 

(Type of investigation: AD or AS) 

Origin 

Main reason for termination 

Cast iron articles (AD) 

India 

No dumping was established 

Ferro-silicon (AD) 

Low carbon ferrochrome 

Silicon metal 

Egypt 

Ukraine 

China 

Russia 

Turkey 

Bosnia and 
Herzegovina 

Brazil 

Withdrawal of the complaint 

Withdrawal of the complaint 

Withdrawal of the complaint 

3.1.6.  Details on some individual cases of termination without measures 

Low-carbon ferrochrome from China, Russia and Turkey 

On  23  June  2017,  the  European  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  investigation 
with  regard  to  imports  of  low-carbon  ferrochrome  originating  in  China,  Russia  and 
Turkey,  following  a  complaint  lodged  by  the  Association  of  European  Ferro-alloy 
Producers  (“Euroalliages’’)  on  behalf  of  the  sole  Union  producer  of  low-carbon 
ferrochrome in the Union, Elektrowerk Weisweiler GmbH.  

Dumping 

The Commission verified all the information obtained by means of questionnaires and 
carried out verification visits to the premises of the Union producer, the users and the 
importer form a third country (Turkey). 

Injury and Union interest 

The  Commission  assessed  the  information  provided  for  a  determination  of  dumping, 
resulting injury and Union interest. 

After all the findings were duly processed and analysed, the Commission decided not to 
impose  provisional  measures  due  to  lack  of  clarity  regarding  the  scope  of  the  product 
but also to continue the investigation. 

Termination 

On  22  May  2018,  the  complainant  notified  the  Commission  that  it  would  like  to 
withdraw  its  request.29  Since  the  complainant  was  the  only  Union  producer,  no 
opposition  was  raised.  The  Commission  also  found  that  termination  would  not  be 

29  

In accordance with Article 9(1) of the basic Regulation, proceedings may be terminated where 
the complaint is withdrawn, unless such termination would not be in the Union interest. 

 EN 

18 

     EN 

 
 
                                                 
against the Union interest. Therefore, the Commission decided to terminate proceedings 
without the imposition of measures. 

3.2. 

Review investigations 

3.2.1.  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  2018,  two  anti-dumping  measures  and 
automatically. Two of these measures concern solar panels (see section 3.2.3). 

two  anti-subsidy  measures  expired 

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 
512 measures have expired automatically. 

3.2.1.1.  Initiations 

During  2018,  15  expiry  reviews  of  anti-dumping  measures  and  two  concerning  anti-
subsidy measures were initiated. The list of the expiry reviews initiated in 2018 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) 

Tube and pipe fittings (AD) 

Origin 

Turkey 

Russia 

Rep. of 
Korea 

Malaysia  

Complainant 

Defence Committee of the Steel Butt-
Welding Fittings Industry 

Bioethanol (AD) 

USA 

European Renewable Ethanol Association 
(e-PURE) 

Aluminium Foil in small rolls (AD) 

China 

ALEURO Converting Sp. z o.o. 

CeDo Sp. z o.o. 

Cuki Cofresco SpA 

Fora Folienfabrik GmbH 

ITS BV 

Rul-Let A/S 

SPHERE SA 

Wrapex Ltd 

 EN 

19 

     EN 

 
Organic coated steel products (AD) 

China 

Organic coated steel products (AS) 

China 

EUROFER 

EUROFER 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of 
malleable cast iron (AD) 

China 

Thailand 

ATUSA - Berg Montana Fittings A.D 

Georg Fischer Fittings GmbH 

Odlewnia Zeliwa S.A.  

Livarna Titan d.o.o 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 
(AD) 

China 

FEPF – European Federation for Table-
and Ornamentalware 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (AS) 

India 

Committee of PET Manufacturers in 
Europe (C.P.M.E. aisbl) 

Tungsten electrodes (AD) 

China 

Two Union producers 

Bicycles (AD) 

China 

European Bicycle Manufacturers 
Association (‘EBMA’) 

Colombo New Scal SpA 

Ironing boards (AD) 

China 

Rörets Polska Sp. z o.o.  

Vale Mill (Rochdale) Ltd 

Sweetcorn in kernels (AD) 

Thailand 

Association Européenne des 
Transformateurs de Maïs Doux (AETMD) 

Peroxosulphates (AD) 

China 

RheinPerChemie GmbH  

United Initiators GmbH 

3.2.1.2.  Expiry reviews concluded with confirmation of duties 

During  2018,  7  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 2018, 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 

Origin 

Type30 and level of measure 

Steel ropes and cables  

China 

Tartaric acid  

China 

Confirmation of duty (AD) 

Duty rate: 60,4% 

Confirmation of duty (AD) 

Duty rates: 8,3% – 34,9% 

30 

  AD: anti-dumping duty; CVD: countervailing duty; UT: undertaking. 

 EN 

20 

     EN 

 
 
                                                 
Oxalic acid 

China 

India 

Seamless pipes and tubes of 
iron or steel  

Russia 

Ukraine 

Level arch mechanisms 

China 

Confirmation of duty (AD) 

Duty rates:  

14,6% – 52,2% (China)  

22.8% – 43.6% (India) 

Confirmation of duty (AD) 

Duty rates:  

24,1% –  35,8% (Russia)  

12,3% – 25,7% (Ukraine) 

Confirmation of duty (AD) 

Duty rates: 27,1% – 47,4% 

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

Steel ropes and cables from China  

On  6  November  2016,  the  Commission  received  a  request  for  review  on  the  grounds 
that the expiry measures for steel ropes and cables from China would result in a likely 
continuation  of  dumping  and  recurrence  of  injury.  This  request  was  lodged  by  the 
Liaison  Committee  of  EU  Wire  Rope  Industries  on  behalf  of  producers  representing 
more than 25% of the total EU production of steel ropes and cables. 

The measures at issue in the review request had been extended to imports of steel ropes 
and  cables  consigned  from  Morocco  and  the  Republic  of  Korea,  whether  declared  as 
originating in those countries or not following an anti-circumvention investigation. 

The  Commission  decided  to  initiate  an  expiry  review  after  establishing  that  there  was 
enough evidence in the request.  

Analogue country selection 

In  the  context  of  selecting  an  analogue  country,  two  producers  from  market  economy 
third countries replied to the questionnaires, one located in Turkey and one in the US. 

Even  though  Turkey  had  been  preliminarily  envisaged  as  an  analogue  country,  the 
Commission finally decided to select the US as the quality of the information provided 
by the American producer was more comprehensive to establish a reliable normal value.  

Sampling 

The  Commission  received  only  one  reply  from  an  exporting  producer  out  of  21 
contacted in China. Dumping was established based on information provided by the sole 
cooperating exporting producer. This producer accounted for 100% of the total exports 
to  the  EU  but  only  1,3%  of  the  total  estimated  production  of  China  during  the 
investigating period.  

The  Commission  also  sampled  six  Union  producers,  which  represented  50,5%  of  the 
total  Union  industry’s  production  during  the  review  investigation  period.  The 
Commission  analysed  the  information  provided  and  conducted  verification  visits  to 

 EN 

21 

     EN 

 
companies premises so as to determine the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping and injury, as well as the Union interest. 

Likely continuation of injury and recurrence of dumping 

Following the application of the initial anti-dumping duties, the EU industry continued 
to recover from the effects of dumping. If the measures were allowed to lapse and the 
Chinese  exporting  producers  maintained  their  export  prices  at  a  similar  level,  the 
Commission established that the undercutting margin would amount to 36,3%. Despite 
the effectiveness of the measures, the Chinese products remained present on the Union 
market keeping a market share of 1,2% during the review investigation period.  

The investigation also found that Chinese exporting producers achieved higher prices in 
the  Union  market  than  in  other  third  countries.  Therefore,  it  was  concluded  that  the 
exporting  producers  in  China  have  the  potential  and  incentive  to  raise  the  volume  of 
exports  to  the  EU  at  dumped  prices,  which  would  undercut  the  prices  offered  by  the 
Union industry in case the measures lapsed. 

In  addition,  if  the  Union  industry  were  to  lower  prices  to  compete  with  imports  from 
China, the industry’s profits would decline and many companies would have gone out 
of  business,  with  a  significant  consequent  impact  on  employment.  Indeed,  further 
deterioration of the Union industry's situation might even cause the shutdown of whole 
producing units. Thus, it was concluded that the already negative situation of the Union 
industry would be likely to further deteriorate.  

Despite its recovery, the Union industry had to face lower demand for bulk commodities 
and reductions in the oil price, which led to reduced activity in the sectors of mining, oil 
and  gas.  Thus,  the  demand  for  the  products  concerned  reduced,  which  resulted  in  a 
decrease  in  production  and  sales  volume.  Therefore,  almost  all  the  injury  indicators 
deteriorated.  On  that  basis,  it  was  concluded  that  the  Union  industry  has  suffered 
material injury although it had benefitted from the original measures, as it continued to 
recover from  the effect  of past  injurious  dumping for the  first  two  years  of the period 
considered  (2013-2014).  However,  the  recovery  process  stalled  due  to  the  reasons 
mentioned above. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

The  Commission  analysed  all  the  interests  at  stake,  including  those  of  the  Union 
industry, importers and users. The investigation found that should the measures expire, 
this  would  likely  have  a  significant  negative  effect  on  the  Union  industry  and  that  its 
currently  fragile  financial  situation  would  deteriorate  further.  As  for  the  interest  of 
importers,  no  comments  were  received  but  a  prior  investigation  had  shown  that  the 
impact  of  continuing  the  measures  would  not  be  significant.  Users  did  not  manifest 
much  interest  and  those  that  made  themselves  known  stated  that  their  use  of  the 
concerned product was marginal.  

The Commission  therefore concluded that it was in  the Union interest  to  maintain the 
measures,  which  were  extended  for  five  years.  The  definitive  anti-dumping  duty 
imposed  in  the  case  of  China  was  also  extended  to  imports  of  the  same  products 
consigned from Morocco and the Republic of Korea, whether declared as originating in 
those countries or not. 

3.2.1.4.  Reviews concluded by termination 

In 2018, no expiry review was concluded by the termination of measures in force.  

 EN 

22 

     EN 

 
3.2.2. 

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  2018,  three  interim  reviews  were  initiated  (two  anti-dumping  and  one  anti-
subsidy). Six interim reviews were concluded during the same period - four confirming 
the duties unchanged and two amending the duties. The details of the cases can be found 
below.  More  information  can  be  obtained  from  the  Official  Journal  publications  to 
which reference is given in Annex G. 

Product 

Origin 

Result of investigation 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings,  

China 

of malleable cast iron 

Thailand 

Rainbow trout 

Turkey 

Ammonium nitrate (dumping) 

Russia 

Withdrawal of the request  

The changes presented by the 
applicant could not be 
considered of lasting nature 

The changes presented by the 
applicant could not be 
considered of lasting nature 

Ammonium nitrate (injury) 

Russia 

Amendment of duty 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

India 

Amendment of duty 

3.2.2.1.  Details on individual cases 

Ammonium nitrate from Russia 

The  Commission  received  a  request  for  a  partial  interim  review  from  eight  European 
farmers  associations  limited  in  scope  to  the  examination  of  injury  on  anti-dumping 
measures  on  ammonium  nitrate  originating  in  Russia.  The  applicants  argued  that  they 
were suffering from the anti-dumping measures that have been in place on the product 
concerned for more than 20 years. On 17 August 2018, the Commission announced the 
initiation of a partial interim review limited in scope to the examination of injury. That 
same  day,  the  Commission  also  announced  the  initiation  of  another  partial  interim 
review  of  the  measures  applicable  to  the  product  concerned  originating  in  Russia  but 
limited to the examination of dumping of Acron (the applicant of this second review). 

Product scope 

Originally,  the  product  concerned  was  defined  as  ammonium  nitrate  but  was 
subsequently  re-defined  to  solid  fertilizers  with  specified  ammonium  nitrate  content. 

 EN 

23 

     EN 

 
 
This  clarification  aimed  to  cover  also  ammonium  nitrate  to  which  phosphorus  and/or 
potassium  nutrients  (so-called  ‘dirty’  or  ‘stabilized’  ammonium  nitrate)  were  added. 
The main raw material used in its production is  natural  gas, representing over 60% of 
the total cost of production. 

Partial interim review limited to dumping 

In that review, the Commission found that domestic gas prices in Russia are regulated 
by the State via federal laws and do not reflect normal market conditions, where prices 
are  principally  set  by  production  costs  and  profit  expectations.  Therefore,  the 
Commission considered that the circumstances regarding the gas market in Russia had 
not changed and, as a result, a modification of the measures was not warranted. 

During  the  review  request,  Acron  also  argued,  among  others,  that  the  last  time  the 
dumping margins were set was in 2008 (before Russia’s accession to the World Trade 
Organisation  (WTO)).  When  Russia  joined  the  WTO  in  2012,  it  committed  to  ensure 
that  producers/distributors  of  natural  gas  would  operate  within  the  relevant  regulatory 
framework on the basis of normal commercial considerations, the result of which was a 
regular gas price increase. In that respect, Acron argued that no WTO dispute settlement 
cases have been launched putting into question the fulfillment of those commitments.     

In  response,  the  Commission  stated  that  it  was  not  taking  any  position  with  regard  to 
Russia’s  WTO  commitments  since  this  was  not  within  the  scope  of  the  investigation. 
The  objective  was  rather  to  determine  whether  there  was  a  lasting  change  of 
circumstances  that  would  warrant  the  recalculation  of  the  anti-dumping  duty.  In  this 
regard, the Commission found that Russian gas prices were still distorted, and that the 
absence  of  cases  against  Russia  concerning  a  breach  of  its  WTO  commitments  or  the 
fact  that  Russian  gas  prices  have  been  gradually  increasing  on  the  domestic  market 
cannot  automatically  lead  to  conclude  there  were  no  price  distortions.  Therefore,  the 
arguments presented by Acron were not considered as changes of a lasting nature. 

The  applicant  submitted  a  duly  signed  voluntary  undertaking  offer.  The  Commission 
analysed the undertaking offer and considered that its acceptance would be impractical. 
The company had two related companies in  two Member States and one of them sold 
the  like  product  to  the  Union  market.  The  applicant  also  sold  directly  the  Russian 
product  to  Union  customers.  If  both  would  sell  the  product  concerned  to  the  same 
customers, the prices could be set in a way to compensate for the minimum import price 
subject to the undertaking, which would be very difficult to monitor. Consequently, on 
12  November  2018,  the  Commission  terminated  the  partial  interim  review  without 
changing  the  dumping  margin  for  Acron  or  accepting  an  undertaking  from  that 
company. 

Partial interim review limited to injury 

In  that  review,  the  Commission  proceeded  again  first  to  assess  whether  any  changes 
occurred in the circumstances which lead to the application of the current measures, and 
if  so,  whether  these  changes  were  to  last.  The  Commission  notably  analysed  the 
evolution of world markets and global changes for the concerned product. 

The Commission noted that Russian consumption of ammonium nitrate had more than 
tripled  and  the  demand  of  third  countries  had  also  increased.  Meanwhile,  the  Union’s 
agricultural  consumption  had  decreased  slightly  and  was  expected  to  remain  stable  in 
the future. Thus, the EU market has become less attractive for Russian producers. 

 EN 

24 

     EN 

 
Further, the situation in the US gas market had also changed. US shale gas production 
has  increased  steeply  since  2000  and  it  was  even  expected  to  increase  further  in  the 
future. The shale  gas boom  has led and still leads to  the development  of  capacities of 
US producers' nitrogen fertilizers. 

Changes had also been taking place in the Union industry in the recent years. The level 
of  concentration  had  increased  through  mergers  and  acquisitions  and  the  applicant 
argued that the Union industry was capable of competing with Russian imports due to 
greater  efficiencies  gained  from  investments  and  restructuring.  The  situation  was 
different from that of previous reviews where many small and medium size companies 
operated  independently.  However,  despite  the  restructuring,  there  was  still  a  healthy 
competition  on  the  Union  market  with  10  companies  competing  with  each  other,  and 
none of them had a market share of more than 20%. 

The  Commission  concluded  that  these  global  changes  and  the  Union  industry’s 
restructuring  are  of  a  lasting  nature  and  can  impact  the  injury  situation,  including  the 
likelihood of recurrence of injury. 

Further,  the  Commission  also  assessed  data  on  the  economic  situation  of  the  Union 
industry. It concluded that the economic situation overall was non-injurious, although a 
number of injury indicators showed that the financial performance and economic state 
of the industry followed a negative trend, related notably to the decrease in prices.  

The  Commission  also  used  verified  data  from  the  cooperating  companies  and  other 
Russian exporters in order to assess capacity and spare capacity in Russia. It concluded 
that significant volumes could still be exported and have a particularly strong effect on 
some  neighbouring  regions.  Besides,  Fertilizers  Europe  argued  that  Russian  capacity 
might be extended in view of the Russian plan on fertilizers of March 2018. 

In  terms  of  market  for  the  products  concerned,  the  domestic  market  was  the  main 
market  for  Russian  producers.  However,  the  Union  market  was  found  to  also  remain 
attractive for the latter. Prices in certain third countries were less appealing than Union 
prices,  even  though  for  some  countries  the  opposite  situation  also  applied.  The 
Commission thus concluded that some Russian volumes might be redirected from less 
attractive  third  markets  to  the  Union  market  if  measures  lapsed,  given  its  size, 
geographic proximity and prices, with subsequent injurious effects for the EU industry. 

The  Commission  also  made  a  prospective  analysis  of  the  evolution  of  Russian  export 
prices. It found that the product concerned would likely be sold on the Union market at 
a  price  below  the  weighted  average  sales  price  of  the  Union  producers  charged  to 
unrelated customers on the Union market. 

Based on the totality of evidence on the file, the Commission concluded that there was a 
likelihood that Russian producers could  use their available spare capacity  to  export to 
the Union should the measures be terminated. It was also likely that some volumes that 
were at the time exported to third countries would be re-directed to the EU, given the 
relative  attractiveness  of  the  Union  market  and  its  proximity  to  Russia.  As  the  Union 
industry  was  in  a  less  prosperous  state  compared  to  the  last  expiry  review,  such 
increased  volumes  could  cause  injury  to  recur.  The  likely  future  evolution  of  Russian 
export prices was also a clear indication that injury could recur quickly. Therefore, the 
Commission  concluded  that  there  was  a  likelihood  of  recurrence  of  injury  should  the 
measures be removed. 

 EN 

25 

     EN 

 
In  response  to  the  disclosure  of  the  findings,  COPA-COGECA,  representing  Union 
farmers and cooperatives, sent submissions and called for the anti-dumping measures to 
be terminated. COPA-COGECA claimed that the anti-dumping measures damaged the 
competitiveness  of  Union  agricultural  exports  and  family  farm  incomes.  COPA-
COGECA  argued  that  by  organizing  themselves  in  cooperatives  they  would  benefit 
from  increased  competition  from  Russian  exporting  producers,  lowering  farmers’ 
production costs. However, the Commission noted, as in previous expiry reviews, that 
farmers  might  not  benefit  from  a  potential  price  decrease  following  a  potential 
termination  of  the  measures  since  farmers  usually  buy  from  distributors  who  may  not 
pass  on  any  of  the  benefits.  The  Commission  also  noted  that  the  cost  of  ammonium 
nitrate  for  farmers  in  the  entire  Union  was  not  disproportionally  high.  Therefore,  the 
Commission  concluded  that  the  termination  of  the  measures  was  not  justified  on  this 
basis. 

Amendment of the measures 

After  an  assessment  of  the  evidence  and  the  submissions  provided  by  the  parties,  the 
Commission used an 8% profit margin for the injury calculation, which was in line with 
previous investigations concerning ammonium nitrate. The Union industry submitted a 
study that substantiated a 36% return on sales (ROS) target profit. Two Union producers 
reiterated the same claim and submitted that the Union industry had in the past achieved 
a two-digit profitability, which would justify a higher target. However, the Commission 
noted  that  profitability  had  fluctuated  when  measures  were  in  place,  both  above  and 
below the target profit. Thus, it concluded that the 8% target profit was still valid, and 
has set the new duty levels accordingly, differentiating the latter by product types. The 
amended  anti-dumping  measures  were  fixed  between  28.78  and  32.71  EUR  per  ton. 
These findings were published on 14 November 2018, 

Rainbow trout from Turkey  

On  26  February  2015,  following  an  anti-subsidy  investigation  that  related  to  the  year 
2013, the European Commission imposed definitive countervailing duties on imports of 
certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey.31 In July 2017, the Commission initiated a 
partial  interim  review  of  these  measures,32  following  a  request  from  the  Aegean 
Exporters  Association  (‘the  applicant’).  The  request  was  supported  by  evidence  that  a 
change  in  the  implementation  of  the  direct  production  subsidies  introduced  in  2016 
resulted in a substantial decrease of the level of subsidies to trout producers in Turkey. 
The  applicant  also  argued  that  the  change  in  the  subsidy  schemes  was  of  a  lasting 
nature.  Therefore,  the  applicant  claimed  that  the  countervailing  measures  were  no 
longer necessary and that they should be reviewed.  

Procedure 

In  view  of  the  large  number  of  exporting  producers,  the  Commission  selected  a  final 
sample  of  six  exporting  producers/groups  of  exporting  producers  in  Turkey  that 
accounted for approximately 71% of the volume of imports of the product under review. 
The Commission considered that it was representative and would enable it to properly 

31  

32  

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/309 of 26 February 2015, OJ L 56, 27.2.2015, 
p.12 
Notice of initiation of a partial interim review of the countervailing measures applicable to 
imports of certain rainbow trout originating in Turkey (OJ C 234, 20.7.2017, p.6). 

 EN 

26 

     EN 

 
                                                 
analyse the effects of the changes on all companies in that sector. After completion of 
verification  visits,  on  21  February  2018  the  Commission  disclosed  the  essential  facts 
and considerations of the investigation to all interested parties. 

Subsidies countervailed in the original investigation  

In  the  original  investigation,  the  Commission  examined  a  number  of  measures  from 
which  the  Turkish  exporting  producers  of  trout  benefited  or  might  have  benefitted 
during the original investigation period (the year 2013). The main subsidies from which 
the  Turkish  producers  of  trout  benefited  during  the  original  investigation  period  were 
direct subsidies granted to all trout producers on a ‘per kg’ basis.  
Under Decree No 2013/4463 on agricultural subsidies33 (‘the decree’), which provided 
for  the  subsidies  in  the  original  investigation  period,  subsidies  were  granted  to  all 
producers of trout possessing a valid production licence relating to a fish farming unit 
(sea, dam or inland site). A trout producer could have several production licences (fish 
farming  units)  in  the  same  site.  According  to  the  Commission’s  findings,  the  total 
amount of subsidies for the original investigation period amounted to 62,992,720 TL.  

Results of the review investigation 

The  Commission  found  that  the  decree  was  changed  in  2016.  As  a  consequence,  the 
volume of trout production eligible for direct subsidies decreased and thus resulted in a 
significant decrease of subsidies received by trout producers. 

However,  the  investigation  showed  that  the  actual  impact  of  the  legislative  change  of 
2016  in  terms  of  volume  and  value  of  the  eligible  production  in  comparison  with  the 
previous  system  was  difficult  to  determine,  and  depended  on  the  production  volumes 
produced under each of the licences. 

Moreover, the Commission observed that, in 2017, the actual amount of direct subsidies 
to  trout  producers  increased  and  that  the  decrees  of  2016  and  2017  also  introduced  a 
number of new subsidies from which trout producers could benefit.  

Therefore,  while  the  limitations  introduced  in  2016  might  have  led  to  a  decrease  in 
subsidisation  via  the  direct  subsidies,  Turkey  had  simultaneously  introduced  new 
subsidies and/or amended existing subsidy measures.  

Second,  the  Commission  analysed  the  overall  evolution  of  the  amounts  of  subsidies 
granted  by  Turkey  since  the  original  investigation.  It  reached  the  conclusion  that 
between 2013 and 2016, the subsidies to trout producers decreased by 37%. After 2016, 
however,  the  level  of  subsidies  to  trout  producers  increased  again,  reaching  a  total 
amount  comprised  between  43  and  48,5  million  TL  in  2017.  The  Commission  thus 
concluded  that  the  decrease  of  existing  subsidies  after  the  legislative  change  in  2016 
was temporary and that the amount of subsidies after 2016 was approaching the amount 
before the legislative change. 

The  Commission  observed  that  the  system  of  implementation  of  direct  subsidies  was 
characterised by constant changes in the legal basis, the eligibility criteria and the actual 
amounts  of  subsidisation.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  not  only  the  Commission  found  the 
decrease  in  subsidisation  of  trout  producers  in  2016  to  be  temporary,  but  also 
maintained  that,  since  the  conditions  and  amounts  of  subsidies  were  reviewed  by 
Turkey  on  an  annual  basis,  the  introduced  changes  could  not  be  considered  as  long 

33  

Subsidies to trout production are regulated by a decree adopted by the Turkish Government on 
an annual basis.  

 EN 

27 

     EN 

 
                                                 
lasting.  Further,  the  Commission  estimated  that  the  total  subsidies  to  trout  producers 
might reach up to 56 million TL in 2018, i.e. around 6 million TL above the amount of 
2015 – the year before the legislative change. 

Termination of the partial interim review 

Having concluded that the decrease observed in 2016 could not be considered as having 
a lasting nature, the Commission terminated the partial interim review investigation and 
maintained the measures in force unchanged. 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) from India 

In May 2013, the Council imposed a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain 
polyethylene  terephthalate  (PET)  originating  in  India,34  which  was  amended  by  the 
Commission in 2015 by Regulation 2015/1350,35 following two partial interim reviews 
pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation. 

In September 2016, an Indian exporting producer, Dhunseri Petrochem Limited (‘DPL’) 
requested  the  Commission  to  amend  the  Regulation  imposing  the  measures  in  force 
because  of  a  reorganisation.  The  Commission  considered  that  there  was  sufficient 
evidence  that  the  circumstances  with  regard  to  subsidisation  of  DPL  and  its  related 
companies  had  changed  significantly  and  were  of  a  lasting  nature.  Consequently,  a 
partial interim review investigation pursuant to  Article 19 of the basic Regulation was 
initiated,36 in order to establish the rate of subsidisation for the company's new structure.  

Another  Indian  exporting  producer,  Reliance  Industries  Limited  (‘Reliance’)  lodged  a 
request for a partial interim review pursuant to Article 19 of the basic Regulation. The 
request was limited to the examination of the subsidisation of Reliance, which provided 
sufficient evidence that the continued application of the measures at their current level 
was  no  longer  necessary  to  offset  the  countervailable  subsidisation.  The  company 
alleged in particular that the overall subsidy level was reduced due to the termination of 
the Focus Product Scheme and the Focus Market Scheme and the reduction of amounts 
availed by the applicant with regard to other schemes, like the Advanced Authorisation 
Scheme and the Duty Drawback Scheme.  

Having  determined  that  the  request  contained  sufficient  evidence,  the  Commission 
announced the initiation of a partial interim review limited in scope to the examination 
of subsidisation for Reliance. The review investigation period covered the period from 1 
April 2016 to 31 March 2017. 

Results of the investigation 

As  far  as  the  reorganisation  of  DPL  and  its  related  companies  was  concerned,  the 
investigation confirmed that DPL transferred its entire PET production facility to a new 
company, IVDPIL in April 2016 and acquired 50% share of that company, thus ceasing 
to be an exporting producer of the product under review with effect from that date. The 
investigation  also  confirmed  that  DPL  acquired  50%  of  stake  in  MPPL,  an  Indian 

34  
35  

36  

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 461/2013 of 21 May 2013, OJ L 137, 23.5.2013, p.1    
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/1350 of 3 August 2015, OJ L 208, 5.8.2015, 
p.10 
Notice  of  initiation  of  a  partial  interim  review  of  the  countervailing  measures  applicable  to 
imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in India (2017/C 216/05) 

 EN 

28 

     EN 

 
                                                 
manufacturer of PET which previously did not export the product under review to the 
Union. 

The  purpose  of  the  partial  interim  review  was  therefore  to  establish  the  rate  of 
subsidisation  applicable  to  the  new  group  of  companies  resulting  from  the  re-
organisation undergone by DPL, IDIPL, and MPPL (the ‘Dhunseri group’). 

With regard to subsidisation, the Commission calculated the subsidy rates applicable to 
both the Dhunseri Group and Reliance. In order to establish the rates of subsidisation, 
the  Commission  investigated  various  subsidy  programs  and  found  that  the  exporting 
producers availed themselves of five of these programs during the review investigation 
period,  i.e.  Duty  Drawback  Scheme  (DDS),  Export  Promotion  Capital  Goods  Scheme 
(EPCGS),  Merchandise  Export  from  India  Scheme  (MEIS),  Gujarat  Electricity  Duty 
Exemption Scheme (GEDES), and Advance Authorisation Scheme (AAS).  

As the benefit received by the exporting producers under the GEDES and AAS schemes 
was found to be negligible, the Commission mainly focused on the DDS, EPCGS and 
MEIS schemes.  

The latter were all found to provide subsidies within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) 
and  Article  3(2)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  Furthermore,  since  the  payment  by  the 
Government of India subsequent to exports made by exporters under these schemes was 
contingent upon export performance, it was deemed to be specific and countervailable 
under Article 4(4)(a) of the basic Regulation. 

The  Commission  considered  that  DDS  and  EPCGS  could  both  not  be  considered 
permissible duty drawback systems within the meaning of Article 3(1)(a)(ii) of the basic 
Regulation.  With  particular  regard  to  DDS,  the  Commission  noted  that  the  cash 
payment to the exporter was not necessarily linked to actual payments of import duties 
on  raw  materials,  and  was  not  a  duty  credit  to  offset  import  duties  on  past  or  future 
imports of raw materials. 

Amount of countervailable subsidies 

Significantly,  when  calculating  the  DDS  subsidy  amount,  the  Commission  rejected 
Reliance’s claim that the benefit calculated on the basis of DDS should be restricted to 
the  excess  benefits  as  DDS  should  be  considered  as  a  duty  drawback  scheme 
permissible  under  Article  3(1)(a)(ii)  of  the  basic  Regulation.  The  claim  was  rejected 
since  the  Commission  concluded  during  the  on-the-spot  verification  that  Reliance  had 
benefited  from  the  DDS  even  if  it  had  not  imported  any  of  the  two  relevant  raw 
materials  during the  review investigation period  and since the total  amount  granted to 
Reliance represented the excess. 

This  conclusion  was  reached  on  the  basis  of  the  information  available,  as  Reliance 
failed to  provide evidence that one of the two  main raw material  used  to  manufacture 
PET was entirely imported and import duties were paid. 

The  Commission  reached  an  opposite  conclusion  with  regard  to  the  Dhunseri  group, 
since  the  company  provided  sufficient  evidence  in  this  respect,  and  the  Commission 
showed  the  correctness  of  the  evidence  during  a  verification  visit.  Hence,  the 
Commission calculated the level of subsidisation on the excess remission with regard to 
the Dhunseri group. 

The  Commission  recalled  that  the  amount  of  subsidisation  established  for  DPL  and 
Reliance  by  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  2015/1350  were  respectively  3,2%  and 

 EN 

29 

     EN 

 
6,2%, which translated into countervailing duties of respectively 35,69 EUR/tonne and 
69,39 EUR/tonne.  

During  the  current  partial  interim  reviews  the  Commission  found  the  amount  of 
countervailing subsidies, expressed ad valorem, to be 2,3% for the Dhunseri group and 
4%  for  Reliance.  The  Commission  established  the  following  specific  countervailing 
duties: 18,73 EUR/ton for Dhunseri group and 29,21 EUR/ton for Reliance. 

Lasting nature of changed circumstances with regard to subsidisation 

The Commission established that, during the review investigation period, the exporting 
producers  concerned  continued  to  benefit  from  countervailable  subsidisation  by  the 
government, although at different rates.  

As  far  as  Reliance  was  concerned,  the  most  important  subsidies  in  terms  of 
subsidisation  rates  during  the  review  investigation  period  were  DDS  and  MEIS.  The 
subsidisation rate for DDS was reduced several  times by the government over the last 
seven years, reaching 1,5% of the FOB value during the review investigation period. As 
far as MEIS was concerned the rate of 2% of the FOB value that became applicable to 
PET  in  October  2015  remained  unchanged  since  then.  No  significant  change  of 
subsidisation rate for EPCGS was expected after the review investigation period.   

As no evidence was adduced that the countervailed schemes would be discontinued or 
that their subsidisation levels would be either increased or decreased in the future, the 
Commission concluded that the circumstances that led to Reliance's new subsidisation 
rate were of a lasting nature.  

Hence, the level of the duties for Reliance was established on the basis of a 4% subsidy 
margin.  

With reference to the Dhunseri group, the investigation showed that the structure of the 
group changed significantly. Most importantly the group owned two PET plants during 
the review investigation period as compared to a single one during the previous interim 
review.  The  re-organisation  involved  several  legal  steps  over  a  period  of  almost  two 
years and reached its completion when it was sanctioned by the High Court of Kolkata 
in December 2017. The Commission hence considered that the change of structure was 
of a lasting nature and that the measures in force should be amended to reflect the new 
situation  also  in  view  of  the  previous  conclusions  on  the  current  (and  lower)  level  of 
subsidisation found in these reviews.  

3.2.3.  New exporter reviews 

As far as anti-dumping  measures are concerned, Article 11(4) of the basic Regulation 
allows  for  a  review  ("newcomer"  review)  to  be  carried  out  in  order  to  determine 
individual  margins  of  dumping  for  new  exporters  located  in  the  exporting  country  in 
question which did not export the product during the investigation period.  

Such  parties  have  to  show  that  they  are  genuine  new  exporters,  i.e.  that  they  are  not 
related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country, which are subject 
to  the  anti-dumping  measures,  and  that  they  have  actually  started  to  export  to  the  EU 
following  the  investigation  period,  or  that  they  have  entered  into  an  irrevocable 
contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the EU. 

When a review for a new exporter is initiated, the duties are repealed with regard to that 
exporter, though its imports are made subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the 

 EN 

30 

     EN 

 
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  promptly  establish  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  2018,  no  new  exporter  review  was  initiated.  Since  the  Commission  carried  out  the 
first reviews of this type in 1990, a total of 77 such reviews were initiated so far. Two 
new exporter reviews were concluded in 2018 by an exemption (see details below). 

Bicycles from China (exemption review) 

On  29  May  2013,  the  Council  extended  the  already  existing  definitive  anti-dumping 
measures  on  imports  of  bicycles  originating  in  China  to  those  consigned  from 
Indonesia,  Malaysia,  Sri  Lanka  and  Tunisia,  following  an  anti-circumvention 
investigation.37 

On 13 September 2016, the Commission received a request from Look Design System 
SA,  an  exporting  producer  of  bicycles  based  in  Tunisia,  for  an  exemption  from  the 
measures  applicable  to  Tunisia.  As  the  request  contained  sufficient  evidence,  the 
Commission  initiated  an  investigation  on  4  May  2017  to  determine  whether  an 
exemption was warranted.  

Investigation  

The Commission notified the Union industry as well as the applicant and the authorities 
of the exporting country, which were given the opportunity to comment and make their 
views  known.  The  Commission  assessed  all  the  information  at  its  disposal  and 
conducted a verification visit at the premises of the applicant in Tunisia.  

The investigation confirmed that the company fulfilled the three conditions necessary to 
be granted “new exporter” status:38 it had not exported the product under review during 
the  original  reporting  period,  it  demonstrated  that  it  did  not  have  any  links,  direct  or 
indirect, with any of the Tunisian exporting producers subject to the extended measures 
with regard to the product under review and the investigation showed that the applicant 
had started to export the product to the Union only after the original reporting period. 

The  sources  of  raw  materials  and  cost  of  production  were  also  analysed.  It  was 
concluded that the parts mainly originated in other countries and that the raw materials 
originating in China represented less than 60% of the total value of the parts assembled. 

37  
38  

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 501/2013 of 29 May 2013, OJ L 153, 5.6.2013, p.1 
Under Articles 11(4) and 13 (4) of the basic AD Regulation and Article 23(6) of the basic AS 
Regulation, namely:  
— that it did not export the product under review to the Union during the investigation period 
used in the investigation that led to the extended measures, i.e. from 1 April 2014 to 31 March 
2015,  
— that it has not been engaging in circumvention practices, and  
— that it has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to 
the Union. 

 EN 

31 

     EN 

 
                                                 
Moreover, there was no evidence of circumvention taking place through transshipments. 
The Commission concluded that the applicant was a genuine producer of bicycles and 
granted the producer an exemption from the measures applicable to Tunisia. 

Solar panels from China 

The  Commission  imposed  definitive  anti-dumping  and  countervailing  measures  on 
imports of solar panels originating in China in 2013.39 The measures consisted of an ad 
valorem duty ranging between 27,3% and 64,9%. In February 2016, following an anti-
circumvention investigation, the Commission extended those measures to imports of the 
products consigned from Malaysia and Taiwan, with the exception of imports produced 
by certain companies specifically exempted from those measures. 

Following expiry reviews investigations described in the Annual Report on year 2017, 
these measures were extended for 18 months (instead of the normal five years period) 
based on Union interest reasons. 

Exemption investigation with regard to a Malaysian company 

On 18 July 2018, the Commission initiated an investigation in order to assess whether it 
should  grant  an  exemption  from  the  duties  to  a  Malaysian  exporting  company  of  the 
concerned  product.40  In  the  request,  there  seemed  to  be  enough  prima  facie  evidence 
that the applicant fulfilled the criteria for an exemption. 

The applicant was a wholly owned subsidiary of a Hong Kong-based company, which 
was also a subsidiary of a Chinese company, the ultimate parent company. The parent 
company was subject to both countervailing and anti-dumping duties.  

However, after carrying out further examinations in order to determine the relationship 
and  possible  circumvention  of  the  existing  measures,  the  Commission  found  that  the 
Malaysian  applicant  was  a  genuine  producer  and  had  not  been  involved  in 
circumvention  activities.  The  Commission  concluded  that  the  Chinese  ownership  did 
not constitute a reason to reject the application and that the applicant should be added to 
the  list  of  companies  that  are  exempted  from  the  existing  countervailing41  and  anti-
dumping duties.42 

Expiry of measures  

On  13  March  2018,  the  Commission  gave  notice  that  both  the  anti-dumping  and 
countervailing  measures  would  expire  on  3  September  of  the  same  year.  The  EU 
industry lodged a request for an expiry review in order to extend the existing measures. 

The  Commission  decided  on  31  August  2018  to  reject  the  requests.  It  noted  that  in  a 
previous expiry review, measures were extended for a limited period of 18 month and 
the limitation was warranted because of Union interest  grounds. The applicant did not 
provide  any  information  that  put  into  question  the  Union  interest  grounds  previously 
established.  The  Commission  also  noted  that  the  market  situation  had  not  changed 

39  

40  

41  

42  

Council Implementing Regulation (EU) 1238/2013 of 2 December 2013, OJ L  325, 5.12.2013, 
p.1 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1017 of 18 July 2018, OJ L 183, 19.7.2018, 
p.1 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/184 of 11 February 2016, OJ L 37, 12.2.2016, 
p.56 
Ibid. 

 EN 

32 

     EN 

 
                                                 
sufficiently to justify a further extension of the measures, as the level of the measures 
had gradually decreased over time to allow the prices of the imports into the EU align 
progressively  with  world  market  prices.  In  its  assessment,  the  Commission  also  took 
into account the new EU’s renewable energy targets. 

Therefore, on 3 September 2018, both the anti-dumping and countervailing measures on 
solar panels expired. 

3.2.4.  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 2018, one anti-absorption investigation was initiated and no such investigation was 
concluded (Annex J). 

3.2.5.  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 that 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  2018,  No  anti-circumvention  investigations  were  initiated.  Two  anti-circumvention 
investigations were terminated without the extension of duty. More information can be 
obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex K. 

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts from China (via Vietnam)  

On  18  July  2005,  the  Council  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of 
hand  pallet  trucks  and  their  essential  parts  originating  in  China.43  The  measures 
consisted  of  an  ad  valorem  duty  ranging  between  7,6%  and  46,7%.  These  measures 
were prolonged twice  as a result of  expiry reviews. On 6 June 2017, the Commission 
received a request to investigate a possible circumvention of the anti-dumping measures 
by imports coming from Vietnam. The request was lodged on behalf of Union producers 
representing over 60% of EU production of the products concerned. 

The  request  contained  prima  facie  evidence  showing  that  assembly  operations  taking 
place in Vietnam constituted circumvention as Chinese parts seemed to constitute more 
than  60%  of  the  total  value  of  the  assembled  product  and  the  value  added  during  the 

43  

Council Regulation (EC) No 1174/2005 of 18 July 2005, OJ L 189, 21.7.2005, p.1 

 EN 

33 

     EN 

 
                                                 
assembly  operation  was  lower  than  25%  of  the  manufacturing  costs.  Complainants 
argued  that  this  practice  was  undermining  the  effectiveness  of  the  anti-dumping 
measures in place.44 The Commission decided to initiate an investigation on this basis.  

The  Commission  informed  Chinese  and  Vietnamese  authorities  and  followed  the 
procedure  by  sending  out  questionnaires  and  carrying  out  verification  visits  to  two 
companies in Vietnam. 

For  both  companies  it  was  found  that  the  parts  from  China  did  not  constitute  60%  or 
more  of  the  total  value  of  the  parts  of  the  assembled  products.  Consequently,  the 
assembly operations carried out by the cooperating Vietnamese companies could not be 
considered as circumvention. In addition, as the two investigated companies represented 
100% of the Vietnamese exports to the EU during the reporting period, it could not be 
established  that  measures  in  force  with  regard  to  China  were  being  circumvented  by 
such  imports  from  Vietnam.  The  Commission  terminated  the  investigation  on  21 
February 2018. 

3.2.6.  “Other” reviews (reinvestigations) 

These investigations fall outside Article 11(3) or Article 19 of the basic Regulations and 
focus on the implementation of court rulings.  In  2018, the Commission  initiated three 
such  investigations.  Two  “other”  reviews  were  concluded  with  a  confirmation  or  re-
imposition  of  the  duty.  More  details  can  be  found  below.  Three  "other"  reviews  were 
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. 

Bicycles from China (via Sri Lanka) 

On  11  April  2017,  the  Commission  published  a  notice  partially  reopening  the  anti-
circumvention  investigation  concerning  imports  of  bicycles  consigned  from  Sri  Lanka 
following  a  General  Court  judgment  annulling  the  original  anti-circumvention 
regulation  on  the  concerned  products  to  the  extent  it  applied  to  Sri  Lankan  company 
City Cycle Industries. 

On  the  same  day,  imports  of  the  product  concerned  from  City  Cycle  Industries  were 
made subject to registration following a request by the European Bicycle Manufacturers 
Association and EU producer Maxcom Ltd. 

Dumping 

The Commission reassessed all the data available and found that the evidence submitted 
by  the  Sri  Lankan  company  demonstrated  that  raw  materials  from  China  constituted 
more than 60% of the total value of the parts of the assembled product.  

44  

In  accordance  with  Article  13(1)  of  the  basic  Regulation,  the  following  elements  should  be 
analysed successively in order to assess possible circumvention:  
—  whether there was a change in the pattern of trade between China and the Union,  
—  if this change stemmed from a practice, process or work for which there was insufficient due 
cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the anti-dumping measures in force,  
—  if there is evidence of injury or the remedial effects of the anti-dumping measures in force 
were  being  undermined  in  terms  of  the  prices  and/or  quantities  of  the  product  under 
investigation, and  
—  whether there is evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established 
for the product concerned.  

 EN 

34 

     EN 

 
                                                 
In  addition,  because  of  the  low  investment  required  for  assembly  operations,  and  the 
fact that the Sri Lankan company already had the necessary know-how and experience 
for  this  type  of  activity,  the  applicants  submitted  that  it  was  likely  that  City  Cycle 
Industries will go back very quickly to circumventing practices. 

It  was  also  found  that  the  value  added  during  the  assembly  operations  was  less  than 
25% of the manufacturing cost and therefore constituted circumvention.  

Injury 

The  Court  judgment  is  limited  to  the  analysis  of  circumvention  practices,  which  City 
Cycle  Industries  may  have  been  engaged  in.  As  a  result,  the  findings  that  were  not 
challenged, rejected or not examined by the General Court remain valid.  

The applicants submitted that a real risk persisted that City Cycle Industries' exports to 
the Union could resume in significant quantities given the ease of setting up assembly 
circumvention practices for bicycles on a large scale in Sri Lanka. In addition, it had a 
major customer in the Union for its products. 

Definitive measures 

On this basis, on 9 January 2018, the Commission re-extended the original measures to 
the Sri Lankan exporter, as from the date of registration.45 

Biodiesel from Argentina and Indonesia  

On  19  November  2013,  the  Commission  imposed  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on 
imports  of  biodiesel  originating  in  Argentina  and  Indonesia  by  means  of  Regulation 
1194/2013 (‘the definitive Regulation’).46  

In September 2016, the General Court of the European Union (‘GC’) annulled Articles 
1 and 2 of the definitive Regulation to the extent that they applied to the applicants.47 
The GC ruled that the institutions should not have taken the view that the price of the 
raw  materials  was  not  reasonably  reflected  in  the  records  of  the  Argentinian  and 
Indonesian  exporting  producers  and  should  not  have  disregarded  those  records  when 
constructing a normal value for biodiesel produced in these countries. In particular, the 
GC held that the institutions failed to establish to the requisite legal standard that there 
was  an  appreciable  distortion  of  the  prices  of  the  main  raw  materials  used  for  the 
production of biodiesel in Argentina and Indonesia because of different tax rates on raw 
materials and on biodiesel.  

The anti-dumping measures were also challenged by Argentina and Indonesia before the 
WTO adjudicating bodies.48 In both disputes, it was found, among other things, that the 
legal  justification  relied  upon  by  the  Union  to  proceed  with  a  cost  adjustment  was 
incompatible  with  WTO  law.  Moreover,  the  Indonesia  Panel  Report  found  that  the 
Union  had  failed  to  establish  a  profit-cap  pursuant  to  Article  2.2.2  of  the  WTO  Anti-
Dumping  Agreement  when  constructing  the  normal  value.  In  addition,  the  Indonesia 
Report  also 
there  had  been  some  company-specific  calculation 
inconsistencies, as well as additional points on injury-related matters. 

found 

that 

45  
46  
47  
48  

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/28 of 9 January 2018, OJ L 5, 10.1.2018, p.27 
Commission Regulation (EU) 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, OJ L 315, 26.11.2013, p.2 
Judgments of the GC in cases T-80/14, T-111/14 to T-121/14 and T-139/14 (‘the judgments’) 
The  Indonesia  Report  was  adopted  in  the  European  Union  –  Anti-Dumping  Measures  on 
Biodiesel from Indonesia dispute (DS480) 

 EN 

35 

     EN 

 
                                                 
In  order  to  comply  with  its  obligations  under  the  GC’s  judgments  and  the  Reports 
adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB), the Commission decided to resume the 
anti-dumping proceeding at  the very point at  which the illegality occurred and thus  to 
re-examine the methodology used for constructing the normal value.  

On 28 May 2018, a Notice was published re-opening the original investigations. 

Determination of the normal value and calculation of the dumping margins 

The  Commission  reassessed  the  findings  of  the  original  investigations  on  the  issues 
identified by the GC and the WTO adjudicating bodies, determining anew the duty rates 
in respect of all Indonesian and Argentinian exporters. 

In view of the high negative dumping margins for two of the four sampled Indonesian 
companies,  the  Commission  verified  whether  the  weighted  average  countrywide 
dumping  margin  taking  account  of  the  negative  margins  was  above  de  minimis  as 
provided for in  Article 9(3) of the basic Regulation.  In this respect, it noticed that the 
amount  of  dumping  in  the  Indonesian  sample  was  1,6%  –  that  is  below  the  2%  de 
minimis threshold. 

In  view  of  the  countrywide  de  minimis  dumping  margin,  the  Commission  decided  to 
terminate  the  investigation  without  measures  as  regards  imports  of  biodiesel  from 
Indonesia. 

Revised injury findings based on the Reports 

As the investigation was terminated with regard to  Indonesia, the Commission limited 
its  causation  analysis  to  dumped  imports  of  biodiesel  from  Argentina,  in  order  to 
determine  the  existence  of  a  causal  link  between  the  dumped  imports  and  the  injury 
suffered  by  the  Union  industry,  and  assessed  imports  from  Indonesia  separately,  as 
another factor that might also have caused injury.  

During  the  investigation  period,  almost  half  of  all  imports  into  the  Union  came  from 
Indonesia at a price lower than Union prices as well as Argentinian prices. It was also 
noted that the exponential increase on imports volumes from Indonesia as well as their 
market  share  significantly  contributed  to  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the  Union 
industry. 

The impact of the Indonesian exports added to other factors, among others overcapacity 
of  Union  industry  and  self-inflicted  injury:  On  this  basis,  the  Commission  concluded 
that the effect of imports of biodiesel from Indonesia to the Union taken together with 
the  other  factors  contributed  to  the  injury  suffered  by  the  Union  industry  to  such  an 
extent that it could not be established that a genuine and substantial causal relationship 
between  the  dumped  imports  from  Argentina  and  the  material  injury  suffered  by  the 
Union industry actually existed.  

Conclusion 

On 18 October 2018, the Commission terminated the investigation, given that dumping 
margins  from  Indonesia  were  found  to  be  de  minimis  and  a  genuine  and  substantial 
causal relationship between the dumped imports from Argentina and the material injury 
suffered by the Union industry, as required under Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, 
could not be established. Anti-dumping measures were hence repealed.  

 EN 

36 

     EN 

 
3.3. 

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. 

Not all safeguard measures adopted by the EU constitute safeguards within the meaning 
of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards. Some of these measures are called ‘safeguards’ 
under particular regimes, such as the horizontal safeguards regulation or the safeguard 
investigations under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP). 

In  April  2018,  the  Commission  put  forward  a  proposal  for  a  horizontal  bilateral 
safeguard  regulation  that  will  allow  the  Commission  to  use  the  bilateral  safeguard 
clauses  laid  down  in  all  future  trade  agreements.  The  objective  of  these  safeguard 
clauses is to temporarily suspend tariff preferences where preferential imports increase 
to such an extent that they cause or threaten to cause serious injury to a particular EU 
industry.  This  horizontal  regulation  provides  standard  rules  for  the  implementation  of 
bilateral safeguard clauses, including the conditions and decision-making process. In the 
past, the EU adopted separate regulations for each individual FTA, which will no longer 
be  necessary.  The  proposed  Regulation  has  been  politically  approved  by  the  co-
legislators in December 2018. 

In  terms  of  casework,  in  2018,  the  EU  initiated  three  safeguard  investigations  –  one 
erga omnes on steel products and two bilateral ones against Cambodia and Myanmar on 
Indica rice under the rules of the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (Annex L). 

3.3.1.  Details on individual safeguard cases 

General safeguard measures on certain steel products 

The investigation into 26 different steel product categories was initiated ex officio on 26 
March  2018,49  pursuant  to  Article  5  of  Regulation  (EU)  2015/478  and  Article  3  of 
Regulation  (EU)  2015/755.  On  28  June  2018,  the  Commission  extended  the  product 
scope  of  the  safeguard  investigation  to  two  additional  categories.50  The  investigation 
covered  the  period  from  2013  to  2017  (‘the  period  considered’).  The  most  recent 
developments  have  also  been  considered  (i.e.  the  period  between  July  2017  and  June 
2018). Provisional measures were imposed in July 2018,51 and on 31 January 2019 have 

49 

50 

51  

Notice of initiation of a safeguard investigation concerning imports of steel products (OJ C 111, 
26.3.2018, p.29). 
Notice amending the notice of initiation of a safeguard investigation concerning the imports of 
steel products (OJ C 225, 28.6.2018, p.54). 
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1013 of 17 July 2018, OJ L 181, 18.7.2018, 
p.39 

 EN 

37 

     EN 

 
                                                 
been replaced by definitive measures.52 While the latter Regulation was not adopted in 
2018, this section nevertheless describes the latest measures, due to their importance of 
the case. 

Product scope 

The  product  concerned  is  certain  steel  products,  encompassing  28  product  categories. 
The  Commission  decided  to  exclude  two  product  categories  for  which  imports 
decreased  overall  between  2013  and  June  2018.  Therefore,  definitive  measures  only 
apply to 26 categories. 

Legal requirements 

i) Increase in imports 

The  investigation  showed  that  over  the  period  considered  and  the  most  recent  period, 
there had been a sudden, steep and significant increase in imports, in both absolute and 
relative terms, for the products concerned (+71%). This finding was further confirmed 
when analysing the level of imports at the level of the three product families (+64% for 
flat products; +97% for long products and +60% for tubes).   

ii) Unforeseen developments 

The Commission established that the increase in imports of steel products in the Union 
was the result of unforeseen developments that finds its source in a number of factors 
establishing  and  aggravating  imbalances  in  the  international  trade  of  the  products 
concerned. 

These  factors  consisted  of  an  unprecedented  steelmaking  overcapacity  that  persists, 
despite  the  important  number  of  measures  adopted  worldwide  to  reduce  it.  This  was 
aggravated by distortive subsidies and government support measures, which led to price 
depression, the increased use of trade restrictive practices, TDIs and the US Section 232 
measures adopted in March 2018. 

 iii) Threat of serious injury 

The  Commission  concluded  that  the  situation  of  the  Union  industry  deteriorated 
significantly in the period 2013-2016 and improved only partially in 2017. However, the 
Commission  considered  that  the  Union  industry,  despite  the  temporary  improvement, 
was  still  in  a  fragile  situation  and  under  the  threat  of  serious  injury  if  the  increasing 
trend  in  imports  continued  with  the  ensuing  price  depression  and  profitability  drop 
below sustainable levels. 

At provisional stage, a critical element in the determination of a threat of injury was that 
the significant increase in imports observed since 2013 would not end but would further 
rise and reach serious injurious levels in the absence of remedial action. This expected 
trend was already confirmed by the most recent data analysed and is mostly caused by 
trade diversion resulting from the US Section 232 measures on steel products.  

Form of the measures 

The definitive safeguard measure took the form of a tariff-rate quota in order to prevent 
serious injury, but at the same time preserve as much as possible traditional trade flows. 
This level of tariff-rate quota was set at the average level of imports over the last three 
representative years. The Commission considered it necessary to modulate the tariff-rate 

52  

Commission Implementing  Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019, OJ L 31, 1.2.2019, 
p.27 

 EN 

38 

     EN 

 
  
                                                 
quota level above the average import level for the last three years to take account of the 
competing  interests  between  users  and  importers,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  Union 
industry,  on  the  other  hand.  On  this  basis,  the  Commission  considered  that  the 
quantitative level of the tariff-rate quota should be based on the average imports in the 
period  2015-2017  plus  5%.  The  Commission  set  an  out-of-quota  duty  of  25%  that 
would apply if the tariff-rate quota in a given product category is exhausted. 

In  addition,  the  Commission  concluded  that  a  mixed  approach  to  quota  allocation 
(country-specific  quota  and  global  quota)  would  be  the  most  appropriate.  First,  a 
country  specific  tariff-rate  quota  should  be  allocated  to  countries  having  a  significant 
supplying interest, based on their imports over the last three years. A global tariff-rate 
quota (‘the residual quota’) based on the average of the remaining imports over the last 
three years should be allocated to all other supplying countries. This residual tariff-rate 
quota should be divided quarterly in order to ensure that imports are evenly distributed 
over the year and prevent that significant imports of standard products are stockpiled at 
the beginning of the period in order to avoid possible duties. Unused quarterly tariff-rate 
quota allocations would also be automatically transferred to the next period. 

A country specific tariff-rate quota was however not allocated to those countries whose 
export level – for each product category concerned and overall for hot rolled coils – has 
substantially  diminished  in  the  recent  past  because  of  anti-dumping/anti-subsidy 
measures in place. These countries fall within the residual tariff-rate quota. 

Review clause 

The Commission considered that, based on the Union interest, it may have to adjust the 
level or allocation of the tariff-rate quota in case of changes of circumstances during the 
period of imposition of the measures. The Commission will carry out an assessment of 
the situation on a regular basis, and consider a review at least at the end of each year of 
imposition of measures. The Commission shall initiate the first review investigation no 
later than on 1 July 2019. 

Exclusions 

Definitive measures apply to imports from all origins, with very few exceptions. First, 
on  account  of  the  close  integration  of  markets  with  EEA  members,  the  Commission 
considered  that  the  products  under  assessment  originating  in  Norway,  Iceland,  and 
Liechtenstein should be excluded from the application of the Regulation. Furthermore, 
in order to comply with bilateral obligations, certain countries with which the Union has 
signed  an  Economic  Partnership  Agreement  that  is  currently  in  force  were  excluded 
from  the  application  of  the  measures.  WTO  developing  countries  accounting  for  less 
than 3% of EU imports are also excluded. 

Duration 

Measures  shall be in  place for a maximum  period of 3  years, i.e. from  February 2019 
until July 2021. 

Indica Rice from Cambodia and Myanmar 

In  March  2018,  upon  request  of  Italy,  the  Commission  initiated  a  safeguard 
investigation  under  the  GSP  Regulation,  regarding  imports  of  Indica  rice  from 
Cambodia and Myanmar. The findings of the investigation confirmed that a significant 
surge of rice imports from these two countries has caused economic damage to the rice 
sector  in  the  EU.  Therefore,  the  legal  conditions  to  impose  measures  were  met. 

 EN 

39 

     EN 

 
According  to  Article  22(1)  of  the  GSP  Regulation,  the  Commission  decided  on  16 
January,  after  consultation  of  the  Member  States,  to  reinstate  the  Common  Customs 
Tariff applied duties of 175 EUR/ton, with a progressive liberalisation (175 EUR/ton for 
the first year, 150 EUR/ton for the second year and 125 EUR/ton for the third year).  

3.4.   Verification activities  

Based  on  Articles  16  and  26  of  the  respective  basic  AD  and  AS  Regulations,  in  the 
course  of  investigations,  the  Commission  carries  out  visits  to  examine  the  records  of 
companies  or  associations  with  the  aim  to  verify  the  information  provided  during  the 
proceedings. During 2018, EU TDI services made 167 such visits, which amounted to 
1978  man/days  of  verification  work.  Circa  60%  of  the  visits  carried  out  aimed  at 
verifying  EU  companies’  data  relating  to  injury  and  Union  interest,  while  the  rest 
constituted verifications at companies in 19 third countries. 

3.5.   Social and environmental standards in investigations 

Since  the  entry  into  force  of  the  new  methodology  of  normal  value  calculation  in 
December 2017, when the Commission chooses an appropriate representative country to 
construct the normal value of a product under that new methodology, it should base its 
choice on an assessment of the adequate level of social and environmental protection in 
the  countries  at  stake  when  there  is  more  than  one  such  country.  The  Commission 
would therefore look, in all such new investigations and expiry reviews initiated after 20 
December  2017,  in  particular  whether  relevant  international  conventions  have  been 
ratified. 

A description of how social and environmental protection standards are considered and 
taken into account in TDI investigations can only be referenced in future annual reports, 
after investigations have reached provisional or final conclusions. However, none of the 
ongoing investigations using the new methodology has reached this stage – results will 
only be available in the next report. 

Moreover,  since  the  entry  into  force  of  modernized  TDI  rules,  when  the  Commission 
calculates  the  target  price  of  a  product,  it  also  reflects  actual  or  future  costs  of 
production  of  EU  companies,  which  result  or  would  result  from  the  application  of 
multilateral  environmental  agreements  (and  their  protocols),  as  well  as  of  certain 
International  Labour  Organisation  conventions.  Since  8  June  2018  onwards,  the 
Commission  has  therefore  started  to  apply  the  latter  rule  in  its  investigations.  In  this 
case,  too,  none  of  the  on-going  investigations  where  this  is  an  issue  has  reached  the 
provisional  or  final  stage  yet.  The  next  annual  report  will  consequently  revert  to  such 
cases. 

Last  but  not  least,  the  respect  of  principles  and  obligations  set  out  in  in  multilateral 
environmental agreements and protocols thereunder, to which the Union is a party, and 
of certain ILO conventions, can also play a role when it comes to deciding whether an 
undertaking should be accepted.   

 4. 

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 2018 the TDI services continued their follow-up activities aimed at 

 EN 

40 

     EN 

 
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).  

4.1. 

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. 

4.2.  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 2018, there were three undertakings in force. No new undertaking 
was accepted during the year. Therefore, the number of undertakings in force at the end 
of 2018 remained at 3. More information is available in Annexes M and Q. 

4.3.   OLAF activity 

The  Commission  has  developed  a  range  of  activities  addressing  prevention  and 
detection  of  fraud,  and  this  includes  a  close  cooperation  with  OLAF,  through  annual 
meetings,  day-to-day  contacts,  or  exchange  of  case  information,  via  a  special  OLAF 
liaison officer within the Directorate–General for Trade. 

In  relation  to  that,  by  mutual  agreement  between  the  Commission  and  OLAF,  the 
Commission  provides  OLAF  with  any  information  and  evidence  relating  to  possible 
cases  of  fraud,  or  any  other  illegal  activity  related  to  TDI.  Circumvention  of  TDI 
measures can occur in the form of: false declaration of product origin; misclassification 
under product codes outside measures; assembly operations; channelling via companies 
with no or low duty rates or undervaluation of imported products.  

The Commission and OLAF have been reacting whenever they had indications pointing 
to the possibility of the above situations, such as: 1/ when subsequent to the imposition 
of measures, a significant decrease in imports from the country concerned into the EU 
could  be  noted,  which  was  entirely  or  partially  offset  by  an  increase  in  imports  of: 
products from another third country, or products classified under a product code outside 
measures, or parts of the product which are not subject to measures; 2/ when subsequent 
to  the  imposition  of  measures,  imports  from  the  country  concerned  into  the  EU  were 
coming  from  a  company  with  a  low  or  a  zero  duty  at  the  expense  of  imports  from  a 
company  with  a  higher  duty;  or  3/  when  a  low  amount  of  duties  was  collected  by 
Member States’ customs authorities. 

 EN 

41 

     EN 

 
Moreover,  when  the  Commission  received  complaints  from  Union  industry  regarding 
the  circumvention  of  measures,  it  has  each  time  informed  OLAF  thereof.  The 
Commission  stayed  also  in  regular  contact  on  these  matters  with  Member  States’ 
customs authorities.  

Investigations by OLAF into the practices above are confidential. For that reason, it is 
not  possible  to  give  further  information  or  statistics  on  the  latter.  Every  year  OLAF 
publishes an  Annual  Report presenting  its activities  of  the  previous  year,  as  well  as 
statistics of its investigative performance and examples of cases. 

5. 

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  2018,  120  new  refund  requests  were  submitted.  At  the  end  of  2018,  6  refund 
investigations were on-going, covering  99  requests.  The Commission  adopted in  2018 
two Implementing Decisions granting partial refund or rejecting refund requests. 

 6. 

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.  

After  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament  reached  an  agreement  on  the 
Commission's  proposal  in  December  2017,  the  modernisation  legislation  entered  into 
force  on  8  June  2018.  Together  with  the  new  anti-dumping  calculation  methodology 
adopted  in  2017,  this  is  the  first  major  overhaul  of  the  EUs  anti-dumping  and  anti-
subsidy instruments since 1995. 

The new legislation strikes a balance between the interests of EU producers, users and 
importers  alike.  The  EU's  trade  defence  instruments  have  become  more  effective, 
transparent and more adapted to face the challenges of the global economy. At the same 
time,  the  modernisation  brought  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 

42 

     EN 

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

  More  transparency  and  predictability:  the  Commission  is  now  to  issue  an  early 
warning  on  the  imposition  of  provisional  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy  measures. 
This includes a grace period of three weeks during which provisional duties are not 
be applied. As a result, all companies will know in advance which exporters will be 
subject to duties and at which rates. During this period the Commission will register 
imports,  where  warranted,  to  avoid  stockpiling.  This  will  allow  for  the  retroactive 
collection  of  duties  for  that  period,  if  necessary.  Exporting  producers  and  the  EU 
industry  concerned  will  also  be  provided  with  their  respective  dumping,  subsidy,/ 
injury  calculations  for  provisional  measures.  The  Commission  will  also  notify 
interested parties if provisional measures will not be imposed. Within 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.  

  More efficient anti-dumping investigations: provisional measures have now to be 
imposed  within  7  to  8  months,  instead  of  9  months.  The  investigative  process  has 
been streamlined to maintain the high standards, in terms of data verification, respect 
of procedural rights, deadlines, etc. 

  Additional  support  for  EU  SMEs:  an  SME  helpdesk,  as  well  as  streamlined 
procedures  make  it  easier  for  SMEs  to  participate  in  trade  defence  investigations. 
The  Commission  has  created  a  dedicated  web  page  for  SMEs  which  provides 
relevant  information  to  help  navigate  the  system,  including  a  guide  to  filing 
complaints  as  well  as  standard  questionnaires  for  Union  producers,  importers  and 
users. 

  An  improved  injury  margin  calculation  method:  the  new  rules  concerning  the 
non-injurious price for the EU industry are now better adapted to economic reality. 
They  allow  reflecting  the  profitability  needed  to  cover  full  costs  and  investments, 
research  as  well  as  development  and  innovation.  Moreover,  the  injury  margin 
includes 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.  

Moreover, the non-injurious price now includes 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, if measures are based on injury. 

  Inclusion  of  social  and  environmental  considerations:  as  mentioned  above,  the 
future higher costs of EU industry for complying with EU social and environmental 
standards  are  now  to  be  taken  into  account.  Furthermore,  the  EU  needs  not  accept 
price undertakings for - among others - reasons of general policy which comprise in 
particular  the  principles  and  obligations  set  out  in  multilateral  environmental 
agreements  (and  their  protocols)  to  which  the  Union  is  a  party,  and  of  certain 
ILO Conventions. From  now on, social  and environmental  standards considerations 
have also a dedicated part in the Commission's annual reports on TDI activity.  

  Better response to raw material distortions or subsidisation: the EU's "lesser duty 
rule"  is  now  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. Distortions must concern one raw material, including energy, 

 EN 

43 

     EN 

 
which account individually for more than 17% of the cost of production. The price of 
the distorted raw material needs to be significantly lower as compared to prices in the 
representative  international  markets.  The  new  rules  provide  a  list  of  relevant  raw 
material distortions. These new disciplines are subject to a Union interest test. 

Measures  against  unfair  subsidies  are  also  now  based  on  the  subsidy  margin:  anti-
subsidy measures will fully offset the subsidies that an exporter has received, unless 
it is against the overall interest of the EU to do so. 

  Better  response  to  threats  of  retaliation:  European  industry  can  sometimes  find 
itself  under  pressure  from  foreign  governments  not  to  use  TDI  whenever  it  is 
exposed to injurious dumping or subsidisation. Where there might be a risk of such 
threats, the Commission can launch investigations on its own initiative, i.e. without a 
complaint lodged by industry.  

  Participation of trade unions in investigations: trade unions can now be interested 
parties  in  investigations.    They  will  have  full  access  to  the  non-confidential  file  as 
well as the right to comment.  They can also jointly prepare, with the Union industry, 
applications to launch trade defence investigations. 

  New  rules  in  the  EU  continental  shelf  and  exclusive  economic  zones:  trade 
defence  measures  can  now  also  be  applied  to  dumped  or  subsidised  products 
imported  and  used  on  the  Continental  Shelf  where  the  consumption  of  the  product 
concerned  is  significant,  such  as  oil  rigs  or  off-shore  wind  parks.  Regulations 
imposing anti-dumping and/or anti-subsidy measures will specify if these zones are 
covered.  A  horizontal  regulation  setting  out  the  relevant  customs  modalities  is 
currently being prepared. 

  Better  rules  on  price  undertakings:  the  Commission  will  now  only  accept 
undertakings commitments where the price rise eliminates the injurious effect of the 
dumping or subsidisation. (See also above on social and environmental standards) 

  Fair  reimbursement  of  duties:  where  the  Commission  decides  that  a  measure 
should not be renewed, anti-dumping or anti-subsidy duties collected while an expiry 
review  is  ongoing  will  be  repaid,  through  an  application  of  the  company  to  its 
competent customs authorities. 

7. 

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES / BILATERAL CONTACTS 

7.1. 

Small and medium sized enterprises (SME) 

During 2018, in the context of the modernisation of the trade defence instruments, the 
EU launched an initiative to  help  SMEs affected by trade defence investigations, both 
within  the  EU  and in  third  countries.  A  dedicated  webpage  was  set  up  which  brought 
together  in  one  place  advice  for  companies  and  sample  questionnaires.  Moreover,  in 
June  2018,  the  Commission  published  a  comprehensive  guide  for  SMEs,  which 
introduces TDI  rules and describes how to  manage the process  of investigations in  all 
their  stages.  This  is  complementary  to  the  SME  Helpdesk,  which  continued  to  help 
SMEs  seeking  information  regarding  the  trade  defence  instruments.  Queries  to  the 
helpdesk during the year ranged from general information requests regarding the nature 
of trade defence instruments to more targeted case-related queries. 

In  order  to  raise  the  SMEs  awareness  on  how  TDI  work,  the  Commission  has  also 
developed  standard  presentations  it  can  give  upon  request  at  regional  conferences 

 EN 

44 

     EN 

 
organized by chambers of commerce or other institutions that play a role in information 
dissemination amongst economic operators. 

7.2. 

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. 

Similarly  to  previous  years,  in  2018,  the  Commission  held  bilateral  meetings  to 
exchange  best  practices  in  the  field  of  TDI  with  officials  from  China  and  Korea,  and 
participated  in  relevant  seminars  with  other  administrations  (US,  Japan,  Australia) 
notably regarding subsidies. 

During 2018, the trade defence services continued to entertain contacts with practically 
all key stakeholder organisations affected by trade defence. Various informative events 
were organized with the latter organisations on the important topic of the TDI reform. 
Special sessions of the  Civil  Society Dialogue took  place in  March and  June 2018 on 
the new calculation methodology and TDI modernisation. 

8. 

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

8.1. 

Overview of the judicial reviews in 2018 

In 2018, the General Court (GC) and the Court of Justice (CJ) rendered 26 judgments in 
the areas of anti-dumping or anti-subsidy. 10 judgments were handed down by the GC 
and  12  concerned  appeals  of  GC  rulings,  which  were  decided  by  the  CJ.  The  CJ 
rendered four preliminary rulings in the TDI field.  

8.2. 

Cases pending 

At the end of 2018, 35 anti-dumping/anti-subsidy cases were pending before the GC and 
13 before the CJ. A list of the cases is given in Annex S. 

8.3. 

New cases 

In 2018, 15 new court cases were lodged in the field of trade defence (compared to 20 in 
2017).  Nine  of  these  were  lodged  before  the  GC  (all  actions  for  annulment)  and  six 
before the CJ (four appeals and two preliminary rulings). 

8.4. 

Judgments rendered by the General Court (a selection) 

T-211/16 – Caviro Distillerie and Others v European Commission 

The  General  Court  (‘GC’)  dismissed  the  action  brought  by  Caviro  Distillerie  Srl, 
Distillerie  Bonollo  SpA,  Distillerie  Mazzari  SpA,  Industria  Chimica  Valenzana  (ICV) 
SpA, EU producers of tartaric acid representing more than 25% of the total production 
of  this  substance  (“the  applicants”).  The  applicants  questioned  the  validity  of  the 
Decision by which the Commission terminated the anti-dumping proceeding concerning 

 EN 

45 

     EN 

 
imports  of  tartaric  acid  from  China  produced  by  Hangzhou  Bioking  Biochemical 
Engineering  Co.  In  essence,  the  applicants  questioned  the  representativeness  of  the 
sample of EU producers selected by the Commission and contested the conclusion that 
the  Union  industry  had  not  suffered  material  injury  as  a  result  of  the  imports  from 
Hangzhou Bioking.  

With reference to the representativeness of the sample, the applicants submitted that it 
did  not  sufficiently  represent  the  situation  of  small  EU  producers  as  it  was  skewed  in 
favour  of  the  largest  producer  (Distillerie  Mazzari  SpA),  with  a  production  volume  of 
around 30% of the total EU production and having sales volumes accounting for 29% of 
the total EU production.  

The  GC  first  noted  that  under  Article  17(2)  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation  the  final 
selection  of  parties,  types  of  products  or  transactions  made  under  the  sampling 
provisions  ultimately  rests  with  the  Commission.  Furthermore,  the  GC  stated  that  the 
Commission  carried  out  an  objective  examination  of  the  facts  (in  particular,  the 
applicants had contested that the non-representativeness of the sample compromised the 
reliability  of  several  microeconomic  indicators  used  by  the  Commission  in  the 
investigation).  Finally,  the  GC  found  that  even  if  the  Commission  had  used  a  larger 
sample, there was no evidence showing that the conclusions related to profitability and 
injury would have  changed. For all these reasons, the GC held  that the applicants  had 
failed  to  adduce  sufficient  evidence  in  order  to  establish  that  the  Commission’s 
assessment in selecting the sample of the Union industry was manifestly wrong. 

With  regard  to  the  Commission's  conclusion  that  the  Union  industry  had  not  suffered 
material  injury,  the  applicants  claimed  that  the  Commission  did  not  take  sufficient 
account  of  the  factors  displaying  negative  trends  (magnitude  of  the  dumping  margin, 
price  undercutting  margin,  dumped  volumes,  impact  of  the  imports  on  EU  producers' 
sales  volumes  and  market  shares,  expansion  of  Hangzhou  Bioking's  production 
volumes). Against the background of the Commission’s broad discretion when assessing 
economic  data,  the  GC  stated  that  the  institution’s  assessment  was  based  on  all  the 
relevant  factors.  The  GC  also  considered  that  the  Commission  clearly  explained  the 
reasons why it considered that the Union industry had not suffered any material injury. 
As  a  consequence,  the  GC  stated  that  the  applicants  had  not  put  forward  sufficient 
evidence to challenge the Commission's conclusion.  

T-462/15 – Asia Leader International (Cambodia) v European Commission 

In this judgment, the General Court ('GC') dismissed the action brought by Asia Leader 
International  Co.  Ltd,  an  exporting  producer  of  bicycles  from  Cambodia  (“the 
applicant”)  against  the  Commission  Regulation  extending  the  definitive  anti-dumping 
duty on imports of bicycles originating in China to imports of bicycles consigned from 
Cambodia,  Pakistan  and  the  Philippines.  Specifically,  the  applicant  challenged  the 
Commission’s  conclusions  of  that  it  circumvented  the  anti-dumping  measures  via 
transhipment and assembly operations.  

In examining the case, the GC ruled in favour of the Commission on various important 
points regarding the way it carries out circumvention investigations. 

With regard to the findings on circumvention practices and the requests for exemption, 
the GC recalled that while the EU institutions must assess that anti-dumping measures 
are  being  circumvented  in  respect  of  the  third  country  as  a  whole,  it  is  for  each 
individual exporting producer to show that its particular situation justifies an exemption. 

 EN 

46 

     EN 

 
Coherently,  the  GC  stated  that  if  the  applicant  for  exemption  fails  to  prove  that  its 
particular situation justifies the grant of that exemption, the Commission is fully entitled 
to  refuse it. The GC  found that the applicant  was  not  capable of demonstrating that it 
was  a  genuine  producer  of  bicycles.  Consequently,  the  GC  held  that  the  Commission 
was  entitled  to  find  that  those  bicycles  were  transhipped  from  China  and  to  establish 
that  the  applicant  did  not  fulfil  the  conditions  laid  down  in  Article  13(4)  of  the  basic 
Regulation, thus rejecting its request for exemption. 

In relation to the evaluation of the circumvention practices listed in Article 13(1) of the 
basic regulation, the GC underlined the non-exhaustive character of this list and found 
that  it  was  sufficient  to  establish  the  existence  of  only  one  circumvention  practice  to 
reject the applicant's request for exemption under Article 13(4).  

T-675/15 – Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v European Commission  

The  General  Court  (‘GC’)  dismissed  the  action  brought  by  Shanxi  Taigang  Stainless 
Steel Co. Ltd, an exporting producer from China (‘the applicant’) against the Regulation 
imposing  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of  stainless  steel  cold-rolled  flat 
products originating in China and Taiwan (‘contested regulation’).   

The applicant contested in particular the selection of the analogue country, the absence 
of adjustment for differences in the production process and access to raw materials, and 
the  analysis  carried  out  by  the  Commission  in  order  to  determine  the  causal  link 
between the dumped imports and the alleged injury.   

The  claims  related  to  the  selection  of  the  analogue  country  and  the  absence  of 
adjustment for differences in  the production process  and  access  to  raw  materials  were 
made  with  reference  to  the  construction  of  normal  value  for  the  determination  of 
dumping pursuant to Article 2(7)(a) of the basic AD Regulation. Under this provision, 
in  case  of  imports  from  non-market-economy  countries,  normal  value  must  be 
determined  on  the  basis  of  the  price  or  constructed  value  in  a  market-economy  third 
country, duly adjusted if necessary.53 

With regard to the selection of the analogue country for the construction of normal value 
in order to determine dumping, the GC confirmed that the Commission's choice was in 
accordance with Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation, which prescribes the choice of a 
market-economy third country which is subject to the same investigation as an analogue 
country, where appropriate. In this case, Taiwan was subject to the same investigation 
and the applicant claimed that it should have been selected as an appropriate analogue 
country  over  the  US,  which  was  ultimately  chosen  by  the  Commission.  The  GC 
confirmed that it is not mandatory to select the market-economy third country subject to 
the  same  investigation,  as  long  as  the  comparative  analysis  of  the  potential  analogue 
countries shows that the chosen analogue country is more appropriate.  

In  relation  to  the  applicant’s  claim  that  the  Commission  should  have  made  the 
adjustments  for  differences  in  the  production  process  and  access  to  raw  materials,  the 
aim of Article 2(7)(a) of the basic Regulation being to prevent that account be taken of 
prices  and  costs  in  non-market-economy  countries  which  are  not  the  normal  result  of 
market  forces,  the  GC  confirmed  that  EU  institutions  cannot  be  required  to  make 
adjustments in light of factors  which are not directly or indirectly the result of normal 

53  

Reference  is  made  to  the  text  of  the  basic  Regulation  prior  to  the  amendments  introduced  by 
Regulation (EU) 2017/2321 of 12 December 2017.  

 EN 

47 

     EN 

 
                                                 
market forces. Since China was not a market-economy at the time of the investigation 
and the applicant did not claim Market Economy Treatment, there is nothing to indicate 
that  sourcing  of  nickel  and  the  production  process  were  not  influenced  by  parameters 
which are not the result of market forces. 

Lastly,  concerning  the  assessment  of  injury  and  causal  link,  the  GC  recalled  its 
established case law that it is not necessary for all relevant economic factors and indices 
to show a negative trend in order to find injury. Moreover, contrary to the arguments put 
forward  by  the  applicant,  the  GC  recalled  that  the  EU  institutions  are  under  an 
obligation to consider whether the injury on which they intend to base their conclusions 
does in  fact  derive from  dumped imports and must  disregard any injury  deriving from 
other  factors  such  as  imports  from  third  countries,  the  export  performance  and  the 
overcapacity of the Union industry. Regarding the Union industry’s overcapacity, in the 
present case the GC noticed that it was linked to the increased level of dumped imports 
and  that  it  was  not  a  factor  capable  of  undermining  the  relevance  of  the  link  between 
those imports and the injury sustained by the Union industry. 

Having  dismissed  all  the  applicant’s  claims,  the  GC  confirmed  the  validity  of  the 
contested regulation. The judgment is under appeal. 

T-431/12 – Distillerie Bonollo and Others v Council of the European Union  

The  General  Court  (‘GC’)  upheld  the  action  brought  by  Distillerie  Bonollo  SpA, 
Industria  Chimica  Valenzana  SpA,  Distillerie  Mazzari  SpA,  Caviro  Distillerie  Srl  and 
Comercial Quimica Sarasa SL, EU producers of tartaric acid (‘the applicants’) against 
the Council Regulation (‘contested regulation’) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of tartaric acid originating in China. 

The  applicants  contested  the  change  in  methodology  for  the  calculation  of  the  normal 
value  in  order  to  determine  dumping.  In  particular,  the  applicants  criticised  the 
construction of the normal value for the two Chinese exporting producers on the basis of 
the  costs  of  production  in  Argentina  rather  than  on  actual  domestic  sale  prices  in 
Argentina as had been done during the initial investigation. According to the Council, 
the  choice  of  methodology  stemmed  from  the  difference  between  the  processes  for 
producing tartaric acid in Argentina and China, respectively the natural process and the 
synthetic process.  

The GC considered that the contested regulation infringed Article 11(9) of the basic AD 
Regulation. This provision allows the institutions to apply a different method in review 
investigations  from  the  one  used  in  the  initial  investigation  insofar  as  circumstances 
have changed, or the method initially used has been found contrary to Article 2 of the 
basic Regulation. 

First of all, the GC considered that the differences in the production process (natural v 
synthetic)  existed  and  were  already  known  during  the  initial  investigation  stage. 
Therefore, there was no change in circumstances to justify the Council approach and the 
adjustment  of  the  normal  value  taking  into  account  the  differences  in  the  production 
process. 

The GC further clarified that the contested regulation did not state that the initial method 
had been found contrary to Article 2 of the basic Regulation. Moreover, the GC noted 
that the tartaric acid produced by chemical synthesis has the same characteristics and the 
same basic uses as that produced from by-products of winemaking. As a consequence, a 
comparison  between  the  normal  value  calculated  using  the  data  relating  to  the  natural 

 EN 

48 

     EN 

 
production  process  and  the  export  prices  based  on  data  relating  to  the  synthetic 
production process was  not considered by  the GC as contrary to Article 2 of the basic 
Regulation.  

In light of these arguments, the GC annulled the contested regulation and maintained the 
anti-dumping  duty  as  regards  one  of  the  two  Chinese  exporting  producers  pending 
implementation of the judgment.  

T-654/16 – Foshan Lihua Ceramic v European Commission  

In  this  judgment,  the  General  Court  (‘GC’)  dismissed  the  action  brought  by  Foshan 
Lihua  Ceramic  Co.  Ltd.,  an  exporting  producer  of  ceramic  tiles  from  China  (“the 
applicant”).  The  applicant  sought  the  annulment  of  the  Decision  by  which  the 
Commission refused its request to initiate an interim review limited to dumping aspects. 

The  decision  clarifies  the  conditions  under  which  an  exporting  producer  who  has  not 
cooperated in the investigation leading to the imposition of anti-dumping measures, and 
who has not been included in the samples usually used by the Commission in a large-
scale investigation of this type, can request  a partial interim review of those measures 
under Article 11(3) of the basic AD  Regulation.  In essence, the GC stated that a non-
cooperating  and  non-sampled  exporting  producer  cannot  solely  prove  that  its  own 
circumstances with regard to dumping and injury have changed significantly in order to 
sustain its request for a partial interim review. Precisely because the applicant is a non-
cooperating  exporting  producer  and  the  setting  of  the  anti-dumping  rate  is  based  on 
sampling, it must prove - as stated by the Commission – either that the factors forming 
the basis for the setting of the dumping margin used to establish the anti-dumping duties 
that apply to the sampled companies have changed significantly and for a long period of 
time,  or  that  such  changes  have  effected  all  exporting  producers  of  the  exporting 
country.  

Importantly,  the  GC  further  explained  that  a  non-cooperating  and  non-sampled 
exporting  producer  may  not  request  individual  examination  to  get  an  individual  anti-
dumping duty rate via an interim review pursuant to Article 11(3) of the anti-dumping 
Regulation. In order to support its request, the applicant had relied on Article 17(3) of 
the  Regulation,  which  provides  the  possibility  of  calculating  an  individual  dumping 
margin  for a non-sampled exporting producer in  the case of an investigation based on 
sampling, and Article 11(5), which extends the rules regulating investigations to review 
procedures.  The  GC  took  a  different  stand,  acknowledging  that  the  application  of 
Article  11(5)  must  take  into  account  the  specific  characteristics  and  purposes  of  the 
review  procedures.  The  purpose  of  the  partial  interim  review  in  question  is  the 
assessment of a possible change of circumstances of a more general nature than the ones 
concerning  only  the  non-cooperating  and  non-sampled  exporting  producer.  As  a 
consequence,  the  application  of  Article  11(5)  in  order  to  obtain  an  individual 
examination via an interim review would run counter the purpose of the interim review 
procedure.  

T-364/16  –  ArcelorMittal  Tubular  Products  Ostrava  and  Others  v  European 
Commission 

The  General  Court  (‘GC’)  annulled  the  decision  (‘contested  decision’)  by  which  the 
Commission  amended  the  EU-wide  TARIC  database  in  a  way  that  obliged  national 
customs  authorities  to  stop  collecting  anti-dumping  duties  with  respect  to  goods 

 EN 

49 

     EN 

 
produced by the Chinese exporting producer of steel pipes and tubes Hubei Xinyegang 
Steel  Co.  Ltd  (‘Hubei’),54  following  an  action  brought  by  ArcelorMittal,  a  Czech 
producer. 

In 2009, definitive anti-dumping measures were imposed on imports of steel pipes and 
tubes from China.55 Hubei successfully challenged those measures in Court, which were 
thus annulled as far as Hubei was concerned (‘the Hubei judgments’). However, in the 
meantime,  the  Commission  had  re-imposed  anti-dumping  measures  on  the  same 
products  following  an  expiry  review.  The  question  was  whether  the  annulment  of 
Regulation 926/2009 automatically meant that there was no more legal basis to collect 
duties on imports from Hubei justifying the adoption of the contested decision to amend 
the TARIC database in relation to Hubei. 

The judgment affirmed two important principles.  

First, the GC affirmed that an annulling judgment cannot entail annulment of an act that 
was not challenged before the EU Courts, even if it suffers from the same illegality of 
the annulled act. 

In this context, Regulation 2015/2272, which replaced Regulation 926/2009, is the legal 
basis  for  imposing  anti-dumping  duties  on  the  goods  at  issue  originating  in  China, 
including those produced by Hubei. As a consequence, the GC concluded that the latter 
regulation, absent any judgment to the contrary, was still to be considered lawful. 

Secondly,  the  GC  stated  that,  although  the  Commission  was  obliged  to  draw  the 
consequences  from  the  Hubei  judgments  and  take  the  necessary  actions  to  stop 
collecting anti-dumping duties on imports from Hubei,  such actions had to respect the 
legal  principle  of  equivalence  of  form.  As  a  consequence,  the  non-collection  of  anti-
dumping  duties  laid  down  by  a  regulation  which  had  not  been  annulled  or  declared 
invalid must be brought about by means of a regulation. 

8.5. 

Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice (a selection) 

C-301/16  P  –  European  Commission  v  Xinyi  PV  Products  (Anhui)  (appeal  in  T-
586/14) 

The CJ upheld the appeal by which the Commission sought to set aside the judgment of 
the  GC  of  16  March  2016,  Xinyi  PV  Products  (Anhui)  Holdings  Ltd  v.  European 
Commission (T-586/14). In this judgment the GC had annulled Article 1 of Regulation 
(EU)  No  470/2014  of  13  May  2014  (“regulation  at  issue”)  by  which  the  Commission 
had  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  and  collected  definitively  the  provisional 
duty imposed on imports of solar glass originating in China.   

Among other grounds of appeal, the Commission submitted that the GC erred in law in 
interpreting  the  concept  of  “former  non-market  economy  system”,  as  established  in 
Article  2(7)(c)  of  Regulation  No  1225/2009,  as  referring  to  an  economic  system  of  a 
state-trading country. 

As  China’s  economic  system  is  normally  regarded  as  being  in  transition  to  a  market 
economy  but  still  considered  as  a  non-market  economy  system,  the  CJ  stated  that  the 

54  

55  

Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain steel pipes and tubes from China, including 
those  produced  by  Hubei,  had  been  imposed  by  the  Commission  pursuant  to  Implementing 
Regulation (EU) No 2015/2272. 
Council Regulation (EC) No 926/2009 of 24 September 2009, OJ L 262, 6.10.2009, p.19 

 EN 

50 

     EN 

 
                                                 
expression  “former  non-market  economy  system”  does  not  refer  specifically  to  the 
historic economic system of a state-trading country, but more in general to a non-market 
economy system which has already experienced some reform. 

Finally,  the  CJ  agreed  with  the  Commission  that  measures  aimed  at  implementing  a 
five-year plan are  always  presumed as  having been carried over from  the former non-
market economy system. By taking this view, the Court diverged from the GC’s more 
formalistic  reading  of  the  words  “carried  over  from  the  former  non-market  economy 
system”  and  embraced  a  conceptual  interpretation  of  the  expression.  In  particular, 
coherently  with  the  ratio  legis  of  the  provisions  on  Market  Economy  Treatment,  the 
Court  considered  the  fact  that  the  distortions  had  stemmed  from  such  as  system  to  be 
sufficient to assume that they had been carried over from it. Specifically, the CJ rejected 
the position taken by the GC view that the continued existence of those plans did  not 
necessarily imply that they were carried over from the former non-market economy in 
China. Instead, the CJ considered that, even assuming that the Chinese five-year plans 
no longer provide defined production objectives for all sectors of the economy, as was 
the  case  when  China  was  still  a  state-trading  country,  those  plans  still  play  a 
fundamental  role  in  the  organisation  of  that  economy,  in  so  far  as  they  contain,  for  a 
great  number  of  sectors,  precise  objectives  which  are  binding  on  all  levels  of 
government.  Hence,  the  Court  stated  that  the  fact  that  the  specific  preferential  tax 
schemes at issue implement a five-year plan is deemed sufficient to conclude that these 
measures  constitute  significant  distortions  “carried  over  from  the  former  non-market 
economy system”, within the meaning of that provision.  

Having upheld the first ground of appeal, the CJ set aside the judgment and referred the 
case back to the GC.   

C-256/16 P – Deichmann SE v Hauptzollamt Duisburg (preliminary ruling) 

The CJ ruled on a request for preliminary ruling concerning the validity of Commission 
Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  223/2016  of  17 February  2016  (“regulation  at 
issue”)  establishing  a  procedure  for  assessing  certain  Market  Economy  Treatment  and 
individual treatment claims made by exporting producers from China and Vietnam, and 
implementing the judgment of the Court in joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14. These 
judgments  had  declared  the  invalidity  of  Regulation  (EC)  No  1472/2006,  imposing  a 
definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitely the provisional duty imposed on 
imports  of  certain  footwear  with  uppers  of  leather  originating  in  China  and  Vietnam 
(“the  definitive  Regulation”)  and  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1294/2009,  imposing  a 
definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  the  same  imports,  and  also  to  the  imports  consigned 
from the Macao SAR (“the prolonging regulation”). 

The  request  was  made  in  proceedings  between  Deichmann  SE  and  the  Hauptzollamt 
Duisburg, the Principal Customs Office in Duisburg, concerning an application for the 
repayment  of  anti-dumping  duties  paid  on  imports  of  footwear  with  uppers  of  leather 
into  the  European  Union.  The  facts  of  the  dispute  in  the  main  proceedings  and  the 
regulation  at  issue  took  place  in  a  time  when  the  adoption  of  anti-dumping  measures 
within  the  EU  had  successively  been  governed  by  two  successive  anti-dumping 
regulations,  namely  Regulation  (EC)  No  384/96  (“Regulation  No  384/96”)  and 
Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (“Regulation No 1225/2009”).  

 EN 

51 

     EN 

 
The  Court  of  Justice  gave  blessing  to  the  manner  in  which  the  Commission 
implemented the judgments of the Court in cases C-659/13 and C-34/14, namely by re-
imposing the anti-dumping duties.  

The CJ relied on Article 14(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009 as a legal basis to empower 
the  Commission  to  take  preparatory  measures  for  the  re-imposition  of  anti-dumping 
duties  and  to  adopt  directions  suspending  the  repayment  of  anti-dumping  duties  by 
national custom authorities. 

First of all, the CJ held that, by providing that anti-dumping duties should be imposed 
by regulation and collected by Member States according to the criteria laid down in the 
regulation which establishes them, Article 14(1) does not contain an exhaustive list of 
criteria  relating  to  the  collection  of  anti-dumping  duties  that  the  Commission  may  set 
out. Accordingly, as the directions set out in Article 1 of the regulation at issue aim to 
safeguard the collection of anti-dumping duties imposed by the regulation by obliging 
national  custom  authorities  to  wait  until  the  Commission  has  determined  the  rates  at 
which such duties should have been fixed, and these directions relate to the collection of 
the  relevant  anti-dumping  duties  by  Member  States,  Article  14(1)  of  Regulation 
1225/2009 empowers the Commission to adopt them.    

In  the  second  place,  the  CJ  recognized  the  possibility  for  the  Commission  to  adopt 
directions  suspending  the  repayment  of  anti-dumping  duties  by  national  custom 
authorities as not contrary to Article 236 of the Customs Code. As a matter of fact, the 
Court  stated  that  -  according  to  settled  case  law  -  the  exact  scope  of  a  declaration  of 
invalidity  contained  in  one  of  its  judgments,  and  of  the  obligations  stemming  from  it, 
must be determined taking into account the grounds that constitute its essential basis. In 
particular, the Court noticed that its assessment in  joined cases C-659/13 and C-34/14 
did  not  reveal  factors  which  affected  the  validity  of  the  definitive  Regulation  and  the 
prolonging regulation, but only reflected the fact that the Commission and the Council 
adopted  them  without  assessing  the  Market  Economy  Treatment  claimed  by  certain 
exporting producers involved in the investigation, and omitted to assess the individual 
treatment claims from the same exporting producers.  

As  a  consequence,  the  CJ  held  that  the  Commission  was  entitled  to  carry  out  the 
assessment  of  the  claims  submitted  by  the  concerned  exporting  producers  in  order  to 
determine whether the anti-dumping duties that applied to them should have been set at 
rates below those laid down by the two regulations. Accordingly, the only amount that 
had to  be repaid  to  the concerned parties since it had been  wrongly imposed, was the 
one corresponding to the difference between the rate at which the two regulations had 
set  those  anti-dumping  duties  and  the  rate  at  which  they  should  have  been  set  if  the 
illegalities  found  by  the  Court  in  its  judgments  C-659/13  C-34/14  had  not  been 
committed.  Article 236  of  the  Customs  Code  not  being  interpreted  as  prohibiting  the 
Commission from directing that a ruling be made on the applications for repayment of 
those anti-dumping duties following a procedure with the specific aim of allowing it to 
calculate such a difference, the directions set out in Article 1 of the regulation at issue 
were  not  deemed  contrary  to  Article 236(1)  of  the  Customs  Code.  Consequently,  the 
Commission  was  empowered  to  adopt  them  on  the  basis  of  the  first  sentence  of 
Article 14(1) of Regulation No 1225/2009. 

The Court confirmed the validity of the regulation at issue. 

 EN 

52 

     EN 

 
C-363/17 P – Equipolymers and Others v Council of the European Union (appeal in 
T-422/13) 

The  Court  of  Justice  (‘CJ’)  dismissed  the  appeal  by  which  Equipolymers  Srl,  M&G 
Polimeri  Italia  SpA,  and  Novapet  (‘the  appellants’),  European  producers  of 
polyethylene  terephthalate  (‘PET’),  sought  to  set  aside  the  judgment  of  the  General 
Court (‘GC’) of 5 April 2017. In this judgment the GC had dismissed their claims for 
compensation  of  damages  allegedly  suffered  as  a  consequence  of  the  illegality  of  the 
Council Decision rejecting the proposal for an anti-dumping regulation, in so far as the 
proposal  would  have  imposed  a  definitive  anti-dumping  duty  on  imports  of    PET 
originating in India, Taiwan and Thailand (‘the decision at issue’).    

In the proceedings before the GC the appellants had argued that, following the decision 
at issue, they had been forced to maintain their EU sales prices at loss-making levels, in 
order to compete with dumped imports from India, Taiwan and Thailand. That loss was 
due,  according  to  them,  to  the  difference  between  their  earnings  before  interest,  taxes 
and amortisation (‘EBITA’) during the period between April 2012 and March 2013 and 
the EBITA estimated for the period from June 2013 to May 2014. On its part, the GC 
had dismissed the claim for damages on the ground that the information provided by the 
appellants  did  not  make  it  possible  to  establish  a  direct  and  sufficient  causal  link 
between the adoption of the decision at issue and the alleged losses. 

By their single ground of appeal, the appellants disputed the GC’s conclusion.  

First of all, they submitted that the GC erred in characterizing the facts when it held that 
the appellants failed to establish the existence of a direct and sufficient causal link. In 
particular,  while  accepting  that  the  factors  relied  on  by  the  GC  in  its  decision  were 
capable  of  influencing  their  EBITA,  the  appellants  alleged  that  the  GC  failed  to  take 
into  account  certain  adjustments  and  explanations  provided  by  them,  the  purpose  of 
which  was  to  make  a  distinction  between  the  part  of  the  reduction  of  their  EBITA 
caused  by  the  increase  in  imports  from  India,  Taiwan  and  Thailand  following  the 
adoption of the decision at issue, and that resulting from other factors. On its side, the 
CJ found that it was for the appellants to adduce conclusive proof as to the existence of 
a sufficiently direct causal link. Accordingly, it was not for the GC to attempt to deduce 
its  existence  by  referring  to  calculations  which,  at  least  expressly,  did  not  take  into 
account all the relevant factors. 

Additionally, the appellants submitted that the GC did not set out the reasons for which 
the evidence provided on their part was insufficient to establish a direct and sufficient 
causal  link.  In  that  regard,  the  CJ  recalled  established  case-law  to  affirm  that  the 
obligation  to  state  reasons  does  not  require  to  provide  an  exhaustive  account  which 
follows one by one all the arguments put forward by the parties to the case. As a matter 
of fact, the CJ noticed that the reasoning may be implicit on condition that it enables the 
persons concerned to know why the GC has not upheld their arguments and provides the 
CJ with sufficient material for it to exercise its power of review. In the present case, the 
GC  listed  factors  which  were  likely  to  cause  or  lead  to  a  reduction  in  the  appellants’ 
EBITA,  and  stated  that  the  appellants  had  not  made  a  distinction,  in  that  reduction, 
between the part entailed by the unlawful adoption of that decision and that attributable 
to those factors. Hence, the CJ found that the GC had implicitly but necessarily fulfilled 
its obligation to state reasons.  

Having rejected as unfounded the appellants’ single ground of appeal, the CJ dismissed 
the appeal in its entirety.  

 EN 

53 

     EN 

 
C-100/17 P – Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council of the European Union (appeal in 
T-199/04)  

The Court of Justice (‘CJ’) dismissed the appeal by which Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd 
(‘the appellant’), a Pakistani exporting producer of bed linen,  sought to have set  aside 
the  judgment  of  the  General  Court  (‘GC’)  of  15  December  2016,  by  which  the  GC 
rejected its action for annulment of the Regulation imposing a definitive anti-dumping 
duty  on  imports  of  cotton-type  bed  linen  originating  in  Pakistan,  in  so  far  as  it 
concerned it. 

By its  first  ground of appeal,  the appellant  challenged the findings of the GC that the 
second and third pleas of the application concerning the calculation of the normal value 
and  the  fair  comparison  between  normal  value  and  export  price  were  no  longer 
admissible. The GC had concluded for the inadmissibility of these pleas as it considered 
that  the  appellant  had  not  shown  the  continuing  existence  of  its  interest  in  bringing 
proceedings with respect to them.  

In  particular,  the  appellant  alleged  the  GC’s  failure  to  fulfil  its  obligation  to  state 
reasons in this respect, as well as an error in law.   

The CJ confirmed that the interest in having a contested act annulled must continue until 
the end of the proceeding and that the matter of a continuing interest in the proceeding 
can be raised at  any point  in  time, either by the  GC itself or by a party  who relies on 
sufficiently  serious  evidence.  However,  when  examining  the  continuing  interest  in 
bringing the proceeding, the GC must respect the rights of defence of the other side, in 
particular  by  inviting  the  applicant  to  express  its  views  and  submit  evidence  showing 
this interest.  

The  CJ  concluded  that  this  was  appropriately  done  by  the  GC  when,  following  the 
hearing at which the issue of lack of continuing interest was raised by the Commission, 
the  appellant  was  invited  to  express  its  views  on  that  question  and  was  afforded  the 
opportunity of submitting any evidence which might contradict the institutions’ claims. 
Therefore,  the  GC  had  not  disregarded  its  burden  of  proof  nor  failed  to  fulfil  its 
obligation to state reasons. As a consequence, the CJ rejected the first ground of appeal. 

In its second plea in law the appellant claimed that the GC committed an error in law 
and  distorted  facts  when  reviewing  the  assessment  of  the  causal  link  between  the 
alleged  dumping  and  the  alleged  material  injury  of  the  EU  industry.  In  particular  the 
appellant  claimed  that  the  causal  link  was  broken  by  the  EU  industry's  shifting  of 
production to the high-value segment of the EU bed-linen market and by the increasing 
EU  imports  of  bed  linen  from  Turkish  producers  related.  The  CJ  dismissed  the 
appellant’s  arguments  and  confirmed  the  GC's  conclusions  with  regard  to  the 
institution's causation assessment.     

For these reasons, the CJ dismissed the appeal. 

C-145/17 P – Internacional de Productos Metálicos v European Commission (appeal 
in T-217/16)  

The Court of Justice (‘CJ’) dismissed the appeal by  which  Internacional  de Productos 
Metálicos SA, a Spanish importer of iron or steel fasteners (‘the appellant’),  sought to 
have  set  aside  the  judgment  of  the  General  Court  (‘GC’)  of  25 January  2017 
(T‑ 217/16). By this judgment, the GC had dismissed the action seeking the annulment 
of  Article 2  of  the  Regulation  by  which  the  Commission  repealed  the  definitive  anti-

 EN 

54 

     EN 

 
dumping duty imposed on imports of certain iron or steel fasteners originating in China 
(‘the regulation at issue’).   

This  case  essentially  concerned  the  right  for  importers  to  challenge  antidumping 
regulations  directly  before  the  EU  Courts  in  cases  where  they  are  not  individually 
concerned  by  the  regulations  and  there  are  implementing  measures  which  have  to  be 
challenged  at  national  level.  In  essence,  the  appellant  requested  the  annulment  of  the 
provision according to which the repeal of the anti-dumping duties took effect from the 
date  of  the  entry  into  force  of  the  regulation,  and  did  not  serve  as  a  basis  for  the 
repayment  of  the  duties  collected  prior  to  that  date.  The  CJ  rejected  the  appellant’s 
request  on  the  basis  that  the  regulation  at  issue  was  not  of  individual  concern  to  the 
applicant and that it entailed implementing measures.  

First of all, the CJ recalled that where a measure affects a group of persons who were 
identified or identifiable when that measure was adopted by reason of criteria specific to 
the members of the group, those persons may nevertheless be individually concerned by 
that measure if they form part of a limited class of economic operators. The CJ held that 
this  takes  place  particularly  when  the  decision  alters  rights  acquired  by  the  individual 
prior to  its adoption.  In  the present  case, however, the CJ found that the regulation  at 
issue affected the appellant only in its objective capacity as an importer, without taking 
into account its individual situation. Moreover, the CJ stated that being subject to anti-
dumping measures, such as those which were repealed by the regulation at issue, could 
not  validly  be  regarded  as  constituting  an  “acquired  right”,  since  there  was  no  right 
acquired by the importer at the time the entries took place. 

Secondly, the CJ noticed that Article 2 of that regulation, in so far as it provided for the 
expiry  of  the  duties  from  the  date  of  its  entry  into  force  and  excluded  any  retroactive 
effect, could be implemented, as regards the appellant, only through measures taken by 
the national authorities for the purpose of collecting the anti-dumping duties in question 
before  that  date.  Consequently,  the  CJ  found  that  the  regulation  at  issue  entailed 
implementing measures although the repeal of the anti-dumping duties did not depend, 
as such, on the adoption of measures of this type. 

For these reasons, the CJ rejected the appeal in its entirety. 

9. 

ACTIVITIES BY THIRD COUNTRIES TARGETING THE EU 

This  section  describes  the  main  developments  and  trends  in  the  area  of  third  country 
actions in 2018 (see also the Annual Report, which this document is accompanying, as 
well as annex U (A – F) below for detailed figures). 

In  2018,  the  main  users  of  the  trade  defence  instruments  against  EU  exports  were  the 
US  with  33  measures  in  force,  India  with  21,  China  with  18,  Brazil  with  16,  Turkey 
with  14,  and  Australia  with  10  measures  in  force.  Besides  these  main  users,  other 
important cases in countries that use the instruments less frequently are also described 
below. 

United States (US) 

Overall trends 

In 2018, the US initiated three new AD investigations affecting EU exports, 7 less than 
in  2017.  Furthermore,  it  initiated  three  AD  expiry  reviews  and  one  AS  expiry  review 

 EN 

55 

     EN 

 
investigation. It also initiated the Article 232 safeguard investigation regarding steel and 
aluminium. One AD investigation was terminated without measures. In one of the AD 
investigations provisional measures were imposed, which are still in force. 

Definitive measures were imposed in 10 investigations out of which nine (five AD, two 
AS, two safeguards) had been initiated in 2017 and one AD in 2018.  

At the end of 2018, the US had 33 measures in force affecting EU imports. 

Main cases  

Regarding product types, the investigations initiated in 2018 concerned imports of steel 
(two  investigations)  and  chemical  substances  (one  investigation),  whereas  measures 
were  imposed  on  five  steel  products,  one  processed  agricultural  product  (AD  and  AS 
measures), one chemical substance and two other consumer and industrial goods.   

Spanish ripe olives AD/AS investigations 

The  most  important  investigations  were  the  AD  and  AS  investigations  concerning 
imports of Spanish ripe olives, which were finalised with the imposition of the AD 
and AS measures in August 2018. The AS investigation was of a particular concern 
since it targeted, among others, several EU subsidy schemes available under the EU 
Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), which is considered non-trade distorting, non-
product  specific  and thus  non-countervailable under the rules of the WTO. Despite 
the numerous Commission interventions, the US nevertheless decided to countervail 
some  of  these  schemes  using  questionable  reasoning  relating,  for  example,  to  the 
issue  of  specificity  and  so  called  a  pass-through  test.  On  28  January  2018,  the  EU 
requested  to  hold  consultations  with  the  US  under  the  WTO  Dispute  Settlement 
Understanding to solve the matter. 

India 

Overall trends  

The  total  number  of  21 measures  in  force  in  2018  has  remained  the  same  as  in  2017, 
confirming that India remains amongst the main users of the instruments. However, on a 
more positive note, it reduced its use of safeguards over the last four years (two in force 
in 2018) and did not initiate any new safeguard investigation last year.         

Overall, India initiated four new AD investigations (Coated paper, Dimethylformamide 
(DMF),  High  speed  steel,  Epoxy  resin).  It  imposed  definitive  AD  duties  in  two  cases 
(Nylon Filament Yarn, Wooden flooring) and extended AD duties following one expiry 
review investigation (Methylene Chloride). It imposed definitive ad-valorem safeguard 
duties  on  imports  of  Solar  Cells  (the  investigation  was  mentioned  in  the  previous 
Annual Report on third countries’ activity).  

In  the  course  of  2018,  India  streamlined  its  internal  procedures  in  trade  remedies  and 
amended its anti-dumping and anti-subsidy rules, making them stricter and more in line 
with  WTO  and  EU  rules.  At  the  request  of  the  Indian  authority,  the  Commission 
provided comments on the draft and welcomed the proposed amendments.  

Main cases 

In  addition  to  the  successful  interventions  in  the  AD  investigation  concerning  coated 
paper, which was terminated without measures (see also the Annual Report, which this 

 EN 

56 

     EN 

 
document is accompanying), India terminated five other investigations (three new ones 
and two expiry reviews) without imposing or further extending the duties.   

Acrylic Fibre  

The  investigation  was  initiated  in  April  2017  (EU  economic  interest  of  around  7 
million EUR). In April 2018, the Indian authorities concluded that there was no price 
undercutting and no price suppression caused by imports, therefore the imposition of 
AD measures was not warranted. The Commission followed the case in close contact 
with  the  industry  and  gave  support  to  the  affected  EU  companies.  It  made  two 
written interventions and two oral interventions during public hearings.  

Melamine – expiry review  

In March 2018, the Indian authorities concluded that the domestic industry was in a 
stable and healthy situation and there was no injury due to imports, resulting in the 
expiry of the duty without further extension (EU economic interest 4,6 million EUR). 
The Commission made two written interventions, claiming inter alia that AD duties 
must  not  be  used  as  a  means  to  protect  the  domestic  industry’s  plan  to  build 
additional capacity. 

Sodium Nitrite – AD mid-term review 

The review was initiated in December 2017, at the request of the domestic industry, 
who claimed that the duty in force was no longer sufficient to remedy the injury, and 
asked to raise the duty level. At the end of July 2018, after examination of the facts, 
the Indian authorities concluded that the increase of the injury margin was not caused 
by  imports,  but  was  due  to  the  capacity  expansion  of  the  domestic  industry,  who 
otherwise was in a healthy and profitable situation. Thus, there was no need to raise 
the level of the AD duty in force. The Commission made two written interventions. 

China 

Overall trends  

In 2018, China's Trade defence activity was of lower intensity than in previous years. In 
2018, China initiated two new AD cases, two expiry reviews and one interim review. In 
2018,  China  imposed  one  AD  measure,  concluded  one  AD  interim  review  with  an 
increase in duty, extended one existing AD measure, and let expire two AD and one AS 
measure(s). 

The  total  number  of  measures  in  force  against  the  EU  at  the  end  of  2018  was  18,  as 
compared to 20 in 2017. 

Main cases  

Polysilicon – AD/AS measures 

On 31 October 2018, MOFCOM issued a notice terminating anti-dumping and anti-
subsidy measures in place against EU exports of Polysilicon, a key raw material in 
the production of Solar Panels. These measures were in place since 2014, covering a 
volume of exports worth around 650 million EUR, and targeted particularly German 
Polysilicon  producer  Wacker.  In  the  context  of  EU  measures  on  Solar  Panels  from 
China,  China  retaliated  by  imposing  measures  on  EU  exports  of  Polysilicon  and 
carefully  mirrored  every  single  move  by  the  EU  in  the  Solar  Panels  case.  On  31 

 EN 

57 

     EN 

 
August  2018,  the  EU  decided  not  to  extend  its  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy 
measures  on  solar  panels  from  China.  The  termination  of  these  measures  by 
MOFCOM brings to a close a long-running process that has been the subject of much 
discussion.   

Brazil 

Brazil kept a moderate activity in 2018. As in 2017, the country initiated  one new AD 
investigation  regarding  silicon  electrical  steel  from  Germany.  As  in  2017,  Brazil  also 
imposed one new AD measure in 2018 (nitrile rubber from France). However, the total 
number of measures in force remains high with 16 measures at the end of 2018. At the 
end of 2018, there were also a number of measures under review: milk powder from the 
EU, laminated steel from Germany and Finland and ethanolamine from Germany.  

Turkey 

Overall trends 

In  2018,  Turkey  was  very  active  in  terms  of  trade  defence.  Turkey  initiated  two  new 
safeguard  investigations  and  reviewed  two  safeguard  measures  in  force.  In  addition, 
Turkey  launched  one  new  AD  investigation  on  synthetic  filament  tow  and  initiated  a 
review  of  measures  concerning  water  heaters.  Turkey  also  initiated  three  new  anti-
circumvention  investigations  concerning  imports  of  hinges,  chains  and  woven  fabrics. 
There were 14 Turkish measures in force against the EU at the end of 2018. 

As  regards  the  investigations  initiated  before  2018,  Turkey  imposed  AD  measures  on 
imports of sodium  percarbonate from Germany,  extended AD measures  on imports of 
pipefittings  from  Bulgaria  and  imposed  AD  measures  on  imports  of  kraft  liner  paper 
from Finland and Poland. Finally, Turkey also imposed safeguard measures on imports 
of toothbrushes.  

Main cases 

Iron and steel products – safeguard investigation 

In April 2018, Turkey initiated a safeguard investigation concerning imports of iron 
and steel products. This is an important case for the EU industry as it exports over €3 
billion  of  steel  to  Turkey  annually.  The  initiation  followed  the  imposition  of 
measures in the US under Section 232. In October 2018, Turkey adopted provisional 
safeguard measures in the form of a tariff rate quota (“TRQ”) for 200 days. Both in 
form (free of duty quota corresponding to the average imports in the last 3 years), as 
well  as  in  out-of-quota  duty  (25%),  the  measures  resemble  the  EU  safeguard 
measures on steel. The scope of the measures is slightly larger than the scope of the 
EU measures. The Commission has intervened and highlighted that the criteria of an 
increase of imports in terms of the WTO Safeguards agreement does not appear to be 
met in this case.  

Wallpaper - safeguard investigation  

In 2015, Turkey imposed safeguard measures on imports of wallpaper (export value 
around 13 million  EUR (in 2014)).  In close  coordination with  the EU industry, the 
Commission  negotiated  a  TRQ  for  wallpaper  with  a  CIF  value  above  5  USD/kg 
(which allows for the continuation of imports of the more expensive wallpaper from 

 EN 

58 

     EN 

 
the  EU).  After  a  review  concluded  in  August  2018,  the  safeguard  measure  was 
extended, however that extension did not include the TRQ. After the intervention of 
the  Commission  and  the  EU  industry  last  year,  Turkey  has  now,  in  early  January 
2019, also extended the TRQ. The TRQ will apply for three years.  

Australia 

Australia increased the use of trade defence in 2018 and is becoming an important user 
of trade defence against the EU. As compared to 1 new case in 2017, Australia initiated 
three  new  AD  investigations  in  2018:  A4  copy  paper  from  Austria,  Slovakia  and 
Finland, railway wheels from France and ammonium nitrate from Sweden. The number 
of measures imposed increased from one in 2017 to four in 2018, totalling 10 measures 
in force at the end of 2018.    

The Commission is closely following and intervening in all the three new investigations 
and also  in  the on-going expiry review of the AD measures against “all  other”  Italian 
exporters of canned tomatoes imposed in 2014. 

Other important cases 

Canada – safeguard investigation concerning imports of certain steel products 

As a response to the US 232 investigation, Canada initiated a safeguard investigation 
and imposed provisional measures in  October 2018. The scope of the investigation 
covers  seven  steel  products  (EU  export  value  around  150  million  €).  Provisional 
measures were imposed for 200 days and are in the form of a tariff-rate quota (based 
on  the  average  of  the  last  three  years)  with  a  25%  out-of-quota  duty.  The 
investigation is now approaching its final phase. The Commission already intervened 
in  the  context  of  this  investigation  with  a  view  to  highlight  potential  flaws  mainly 
relating to the non-disclosure of critical information, which affects the Commission’s 
right  of  defence  guaranteed  by  the  WTO  Safeguard  Agreement.  The  imposition  of 
the final safeguard measures, if any, is scheduled for April 2019. 

Colombia – AD investigation concerning imports of frozen fries 

On  9  November  2018,  Colombia  concluded  the  anti-dumping  investigation  on 
imports  of  frozen  fries  from  Belgium,  Germany  and  the  Netherlands  with  the 
imposition of measures. Colombia imposed duties for one company in each Member 
State concerned (from 3,21% to 8,01%) and for all other Dutch exporters (44,52%). 
The  Commission,  together  with  the  three  Member  States,  raised  the  different 
deficiencies  of  this  investigation  with  the  Colombian  authorities  from  the  very 
beginning.  Political  interventions  also  took  place  at  a  high  level.  The  main 
weaknesses  of  the  case  concern  the  calculation  of  the  dumping  margin,  a  non-
objective  injury  and  causality  analysis,  weak  standards  of  initiation  and  other 
procedural issues mainly concerning confidentiality. The industry is very concerned 
because Colombia is the third country imposing measures on frozen fries after South 
Africa  in  2014  and  Brazil  in  2017  (EU  export  value  21  million  EUR  for  South 
Africa,  96  million  EUR  for  Brazil  and  23  million  EUR  for  Colombia).  The 
Commission  raised  its  strong  concerns  during  the  annual  meeting  of  the  EU-
Colombia  Trade  Committee  (highest  implementation  body  under  the  Trade 
Agreement) and a meeting took place in Bogota at the end of January 2019, where 

 EN 

59 

     EN 

 
EU  and  Colombian  experts  discussed  calculations.  Bilaterally,  the  Commission  is 
considering  to  request  an  administrative  review.  In  parallel,  the  Commission 
continues its analysis in view of a possible action in the WTO.  

South  Africa  –  bilateral  safeguard  investigation  concerning  imports  of  frozen 
chicken under the EPA (European Partnership Agreement)  

In 2016, South Africa initiated a bilateral safeguard investigation concerning imports 
of  poultry  from  the  EU  under  the  Trade  and  Development  Cooperation  Agreement 
and  continued  the  investigation  under  the  EU-SADC  EPA,  when  provisional 
application  of  the  EPA  started  in  October  2016.  At  the  end  of  2017,  South  Africa 
announced  that  the  investigation  had  shown  that  the  relevant  conditions  were  met 
and imposed definitive safeguard measures in September 2018.  The definitive duties 
apply  until  March  2021.  The  initial  duties  have  been  set  at  35.3%  ad  valorem  and 
will  be  liberalised  over  time  to  25%  during  the  last  year.  The  Commission  has 
conveyed  the  message  to  the  SACU  countries  that  it  does  not  agree  with  the 
measures and has held several formal exchanges with the SACU countries to find a 
mutually  acceptable  solution.  The  SACU  countries  have  not  accepted  any  of  the 
proposed solutions. The Commission is considering next steps. 

10. 

ACTIVITIES IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE WTO 

10.1.  Dispute settlement in the field of trade defence 

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.  

In  2018,  the  EU  participated  actively  in  a  number  of  WTO  dispute  settlement 
proceedings as a third party. 

Regarding the dispute settlement cases against the EU, the main developments in 2018 
were the following:  

 EN 

60 

     EN 

 
European Union – Anti-Dumping Measures on Biodiesel from Indonesia (DS480) 

On 10 June 2014, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union regarding 
the application of anti-dumping duties on imports of biodiesel originating, inter alia, in 
Indonesia.56  A  panel  in  the  case  was  further  composed  on  4  November  2015.  After  a 
suspension  in  the Panel’s  proceedings in  2016 (at  the request  of  Indonesia), the Panel 
issued its report on 25 January 2018, which was adopted by the DSB on 28 February 
2018. The Panel found, among others, that in line with the findings in  EU – Biodiesel 
from  Argentina  the  EU  should  have  calculated  the  normal  value  using  the  cost  of 
the 
Indonesia,  based  on 
production  of  biodiesel 
producers/exporter  under  investigation.  The  Panel  also  stated  that  the  EU  failed  to 
determine  the  profit  normally  realized  by  other  exporters  or  producers  on  sales  of 
products of the same general category in the domestic market of the country of origin. 
Moreover, with respect to the injury, the Panel established that the EU failed to establish 
the existence of significant price undercutting. Consequently,  on 18 October 2018, the 
EU implemented the DSB’s recommendations through  Implementing Regulation  (EU) 
2018/1570,  which  terminated  the  proceedings  concerning  imports  of  biodiesel 
originating in Argentina and Indonesia and repealed Implementing Regulation (EU) No 
1194/2013 (see above). 

records  kept  by 

the 

in 

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

The Appellate Body (“AB”) report was circulated on 28 May 2018, following the filing 
of  an  appeal  by  the  EU  on  30  August  2017  and  a  cross-appeal  by  Pakistan  on  4 
September 2017. The AB upheld the Panel’s report which found that the EU had acted 
inconsistently  with  certain  provisions  of 
the  Agreement  on  Subsidies  and 
Countervailing Measures (“SCM Agreement”).  

The EU argued that the measure at issue had expired during the Panel proceedings, and 
requested  that  the  AB  reverse  the  entirety  of  the  Panel  Report  and  declare  moot  its 
findings.  The  AB  rejected  this  argument,  stating  that  the  Panels  have  a  margin  of 
discretion  in  exercising  their  jurisdiction  and  the  expiry  of  the  measure  did  not  mean 
that the matter before the Panel had been fully resolved.  

Furthermore, the AB sided with the Panel and found that the EU wrongly countervailed 
the entire amount of duty drawback. The AB considered that, in the context of genuine 
duty  drawback  schemes,  the  financial  contribution  element  of  the  subsidy  is  limited 
only  to  the  excess  remission  or  drawback  of  import  charges  on  inputs  and  does  not 
encompass the entire amount of the remission or drawback of import charges..  

The AB also rejected the EU’s claim that there was silence as to the legal consequences 
when  the  subsidising  country  lacks  a  verification  procedure  in  the  context  of  the 
investigating authority's inquiry on whether the excess remission or drawback occurred. 
In particular, the AB referred to Article 12.7 of the SCM Agreement as an essential tool 
in order to fill the gaps of missing information with "facts available" on the records of 
the  investigating  authority.  As  a  consequence,  the  simple  fact  that  the  exporting 
Member does not have a proper verification system or failed to carry out an additional 
investigation in the case of duty drawback schemes is not, as such, a sufficient reason to 
countervail the entire amount of import duties payable.   

56  

Commission Regulation (EU) 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013, OJ L 315, 26.11.2013, p.2 

 EN 

61 

     EN 

 
                                                 
The  Commission  will  take  due  account  of  the  judgment  in  cases  involving  duty 
drawback schemes.  

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

Following  the  original  composition  of  a  panel  in  July  2017  and  a  first  substantive 
meeting with the parties in December 2017, a second meeting took place in May 2018. 
Subsequently the parties submitted responses to the questions posed by the Panel. 

As  the  procedure  among  the  parties  is  complete,  the  Panel  must  now  issue  the  final 
report. In November 2018, the Panel informed that it would deliver its report during the 
second quarter of 2019, as the legal matters at issue are particularly complex.   

European  Union  –  Cost  Adjustment  Methodologies  and  Certain  Anti-Dumping 
Measures on Imports from Russia (DS494) 

On  7  May  2015,  the  Russian  Federation  requested  consultations  with  the  European 
Union regarding “cost adjustment” methodologies used by the European Union for the 
calculation of dumping margins in anti-dumping investigations and reviews.  

In  its  request,  Russia  challenged  several  provisions  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation. 
Specifically, Russia argued that Article 2(3) thereof is  inconsistent  with Article 2.2 of 
the  Anti-dumping  Agreement  (‘ADA’)  because  it  requires  that  only  "representative" 
prices are applied to the two alternative methods of determination of normal value of the 
like  product  (based  on  cost  of  production  or  on  export  prices  to  an  appropriate  third 
country). 

Russia  also  claimed  that  Article  2(5)  of  the  basic  Regulation  is  inconsistent  with 
Articles 2.2.1.1 and 2.2 of the ADA insofar as it authorises the investigating authority to 
use costs other than the cost of production in the country of origin for the construction 
of normal value, without requiring any adjustments to represent the cost of production 
in  the  country  of  origin.  In  particular,  Russia  challenged  the  “cost  adjustment 
methodology”,  which concerns the adjustments to the cost  of  gas paid  by  the Russian 
exporters.  Under  this  methodology,  the  Commission  considers  that  the  records  of  the 
Russian exporters do not reasonably reflect the cost of gas as Russia has a dual pricing 
policy with different regulated prices for domestic and export sales. As a consequence, 
the cost for gas is adjusted on the basis of the average price of Russian gas when sold 
for  export  at  the  German/Czech  border.  Russia  considered  this  methodology  to  be 
inconsistent  with  Article 2.2.1.1 of the ADA, since the EU rejected the records of the 
Russian  exporters  that  are  supposed  to  reasonably  reflect  their  costs.  Furthermore, 
Russia claimed that this methodology infringes Article 2.2 of the ADA because the EU 
uses costs other than the "cost of production in the country of origin".  

The Dispute Settlement Body established a panel to rule on the dispute on 16 December 
2016.  After  some  time,  upon  request  by  the  Russian  authorities,  the  Panel was 
composed on 17 December 2018. 

10.2.  Other WTO activities   

The EU remained fully committed and active in pushing a subsidies-related agenda in 
the WTO. In the course of 2018, intensive negotiations on fisheries subsidies continued 
in  Geneva. While only limited progress  was made, an  ambitious work programme for 

 EN 

62 

     EN 

 
  
2019 was adopted at the end of the year that should allow WTO Members to conclude 
the negotiations by the end of 2019, which is a deadline set by the 11th WTO Ministerial 
conference in Buenos Aires. In October 2018, the EU also organised, along with the US 
and Japan, an event in the context of the WTO Public Forum on subsidies called "Make 
the Playing Field Level Again". 

In  2018,  the  EU  participated  in  the  work  of  the  WTO  Subsidies  and  Countervailing, 
Anti-dumping  and  Safeguards  Committees  which  are  held  twice  yearly  in  April  and 
October. In the Anti-dumping Committee, the EU responded to many questions on the 
changes to the EU’s anti-dumping legislation arising from the introduction of the new 
calculation  methodology  as  well  as  the  modernisation  of  TDI.  In  addition,  the  EU 
responded 
its  anti-dumping 
investigations,  while  also  using  the  opportunity  to  raise  issues  of  concern  in 
investigations taken by third countries against the EU or Member States.   

to  questions  posed  by  other  WTO  members  on 

In the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention in April and October, India and Canada 
shared their experiences respectively in tackling circumvention of measures and the EU 
posed questions on their particular regimes.  

The  EU  also  participated  in  both  sessions  of  the  Anti-dumping  Working  Group  on 
Implementation  (WGI).  In  April  2018,  the  topics  discussed  were:  the  calculation  of 
dumping margins, the treatment of expenses for ‘research and development’, of start-up 
costs,  of  ‘selling,  general  and  administrative’  (SG&A)  expenses,  as  well  as  of  the 
reasonable profit level in the normal value and export price determinations. In October 
2018,  methodologies  to  determine  the  likelihood  of  continuation  or  recurrence  of 
dumping  and  injury  in  expiry  reviews,  as  well  as  the  institutional  structures  of  the 
investigating authorities were discussed. 

In  the  Special  Committee  of  the  Subsidies  and  Countervailing  Committee,  the  EU’s 
2017  subsidy  notification  was  reviewed.  In  the  regular  Subsidies  and  Countervailing 
Committee, in addition, discussions continued on the role of subsidies as a contributor 
to excess capacity in various sectors of economic activity. This important agenda item is 
co-sponsored by the EU along with several other WTO members including US, Canada 
and Japan. The EU also repeatedly called for improved transparency by other members 
urging them to notify their subsidies to the WTO, as required under the Agreement on 
Subsidies and Countervailing measures. In this context, the EU participated in a seminar 
hosted  by  the  WTO  for  Asian  countries  to  explain  how  the  EU  prepares  its  subsidy 
notification, highlighting the difficulties and proposing solutions.  

In  the  Committee  on  Safeguards,  the  EU  raised  a  series  of  concerns  relating  to  other 
WTO  Members’  safeguard  investigations  (e.g.  Chile  –  Powdered  milk  and  Gouda 
cheese, US – Solar panels, or Turkey – Wall paper). In addition, the EU responded to 
questions asked by other WTO members concerning the initiation of its own safeguard 
investigation  concerning  imports  of  certain  steel  products  and  the  imposition  of 
provisional safeguard measures in July. 

11.  

ACTIVITIES OF THE HEARING OFFICER 

In 2018, the Hearing Officer received altogether 27 intervention requests and held eight 
hearings.  In  a  number  of  cases,  the  request  for  an  intervention  was  submitted 
simultaneously  with  a  request  for  a  hearing  with  the  services  responsible  for  the 
investigation.  The  Hearing  Officer  took  the  view  that  the  interested  party  first  shall 

 EN 

63 

     EN 

 
address their concerns to the services and only when a solution could not be reached, the 
Hearing Officer would intervene. This approach led to the result whereby the interested 
parties  seeking  an  intervention  were  able  to  find  a  solution  directly  with  the 
investigation teams in most of the cases. 

This  year  only  few  investigations  led  to  intervention  requests.  These  were  either 
requests  from  several  interested  parties  or  a  number  of  intervention  requests  from  the 
same  party.  The  interested  parties  mostly  challenged  the  determinations,  facts  and 
conclusions  of  the  investigation  and  in  all  cases  an  agreement  with  the  services  to 
provide clarifications or additional disclosures could be reached.  In a noteworthy case, 
the interested party challenged the Commission’s policy of protection of personal data 
within  the  framework  of  the  investigation  –  the  case  had  to  be  referred  further  to 
European Data Protection Office. During all interventions in 2018, the Hearing Officer 
found  that  the  procedural  rights  of  the  interested  parties  had  been  respected.  The 
Hearing Officer was not requested to exercise her decision-making powers foreseen in 
the Terms of Reference57. 

As a result of the TDI legislative reforms of 2017 and 2018, the Hearing Officer’s role 
is  now firmly embedded in  the basic Regulations.  In this context,  the Hearing Officer 
also contributed to the procedures to be applied in the modernisation implementation, in 
order to increase transparency and guarantee the procedural rights of the parties. 

57  

OJ L 107, 19.04.2012, p.5 

 EN 

64 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
ANNEXES  

ANNEX A 

LIST OF ANNEXES 

SUMMARY 

New investigations, including re-openings, initiated during the period 1 January 
– 31 December 2018 

ANNEX B 

New investigations initiated  

ANNEX C 

Imposition of provisional duties in the course of new investigations during the 
period 1 January – 31 December 2018 

ANNEX D 

New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties during the 
period 1 January – 31 December 2018 

ANNEX E 

ANNEX F 

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures during the period 
1 January – 31 December 2018 

Expiry reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2018 

ANNEX G 

Interim reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2018 

ANNEX H 

Other reviews concluded during the period 1 January – 31 December 2018 

ANNEX I 

ANNEX J 

ANNEX K 

ANNEX L 

New exporter reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2018 

Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January 
– 31 December 2018 

Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 
January – 31 December 2018 

Safeguard investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2018 

ANNEX M 

Undertakings accepted or repealed during the period 1 January – 31 December 
2018 

ANNEX N  Measures which expired during the period 1 January – 31 December 2018 

ANNEX O 

Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2018 

ANNEX P 

Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2018 

ANNEX Q 

Undertakings in force on 31 December 2018 

ANNEX R 

Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2018 
(including cases were provisional measures were imposed) 

ANNEX S 

Court cases pending on 31 December 2018 

ANNEX T 

Safeguard measures in force on 31 December 2018 

ANNEX U 

Third countries’ measures targeting the EU 

 EN 

65 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX A 

New investigations initiated 
during the period 1 January – 31 December 2018 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

OJ Reference 

Solar glass 

Malaysia  

C 174; 23.05.2018, p.8 

Hot-rolled sheet steel piles 

P.R. China  

C 177; 24.05.2018, p.6 

Urea and ammonium nitrate 

Trinidad and Tobago 

C 284; 13.08.2018, p.9 

Russia 

Hollow sections  

U.S.A 

North Macedonia 

Russia  

Turkey  

C 347; 28.09.2018, p.6 

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

OJ Reference 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

Argentina 

C 34; 31.01.2018, p.37 

Corr: C 37; 01.02.2018, p.31  

Indonesia 

C 439; 06.12.2018, p.16 

C. 

Reopenings (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

OJ Reference 

Biodiesel 

Argentina 

Indonesia 

C 181; 28.05.2018, p.5 (AD) 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres 

India 

C 171; 18.05.2018, p.10 (AD) 

 EN 

66 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX B 

New investigations initiated by product sector during the period 2014 – 2018 

A. 
(excluding the reopenings) 

Product sector 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

Chemical and allied 

Textiles and allied 

Wood and paper 

Electronics 

Other mechanical engineering 

Iron and Steel 

Other metals 

Other 

Total 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

9 

3 

2 

6 

- 

- 

- 

- 

6 

- 

2 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

13 

- 

- 

5  

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

2 

3 

5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4 

- 

1 

16 

14 

15 

11 

10 

Of which 

anti-dumping 

anti-subsidy 

14 

2 

12 

2 

14 

1 

9 

2 

8 

2 

 EN 

67 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B. 
2018 (excluding reinvestigations) 

New  investigations  initiated  by  country  of  export  during  the  period  2014  – 

Country of 
origin 

Argentina 

Belarus 

Bosnia Herzegovina 

Brazil 

P.R. China 

Egypt 

India 

Indonesia 

Iran 

Georgia 

Japan 

Kazakhstan 

Korea (Rep. of) 

North Macedonia 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Oman 

Russia 

Serbia 

Taiwan 

Thailand 

Trinidad and Tobago 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

U.S.A. 

Vietnam 

Total  

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

- 

- 

- 

- 

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 

- 

- 

1  

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

1 

- 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

16 

14 

15 

11 

10 

 EN 

68 

     EN 

 
 
 
ANNEX C 

Imposition of provisional duties in the course of new investigations  
during the period 1 January – 31 December 2018 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Regulation N° 

OJ Reference 

New and retreaded tyres 
for buses or lorries  

P.R. China 

Electric bicycles 

P. R. China 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/683  

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1012 

L 116; 07.05.2018, p.8 

L 181; 18.07.2018, p.7 

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Regulation N° 

OJ Reference 

None 

 EN 

69 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX D 

New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties 
during the period 1 January – 31 December 2018 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation N° 

OJ Reference 

Cast iron articles 

P.R. China 

Corrosion resistant steels 

P.R. China 

New and retreaded tyres for 
buses or lorries 

P.R. China 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/140 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/186 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1579 

L 25; 30.01.2018, p.6 

Corr. L 32; 06.02.2018, 
p.65 (SL) 

L 34; 08.02.2018, p.16 

L 263; 22.10.2018, p.3 

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation N° 

OJ Reference 

New and retreaded tyres for 
buses or lorries 

P.R. China 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1690 

L 283; 12.11.2018, p.1 

 EN 

70 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX E 

New investigations terminated without the imposition of measures 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Cast iron articles 

India 

Ferro-silicon 

Egypt  

Ukraine 

P.R. China 

Low carbon ferro-chrome 

Russian Federation 

Turkey 

Regulation / 
Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/140 

L 25; 30.01.2018, p.6 

Corr. L 32; 06.02.2018, 
p.65 (SL) 

COMMISSION 
DECISION (EU) 
2018/824 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1037 

L 139; 05.06.2018, p.25 

L 185; 23.07.2018, p.48 

Silicon metal 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Brazil 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1193 

L 211; 22.08.2018, p.5 

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

None 

 EN 

71 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX F 

Expiry reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

OJ Reference 

Initiated 

Tube and pipe fittings 

Turkey  

Russia  

Rep. Of Korea  

Malaysia 

C 31; 27.01.2018, p.16  AD 

Bioethanol 

USA 

C 64; 20.02.2018, p.7 AD 

Aluminium Foil in small rolls 

P.R. China 

C 95; 13.03.2018, p.8 AD 

Organic coated steel products 

P.R. China 

C 96; 14.03.2018, p.8 AD 

Organic coated steel products 

P.R. China 

C 96; 14.03.2018, p.21 AS 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of 
malleable cast iron 

P.R. China  

Thailand 

C 162; 08.05.2018, p.11 AD 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware  

P.R. China  

C 167; 15.05.2018, p.6 AD 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

India  

C 173; 22.05.2018, p.9 AS 

Tungsten electrodes 

P.R. China  

C 186; 31.05.2018, p. 13 AD 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

C 189; 04.06.2018, p.18 AD  

Ironing boards 

P.R. China 

C 253; 19.07.2018, p.30 AD 

Sweetcorn in kernels 

Thailand 

C 322; 12.09.2018, p.4 AD 

Peroxosulphates 

P.R. China 

C 454; 17.12.2018, p.7 AD 

 EN 

72 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Product 

Concluded: confirmation of duty 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/ 
Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

steel ropes and cables 

P.R. China 

Tartaric acid 

P.R. China 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/607 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/921 

Oxalic acid 

Seamless tubes and pipes 

P.R. China 

India 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/931 

Russia 

Ukraine 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/ /1469 

L 101; 20.04.2018, p.40 AD 

L 164; 29.06.2018, p.14 AD 

L 165; 02.07.2018, p.13 AD 

L 246; 02.10.2018, p.20 AD 

Lever arch mechanisms 

China 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/ /1684 

L 279; 09.11.2018, p.17 AD 

Concluded: termination and repeal of the measures 

Product 

Country 
of origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

None 

 EN 

73 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX G 

Interim reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Initiated 

Country of origin 
(consigned from) 

OJ Reference 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

C157; 04.05.2018, p.3 AD  

Seamless pipes and tubes  

Ukraine 

C 159; 07.05.2018, p.18 AD 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

C 437; 04.12.2018, p.32 AS 

Concluded: amendment of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/ 
Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

Ammonium nitrate 

Russia 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

India 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1722 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1468 

L 287; 15.11.2018, p.3 AD 

L 246; 02.10.2018, p.3 AS 

 EN 

74 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Concluded: termination without amendment of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/ 
Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

Threaded tube or pipe cast 
fittings, of malleable cast 
iron 

P.R. China 

Thailand 

COMMISSION 
DECISION (EU) 
2018/52 

L 7; 12.01.2018, p.39 AD  

Rainbow trout 

Turkey 

Ammonium nitrate 

Russia 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/823 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1703 

L 139; 05.06.2018, p.14 AS  

L 285; 13.11.2018, p.97 AD 

Concluded: termination and repeal of measures 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

 EN 

75 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX H 

Other reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Initiated 
Country of origin 

OJ Reference 

Biodiesel 

Argentina 

Indonesia 

C 181; 28.05.2018, p.5 AD 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres 

India 

C 171; 18.05.2018, p.10 AD 

Concluded: confirmation / amendment of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Bicycles 

Seamless pipes and tubes 

Sri Lanka 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/28 

L 5; 
10.01.2018, 
p.27 

P.R. China 

COMMISSION DECISION 
(EU) 2018/928 

L 164; 
29.06.2018, 
p.51  

Concluded: repeal of measures 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Stainless steel wires 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

India 

COMMISSION DECISION 
(EU) 2018/1306 

Argentina 

Indonesia 

COMMISSION DECISION 
(EU) 2018/1570 

COMMISSION DECISION 
(EU) 2018/1570 

L 244; 
28.09.2018, 
p.111 

L 262; 
19.10.2018, 
p.40 

L 262; 
19.10.2018, 
p.40 

 EN 

76 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX I 

New exporter reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 
(chronological by date of publication) 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations 

Initiated 

Product 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty 

Product 

Bicycles 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Tunisia 

P.R.China 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/49 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1017 

L 7; 
12.01.2018, 
p.31  

L 183; 
19.07.2018, 
p.1 

Product 

None 

Concluded: termination 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

 EN 

77 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations ("accelerated" investigations) 

Product 

Initiated 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

None 

None 

Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty 

Product 

Product 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Concluded: termination 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

 EN 

78 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX J 

Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Initiated 

Country of 
origin 

OJ Reference 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

C 151; 30.04.2018, p.57 AD  

Concluded with increase of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Concluded without increase of duty / termination 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

None 

 EN 

79 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX K 

Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Initiated 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Concluded with extension of duty 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Product 

Product 

None 

None 

Concluded without extension of duty / termination 

Product 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Hand pallet trucks and their ess. 
parts 

Vietnam 

Citric Acid 

Cambodia 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/260 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1236 

L 49; 22.02.2018, 
p.16  

L 231; 14.09.2018, 
p.20 

Exemptions granted and/or rejected 

Country of 
origin 
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ Reference 

Product 

None 

 EN 

80 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX L 

Safeguard investigations initiated and concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 
(chronological by date of publication) 

New investigations initiated (erga omnes) 

Product 

Steel products 

OJ Reference 

C 111; 26.03.2018, p.29  

New investigations initiated (bilateral) 

Product 

Country of origin 

OJ Reference 

Indica rice 

Indica rice 

Cambodia 

Myanmar 

C 100; 16.03.2018, p.30  

C 100; 16.03.2018, p.30  

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures (erga omnes) 

Product 

Country of origin  Regulation/
Decision N° 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures (bilateral) 

Product 

Country of origin  Regulation/
Decision N° 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

None 

None 

None 

Issue of licences 

Product 

Country of origin  Regulation/
Decision N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Measures in force (erga omnes) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Date of expiry 

Measures in force (bilateral) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Date of expiry 

 EN 

81 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX M 

Undertakings accepted or repealed 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Undertakings accepted 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Decision N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Undertakings withdrawn or repealed 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Decision N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Undertakings which expired/lapsed 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Original measure (s)  

OJ 
Reference 

None 

None 

None 

Undertakings rejected/terminated 

Product 

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

Country of 
origin 

Brazil 

Iran 

Russia 

Ukraine 

Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

Rejection 

COMMISSION 
DECISION (EU) 
2018/351 

L 67; 09.03.2018, p.46  

(AD)  

 EN 

82 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX N 

Measures which expired / lapsed 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2018 
(chronological by date of publication) 

A. 

Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

Country of 
origin 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel  

India 

Original measure  

OJ Reference 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2017/367 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1835 

NoE C310; 
03.09.2018, p.4 

NoE C 402; 
08.11.2018, p.6 

B. 

Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Solar panels (crystalline silicon 
photovoltaic modules and key 
components) 

Country of 
origin 

P. R. China 

Stainless steel wires 

India 

Original measure  

OJ Reference 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2017/366 

COMMISSION 
REGULATION (EU) 
2017/1482 

NoE C310; 
03.09.2018, p.5 

NoE C 315; 
07.09.2018, p.22 

 EN 

83 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX O 

Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2018  

a. Ranked by product (alphabetical)  

Case 

Acesulfame potassium 

Aluminium foil 

Aluminium foil 

Country 

Extension 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Russia 

Aluminium foil (rolls of less than 10 kg) 

P.R. China 

Aluminium radiators 

Aluminium road wheels 

Ammonium nitrate 

Aspartame 

Barium carbonate 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Russia 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

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 

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 

 EN 

84 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bicycles (parts) 

P.R. China 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 
Bioethanol 

USA 

USA 
USA 

Cast iron articles 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tiles 

Certain corrosion resistant steels 

Chamois leather 
Citric acid 
Citric acid 

Citrus fruits 

Coated fine paper 

Cold-rolled flat steel products 

Cold-rolled flat steel products 

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

 EN 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

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

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Russia 

Russia 
P.R. China 

P.R. China 

USA 

Russia 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Japan 

P.R. China 

85 

China 
(bicycle 
parts) 

Canada 

Malaysia 

C 299, 05.09.2014, p. 7 
L 132, 29.05.2015, p. 32 
Amendment 
L 331, 17.12.2015, p.30 
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 211; 17.08.2017, p.14 
L 25; 30.01.2018, p.6 
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 207; 10.08.2017, p.1 
L 34; 08.02.2018, p.16 
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 
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 
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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Graphite electrode systems 
Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts 

India 
P.R. China 

Thailand 

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts 

P.R. China 

Heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel 
High fatigue performance steel concrete 
reinforcement bars 
Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or 
other alloy steel 
Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or 
other alloy steel 
Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or 
other alloy steel 
Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or 
other alloy steel 
Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or 
other alloy steel 
Ironing boards 

Ironing boards 

Lever arch mechanisms 

Manganese Dioxides 

Melamine 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Ukraine 

Russia 

Iran 

Brazil 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

South Africa 

P.R. China 

Molybdenum wires 

P.R. China 

Malaysia 

Molybdenum wires  

P.R. China 

Monosodium glutamate 

Monosodium glutamate 

P.R. China 

Indonesia 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 

P.R. China 

Okoumé plywood 

P.R. China 

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 279; 09.11.2018, p.17 
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 116; 07.05.2018, p.8 
L 263; 22.10.2018, p.3 
L 181; 17.05.2004, p.5 
L 336; 02.11.2004, p.4 
L 92; 06.04.2017, p.48 

 EN 

86 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China 

India 

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 

Oxalic acid 

Oxalic acid 

Peroxosulphates  
Polyester high tenacity filament yarn 

PSC wires and strands 

Rebars 

Ringbinder mechanisms 
Ringbinder mechanisms 
Ringbinder mechanisms 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

India 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Belarus 

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

Laos 
Vietnam 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

Ukraine 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

Russia 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

P.R. China 

Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel 

P.R. China 

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

P.R. China 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

P.R. China 

Taiwan 

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 165; 02.07.2018, p.13 
L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1 
L 165; 02.07.2018, p.13 
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 63, 06.03.2018, p. 15 
L 305; 12.11.2016, p.1 
L 121; 12.05.2017, p.3 
Extension (circum.) 
L 95, 05.04.2013, p. 1 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

 EN 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Korea 
(Rep. of) 

L 13; 15.01.2007, p.1 

L 179; 05.07.2016, p.1 

87 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sodium cyclamate 

Sodium cyclamate 

Sodium cyclamate 
Sodium gluconate 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Indonesia 
P.R. China 

Solar glass 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products 

Taiwan 

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products 

P.R. China 

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 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 
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 

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding 
fittings 
Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding 
fittings 

Taiwan 

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14 

P.R. China 

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14 

Steel ropes and cables 

Steel ropes and cables 

Steel ropes and cables 

Sulphanilic acid 

P.R. China 

Korea 
(Rep. of) 

P.R. China 

Morocco 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in kernels)  Thailand 

Tartaric Acid 

P.R. China 

Thermal paper 

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

 EN 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Thailand 

P.R. China 

88 

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 101; 20.04.2018, p.40 
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) 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 164; 29.06.2018, p.14 
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 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA)  

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Turkey 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Russia 

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

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

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Malaysia 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide 

P.R. China 

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 

Russia 

P.R. China 

Belarus 

P.R. China 

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 
Philippines  L 116; 27.04.2006, p.1 
L 355; 22.11.2004, p.9 
Sri Lanka 
L 335; 22.11.2004, p.4 
Indonesia 
L 94; 14.04.2000, p.1 
Taiwan 
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 

89 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2018 

b. Ranked by country (alphabetical) 

Country 

Cases 

Extension 

Regulation 

Belarus 

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel  

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6 

Belarus 

Rebars 

L 345; 20.12.2016; p.4 
L 155; 17.06.2017, p.6 

Brazil 

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

L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 

India 

Oxalic acid 

India 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1 
L 165; 02.07.2018, p.13 

L 244, 19.09.2015, p. 25 
L 73; 18.03.2016, p.53 

India 

Graphite electrode systems 

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.46 

Indonesia 

Sodium cyclamate 

L 192; 16.07.2016, p.49 

Indonesia 

Monosodium glutamate 

L 246, 21.08.2014, p. 1 
L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 54 

Iran 

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

L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 

Japan 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel 

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L58; 04.03.2016, p.38 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel 

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 

 EN 

90 

     EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Korea (Rep. 
of) 

Thermal paper 

L 310; 17.11.2016, p.1 
L 114; 03.05.2017, p.3 

Malaysia 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

P.R. China 

Acesulfame potassium 

P.R. China 

Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide 

P.R. China 

Aspartame 

P.R. China 

Barium carbonate 

P.R. China 

Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA)  

P.R. China 

Tartaric Acid 

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 

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 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 (newcomer) 
L 157, 27.05.2014, p. 80 
L 319; 05.12.2017, p.10 

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 164; 29.06.2018, p.14 

P.R. China 

Sulphanilic acid 

L 363, 18.02.2014, p. 82 

P.R. China 

Sodium gluconate 

L 16; 20.01.2017, p.3 

P.R. China 

Sodium cyclamate 

L 192; 16.07.2016, p.23 

 EN 

91 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
P.R. China 

Sodium cyclamate 

P.R. China  Oxalic acid 

Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 1 
L 192; 16.07.2016, p.49 

L 106, 18.04.2012, p. 1 
L 321; 29.11.2016, p.48 
L 165; 02.07.2018, p.13 

P.R. China  Monosodium glutamate 

L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 31 

P.R. China 

Citric acid 

Malaysia 

L 10; 15.01.2016, p.3 

P.R. China 

Citric acid 

L 15, 22.01.2015, p. 15 

P.R. China  Melamine 

L 298; 15.11.2010, p.10 
L 124; 10.05.2011, p.2 
L 170; 01.07.2017, p.62 

P.R. China  Wire rod 

L 268, 15.10.2015, p. 9 

P.R. China  Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel  

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Philippines 

L 116; 27.04.2006, p.1 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Sri Lanka 

L 355; 22.11.2004, p.9 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Indonesia 

L 335; 22.11.2004, p.4 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Taiwan 

L 94; 14.04.2000, p.1 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

L 282, 28.10.2015, p. 14 

P.R. China 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron 

L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10 
L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1 

P.R. China 

Steel ropes and cables 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1 
Amendment (newcomer) 
L 138, 13.05.2014, p. 80 
Amendment 
L 139, 14.05.2014, p.7 

P.R. China 

Steel ropes and cables 

Morocco 

L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1 

 EN 

92 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
P.R. China 

Steel ropes and cables 

L36, 09.02.2012; p. 1 
L 101; 20.04.2018, p.40 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings 

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products 

P.R. China 

Seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel 

L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23 
L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10 

L 169; 27.06.2011, p.1 
L 336; 14.12.2011, p.6 
L 63, 06.03.2018, p. 15 

P.R. China 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

L 322, 08.12.2015, p. 21 

P.R. China 

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

L 305; 12.11.2016, p.1 
L 121; 12.05.2017, p.3 

P.R. China 

PSC wires and strands 

Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 297, 26.10.2012, p.1 
L 139, 05.06.2015, p. 12 

P.R. China 

Peroxosulphates  

L 338, 17.12.2013, p. 11 

P.R. China 

Cast iron articles 

P.R. China  Organic coated steel 

P.R. China 

Cold-rolled flat steel products 

L 211; 17.08.2017, p.14 
L 25; 30.01.2018, p.6 

L 252, 19.09.2012, p. 33 
L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 1 

L 37;  12.02.2016, p.1 
L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1 

P.R. China 

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

L 272; 07.10.2016, p.33 
L 92; 06.04.2017, p.68 

 EN 

93 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
P.R. China 

High fatigue performance steel concrete reinforcement 
bars 

L 23; 29.01.2016, p.16 
L 204; 29.07.2016, p.70 

P.R. China 

Heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel 

L 50; 28.02.2017, p.18 

P.R. China 

Certain corrosion resistant steels 

L 207; 10.08.2017, p.1 
L 34; 08.02.2018, p.16 

P.R. China  Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel 

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 

P.R. China 

Solar glass 

P.R. China  Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

India 

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 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20 
Extension (circum.) 
L 236, 10.09.2015, p. 1 

P.R. China  Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Indonesia 

L 346, 20.12.2013, p. 20 

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  

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 

 EN 

94 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
P.R. China 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 

L 116; 07.05.2018, p.8 
L 263; 22.10.2018, p.3 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tiles 

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 

P.R. China 

Chamois leather 

L 334, 06.12.2012, p. 31 

P.R. China 

Citrus fruits 

Reopening 
L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 29 
L 354, 11.12.2014, p. 17 

P.R. China 

Ironing boards 

L 338; 20.12.2010, p.22 

P.R. China 

Ironing boards 

P.R. China 

Filament glass fibre products 

P.R. China 

Aluminium radiators 

Reopening 
L 297, 26.10.2012, p. 5 
L 198, 23.07.2013, p. 1 

L 243; 16.09.2010, p.40 
L 67; 15.03.2011, p.1 
L 107; 25.04.2017, p.4 

L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 17 
L 310, 09.11.2012, p. 1 

P.R. China 

Aluminium road wheels 

L 18; 24.01.2017, p.1 

 EN 

95 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 17 
Amendment 
L 47; 24.02.2017, p.13 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Indonesia 

Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Malaysia 

Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Sri Lanka 

Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Tunisia 

Extension (circum.) 
L 153, 05.06.2013, p. 1 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

Bicycles (parts) 

Cambodia 

Extension (circum.) 
L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4 

Pakistan 

Extension (circum.) 
L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4 

Philippines 

Extension (circum.) 
L 122, 19.05.2015, p. 4 

China 
(bicycle 
parts) 

C 299, 05.09.2014, p. 7 
L 132, 29.05.2015, p. 32 
Amendment 
L 331, 17.12.2015, p.30 

P.R. China 

Ringbinder mechanisms 

Laos 

L 7; 12.01.2006, p.1 

P.R. China 

Ringbinder mechanisms 

Vietnam 

L 232; 28.06.2004, p.1 

P.R. China 

Ringbinder mechanisms 

L 122; 12.05.2016, p.1 

 EN 

96 

     EN 

 
  
  
P.R. China 

Lever arch mechanisms 

L 238, 04.09.2012, p.5 
L 279; 09.11.2018, p.17 

P.R. China 

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts  Thailand 

L 151; 11.06.2009, p.1 

P.R. China 

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts 

P.R. China 

Aluminium foil 

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 

L332;18.12.2015, p.63 
Extension (circum.) 
L 40; 17.02.2017, p.51 

P.R. China 

Tungsten electrodes 

L 150, 04.06.2013, p. 1 

P.R. China 

Aluminium foil (rolls of less than 10 kg) 

L 251, 18.09.2012, p. 29 
L 69, 13.03.2013, p. 11 

P.R. China 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

Taiwan 

Extension (circum.) 
L 95, 05.04.2013, p. 1 

P.R. China 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

L 13; 15.01.2007, p.1 

P.R. China 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

L 179; 05.07.2016, p.1 

P.R. China  Molybdenum wires 

Malaysia 

Extension (circum.) 
L8, 12.01.2012, p. 22 

P.R. China  Molybdenum wires  

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 

 EN 

97 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
P.R. China 

Ferro-silicon 

L 107, 10.04.2014, p. 13 

P.R. China 

Polyester high tenacity filament yarn 

L 49; 25.02.2017, p.6 

P.R. China  Okoumé plywood 

P.R. China 

Coated fine paper 

Russia 

Ammonium nitrate 

L 181; 17.05.2004, p.5 
L 336; 02.11.2004, p.4 
L 92; 06.04.2017, p.48 

L 299; 16.11.2010, p.7 
L 128; 06.05.2011, p.1 
L 171; 04.07.2017, p.168 

L 280, 24.09.2014, p. 19 
L41; 18.02.2016, p.13 

Russia 

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel  

L 20, 27.01.2015, p. 6 

Russia 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Russia 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

Russia 

Cold-rolled flat steel products 

L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37 
L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1 

L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5 
L 357, 28.12.2012, p. 1 

L 37;  12.02.2016, p.1 
L 210; 04.08.2016, p.1 

Russia 

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

L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 

Russia 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel 

Russia 

Aluminium foil 

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 

L 175, 04.07.2015, p. 14 
L 332; 18.12.2015, p 91 

Russia 

Ferro-silicon 

L 107, 10.04.2014, p. 13 

South Africa  Manganese Dioxides 

L 59, 28.02.2014, p. 7 

Taiwan 

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings 

L 22; 27.01.2017, p.14 

 EN 

98 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Taiwan 

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products 

Thailand 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron 

Thailand 

Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in kernels) 

Turkey 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Ukraine 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

L 79, 25.3.15, p. 23 
L 224, 27.08.2015, p. 10 

L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10 
L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1 

L 244, 13.09.2013, p. 1 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 91, 27.03.2014, p. 1 

L 203, 31.07.2012, p. 37 
L 27, 29.01.2013, p. 1 

L 174, 04.07.2012, p. 5 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 238, 04.09.2012, p. 1 

Ukraine 

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

L 258; 06.10.2017, p.24 

USA 

Biodiesel 

L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 69 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, p.31 

USA 

Biodiesel 

Canada 

L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1 

USA 

Bioethanol 

L 49, 22.02.2013, p. 10 

USA 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel 

L 120, 13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 30.10.2015, p. 109 

 EN 

99 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX P 

Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2018  

A. Ranked by product (alphabetical) 

Case 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

Coated fine paper 

Filament glass fibre products 

Graphite electrode systems 

Country 

Extension  Regulation 

USA 

Canada 

L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1 

USA 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

India 

L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 99 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, p.27 

L 128; 06.05.2011, p.18 
L 171; 04.07.2017, 
p.134 

L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 22 

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.10 

Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel  P.R. China 

L 146; 09.06.2017, p.17 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 

Organic coated steel  

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

Rainbow trout 

Solar glass 

Stainless steel bars 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

India 

Turkey 

P.R. China 

India 

India 

L 283; 12.11.2018, p.1 

L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 16 

L 208, 05.08.2015, p. 10 

L 319, 06.11.2014, p. 1 
L 56, 27.02.2015, p. 12 

L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 23 

Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L 202, 27.07.2013, p. 2 
L 165; 28.06.2017, p.2 

L 73; 18.03.2016, p.1 

 EN 

100 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 B. Ranked by country (alphabetical) 

Country 

Cases 

Extension 

Regulation 

India 

India 

India 

India 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

Graphite electrode systems 

Stainless steel bars 

L 208, 05.08.2015, p. 10 

L 64; 10.03.2017, p.10 

Amendment ((partial) interim 
review) 
L 202, 27.07.2013, p. 2 
L 165; 28.06.2017, p.2 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

L 73; 18.03.2016, p.1 

P.R. China 

Coated fine paper 

P.R. China 

Filament glass fibre products 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

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

New and retreaded tyres for buses or 
lorries 

Organic coated steel  

Solar glass 

Turkey 

Rainbow trout 

USA 

USA 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

L 128; 06.05.2011, p.18 
L 171; 04.07.2017, p.134 

L 367, 23.12.2014, p. 22 

L 146; 09.06.2017, p.17 

L 283; 12.11.2018, p.1 

L 73, 15.03.2013, p. 16 

L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 23 

L 319, 06.11.2014, p. 1 
L 56, 27.02.2015, p. 12 

Canada 

L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1 

L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 99 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, p.27 

 EN 

101 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX Q 

Undertakings in force on 31 December 2018 

A. Ranked by product (alphabetical) 

Product 

Origin 

Measure 

Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

Citric acid 

P.R. China 

Undertakings 

Commission Implementing 
Decision (EU) 2015/87 

L 15 
22.01.2015, p. 75 

L 122; 12.05.2016, 
p.19 (amendment)  

B. Ranked by country (alphabetical) 

Origin 

Product 

Measure 

Decision N° 

OJ Reference 

P.R. China 

Citric acid 

Undertakings 

Commission Implementing 
Decision (EU) 2015/87 

L 15 
22.01.2015, p. 75  

L 122; 12.05.2016, 
p.19 (amendment) 

 EN 

102 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX R 

Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2018 
(including cases where provisional measures were imposed) 

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

 Case 

 Case No 

AD/AS/SFG   Country 

 Regulation 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

E-bicycles 

E-bicycles 

Hollow sections 

Hollow sections 

Hollow sections 

Hot rolled sheet steel piles 

Solar glass 

AS650 

AS644 

AD643 

AS646 

AD651 

AD651 

AD651 

AD647 

AD648 

Urea ammonium nitrate solutions 

AD649 

Urea ammonium nitrate solutions 

AD649 

Urea ammonium nitrate solutions 

AD649 

AS 

AS 

AD 

AS 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

Indonesia 

Argentina 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Russia 

Turkey 

C 439; 06.12.2018, p.16 

C 34; 31.01.2018, p.37 

C 353; 20.10.2017, p.19 

C 440; 21.12.2017, p.22 

C 347; 28.09.2018, p.6 

C 347; 28.09.2018, p.6 

North Macedonia 

C 347; 28.09.2018, p.6 

P.R. China 

C 177; 24.05.2018, p.6 

Malaysia 

USA 

C 174; 23.05.2018, p.8 

C 284; 13.08.2018, p.9 

Trinidad and Tobago 

C 284; 13.08.2018, p.9 

Russia 

C 284; 13.08.2018, p.9 

Indica Rice 

Indica Rice 

SAFE008  SFG 

Myanmar 

C 100; 16.03.2018, p.30 

SAFE008  SFG 

Cambodia 

C 100; 16.03.2018, p.30 

Steel products 

SAFE009  SFG 

erga omnes 

C 111; 26.03.2018, p.29 

 EN 

103 

     EN 

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

 Case 

 Case No  AD/AS   Country 

 Regulation 

Aluminium foil (rolls of less than 10 kg) 

Aluminium radiators 

Bicycles 

Bioethanol 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 

Chamois leather 

Ironing boards 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Organic coated steel  

Organic coated steel  

Peroxosulphates (persulphates) 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)  

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET)  

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

Solar panels and key components 

Solar panels and key components 

Sweet  corn  (prepared  or  preserved 
kernels)  

in 

Threaded  tube  or  pipe  cast  fittings  of 
malleable cast iron 

Threaded  tube  or  pipe  cast  fittings  of 
malleable cast iron 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel  

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

Tungsten electrodes 

R684 

R676 

R688 

R681 

R687 

R678 

R693 

R660 

R683 

R686 

R697 

R664 

R694 

R663 

R689 

R677 

R677 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AS 

AD 

AS 

AS 

AS 

AD 

AD 

AS 

P.R. China 

C 95; 13.03.2018, p.8 

P.R. China 

C 377; 09.11.2017, p.11 

P.R. China 

C 189; 04.06.2018, p.18 

USA 

C 64; 20.02.2018, p.7 

P.R. China 

C 167; 15.05.2018, p.6 

P.R. China 

C 416; 06.12.2017, p.15 

P.R. China 

C 253; 19.07.2018, p.30 

India 

L 226; 01.09.2017, p.1 

P.R. China 

C 96; 14.03.2018, p.8 

P.R. China 

C 96; 14.03.2018, p.21 

P.R. China 

C 454; 17.12.2018, p.7 

India 

India 

India 

Ukraine 

Malaysia 

Malaysia 

C 216; 06.07.2017, p.30 

C 173; 22.05.2018, p.9 

C 216; 06.07.2017, p.26 

C 159; 07.05.2018, p.18 

L 288; 07.11.2017, p.30 

L 288; 07.11.2017, p.30 

R695 

AD 

Thailand 

C 322; 12.09.2018, p.4 

R692 

AD 

Thailand 

C 162; 08.05.2018, p.11 

R692 

AD 

P.R. China 

C 162; 08.05.2018, p.11 

R682 

R682 

R682 

R682 

R690 

R691 

R696 

R685 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AS 

AD 

Malaysia 

C 31; 27.01.2018, p.16 

Korea (Rep. of)  C 31; 27.01.2018, p.16 

Russia 

Turkey 

India 

India 

India 

C 31; 27.01.2018, p.16 

C 31; 27.01.2018, p.16 

C157; 04.05.2018, p.3 

C 151; 30.04.2018, p.57 

C 437; 04.12.2018, p.32 

P.R. China 

C 186; 31.05.2018, p. 13 

 EN 

104 

     EN 

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

Case 

Case No 

AD/AS 

Country 

Regulation 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Tartaric Acid 

R605b 

R529a 

AD 

AD 

India 

C 171; 18.05.2018, p.10 

P.R. China 

C 296; 07.09.2017, p.16 

 EN 

105 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX S 

Court cases  

Court cases pending before the Court of Justice and the General Court on 31 

A. 
December 2018 

C-465/16 P 

Council v Growth Energy and Renewable fuels association (appeal T-276/13) 

Court of Justice 

C-466/16 P 

Council v Marquis Energy LLC (appeal T-277/13) 

C-612/16 

C&J Clark International (preliminary ruling) 

C-236/17 P 

Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council (appeal T-162/14) 

C-237/17 P 

Canadian Solar Emea and Others v Council (appeal T-163/14) 

C-644/17 

Eurobolt (preliminary ruling)  

C-709/17 P 

Commission v Kolachi Raj Industrial (appeal T-435/15) 

C-144/18 

River Kwai International Food Industry v AETMD (appeal T-460/14) 

C-345/18P 

CaviroDistillerie and Others v European Commission (appeal against T-211/16)  

C-436/18P 

Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel v Commission (appeal against T-675/15) 

C-461/18P 

C-251/18 

C-226/18 

T-607/15 

T-300/16 

T-301/16 

T-310/16 

T-631/16 

T-741/16 

T-749/16 

T-752/16 

T-753/16 

T-781/16 

T-782/16 

T-861/16  

T-790/16 

T-154/17 

Changmao  Biochemical  Engineering  v  Distillerie  Bonollo  and  Others  et  Conseil  
(appeal against T-431/12) 

Trace Sport (preliminary ruling) 

Krohn & Schröder (preliminary ruling) 

General Court 

Yieh United Steel (Yusco) v Commission 

Jindal v Commission 

Jindal v Commission 

Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd v Commission 

Remag Metallhandel GmbH and Werner Jaschinsky 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 International Ltd v Commission 

C & J Clark International Ltd v Commission 

Deichmann v Commission 

 EN 

106 

     EN 

 
 
 
T-155/17 

T-204/17 

T-228/17 

T-110/17 

T-347/17 

T-383/17 

T-500/17 

T-650/17 

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 

T-469/07 DEP 

Philips Lighting Poland and Philips Lighting v Council 

T-835/17  

T-254/18 

T-307/18 

T-426/18 

T-586/14 RENV 

T-425/13 DEP  

T-24/18 

T-124/18  

T-126/18 

T-127/18  

T-157/18 

T-541/18 

The European Steel Association (Eurofer) v European Commission 

China Chamber of Commerce for Import and Export of Machinery and Electronic 
Products and Others v Commission 

Zhejiang Jiuli Hi-Tech Metals v Commission 

Bizbike and Hartmobile v Commission 

Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) v Commission 

Giant (China) v Council 

Adidas International Trading and Others v Commission 

Wendel and Others v Commission 

van Haren Schoenen v Commission 

Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission 

Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission 

Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission 

 EN 

107 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
B. 

Judgments, orders or other decisions rendered in 2018 

Court of Justice 

C-61/16P 

European Bicycle Manufacturers Association (EBMA) v Giant (China) Co. Ltd 

C-602/16 P  

C-603/16 P 

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-139/14) 

C-604/16 P 

Council v PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri (appeal T-121/14) 

C-605/16 P 

Council v PT Ciliandra Perkasa (appeal T-120/14) 

C-606/16 P  

Council v PT Musim Mas (appeal T-80/14) 

C-607/16 P  

C-608/16P  

C-609/16 P 

Council  v  Molino  Rio  de  la  Plata  SA  e.a.,  Commission  and  European  Biodiesel 
Board (appeals T-112/14 to T-116/14 and T-119/14)  

Council v Cargill S.A.C.I., Commission and European Biodiesel Board (appeal T-
117/14) 

Council v LDC Argentina SA, Commission and European Biodiesel Board (appeal 
T-118/14) 

C-301/16 P 

Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) Holdings Ltd (appeal in T-586/14) 

C-256/16 

Deichmann (preliminary ruling) 

C-363/17 P 

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

C-631/16 

X BV (preliminary ruling) 

C-100/17 P 

Gul Ahmed Textile Mills v Council (appeal T-199/04 REN) 

C-145/17 P 

International de Productos Metalicos v Commission (appeal T-217/16) 

C-207/17  

C-592/17 

Rotho Blaas (preliminary ruling) 

Baby Dan (preliminary ruling) 

General Court 

T-211/16 

T-442/16 

T-462/15 

T-675/15 

T-431/12 

T-654/16 

T-230/16 

T-364/16 

T-487/14 

T-113/15 

Caviro  Distillerie  and  others  v  Commission  (appeal  case  before  the  Court  of 
Justice C-345/18 P) 

Šroubárna Ždánice v EU (claim for damages) 

Asia Leader v Commission 

Shanxi  Taigang  Stainless  Steel  v  Commission  (appeal  case  before  the  Court  of 
Justice C-436/18 P) 

Distillerie  Bonollo  SpA  v  Council  (appeal  case  before  the  Court  of  Justice  C-
461/18 P) 

Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd v Commission 

C&J Clarks v Commission 

ArcelorMittal Tubular Products Ostrava a.s. and Others v Commission 

CHEMK v Commission 

RFA International v Commission 

 EN 

108 

     EN 

 
 
ANNEX T 

Safeguard measures in force on 31 December 2018 

A. Safeguard measures 

List of safeguard measures in force 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation/Decision 
N° 

OJ 
Reference 

Steel products 

Erga omnes 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2018/1013 

L 181; 
18.07.2018; 
p.39 

 EN 

109 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX U 

Third countries’ measures targeting the EU 

A. New investigations initiated by third countries in 2018 

Country 

Product 

Instrument 

Argentina 

Argentina 
Argentina 
Australia 

Boilers for central heating with capacity 
equals to or lower than 200.000 kcal/h 

Electric disconnectors 
Radiators 
Ammonium nitrate 

AD 

AD 
AD 
AD 

Initiation 
Date 

Exporting MS 

25-09-2018 

Italy, Slovakia 

Italy 

14-06-2018 
29-06-2018  Spain, Italy 
25-06-2018  Sweden 

Australia 

A4 Copy paper 

AD 

19-03-2018 

Austria, 
Slovakia, 
Finland 

Australia 
Brazil 
Canada 
Canada 

Chile 

China 

China 

Railway wheels 
Silicon electrical steel 
Nitisinone capsules 
Certain steel products 

AD 
AD 
AD 
SG 

18-04-2018  France 
10-05-2018  Germany 
21-09-2018  Sweden 
11-10-2018 

Milk powder and cheese 

SG 

08-03-2018 

Phenol 

Stainless Steel Billet and Hot-rolled Stainless 
Steel Plate (Coil) 

AD 

AD 

26-03-2018 

23-07-2018 

Germany, 
France, 
Netherlands 

Costa Rica 

Steel bars 

SG 

29-03-2018 

Spain, 
Netherlands 

Eurasian Economic 
Union 

Certain rolled steel 

SG 

07-08-2018 

Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

Chemical plasticizer (prepared additives for 
cement, mortars or concretes 

SG 

20-06-2018 

Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

ceramic flags and paving, hearth, floor or wall 
tiles, finishing ceramics 

AD 

05-11-2018 

India 

Coated paper 

AD 

23-01-2018 

Belgium, 
Germany, Italy, 
Finland, 
Sweden 

India 
India 
India 
Indonesia 
Indonesia 
Korea/South 
Madagascar 
Madagascar 
Morocco 

Di Methyl Formamide 
High Speed Steel of Non-Cobalt Grade 
Epoxy resin 
aluminium foil 
Ceramic tiles and mosaic 
Stainless steel bar 
Blankets 
Pasta 
Wooden panels 

AD 
AD 
AD 
SG 
SG 
AD 
SG 
SG 
SG 

22-01-2018 
14-08-2018 
04-04-2018 
09-10-2018 
29-03-2018 
18-05-2018 
20-09-2018 
20-09-2018 
31-07-2018 

Italy 

 EN 

110 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Pakistan 

Philippines 
Philippines 
South Africa 
Turkey 
Turkey 

Tinplate of a width of 600 mm or more and of 
a thickness of less than 0.5 mm 

Ceramic tiles 
Cement 
Screws made of steel with hexagon heads 
AC woven fabrics of yarn and fibres 
Steel and steel products 

Turkey 

Acrylic or modacrylic synthetic filament tow 

Ukraine 
United States 
United States 
United States 

Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs 
Strontium Chromate 
Large Diameter Welded Pipes 

AD 

SG 
SG 
SG 
AD 
SG 

AD 

AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

20-08-2018 

20-12-2018 
10-09-2018 
20-04-2018 
07-09-2018  Greece 
27-04-2018 

21-03-2018 

27-04-2018  Poland 
11-10-2018  Germany 
05-09-2018  France, Austria 
20-02-2018  Greece 

 EN 

111 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
B. New investigations initiated by third countries in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 

Argentina 

Australia 

Belarus 

Brazil 

Canada 

Chile 

China 

Colombia 

Costa Rica 

Ecuador 

Egypt 
Eurasian Economic 
Union 
Gulf Cooperation 
Council 
India 

Indonesia 

Israel 

Jordan 

Korea 

Lebanon 

Madagascar 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Morocco 

Pakistan 

Phillippines 

South Africa 

Thailand 

Tunisia 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

USA 

Vietnam 

Zambia 

TOTAL 

2015 

2016 

2017  2018 

2015 

2016  2017 

2018 

2015  2016 

2017 

2018  2015 

2016 

2017  2018 

0 

2 

0 

4 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

5 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

3 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

6 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

4 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

3 

0 

0 

18 

18 

22 

22 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

18 

12 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

2 

1 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

4 

0 

4 

2 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

3 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 

5 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

6 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

3 

1 

0 

3 

0 

3 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

4 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

1 

10 

1 

0 

3 

3 

0 

1 

2 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

2 

4 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

3 

1 

3 

0 

0 

15 

37 

30 

31 

37 

 EN 

112 

     EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
C. Measures imposed by third countries in 2018 

Country 

Australia 
Australia 

Product 

Ammonium nitrate 
Railway wheels 

Australia 

A4 Copy paper 

Australia 
Brazil 
Canada 
Canada 

Steel reinforcing bar 
Nitrile Rubber 
Certain steel products 
Nitisinone capsules 

China 

halogenated butyl rubber 

Instrument 
AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 
SG 
AD 

AD 

Type Of 
Measure 

Date Of 
Imposition 

Exporting MS 

Provisional  25-10-2018  Sweden 
Provisional  18-06-2018  France 

Provisional  18-05-2018 

Austria, Slovakia, 
Finland 

06-03-2018  Greece, Spain 

Definitive 
Provisional  02-03-2018  France 
Provisional  25-10-2018 
Provisional  20-12-2018  Sweden 

Provisional  20-04-2018 

Belgium, United 
Kingdom 
Belgium, Germany, 
Netherlands 

Colombia 

Frozen fries 

AD 

Definitive 

09-11-2018 

Gulf 
Cooperation 
Council 
India 

India 

India 

Korea/South 
Korea/South 
Mexico 

Flat rolled products of iron or non-
alloy steel 

SG 

Definitive 

15-05-2018  Belgium, Germany, Italy 

Synthetic Filament Yarn of Nylon 

AD 

Definitive 

06-10-2018 

Wooden flooring 

AD 

Definitive 

27-03-2018 

Denmark, Germany, 
Spain, Italy, Lithuania, 
Poland 

Solar Cells whether or not 
assembled in modules or panels 
Stainless steel bar 
Coated printing paper 
Seamless carbon steel pipes 

SG 

AD 
AD 
AD 

Definitive 

30-07-2018  Germany, France 

Provisional  16-11-2018 
Definitive 
Definitive 

22-07-2018  Finland 
04-04-2018  Spain 

Italy 

South Africa 

Frozen chicken BSG 

SG 

Definitive 

28-09-2018 

Belgium, Denmark, 
Germany, Ireland, 
Netherlands, Poland, 
United Kingdom 

South Africa 

screws made of steel with 
hexagon heads 
Toothbrushes 
steel and steel products 
Sodium Percarbonate 
Sulphuric acid and oleum 

Turkey 
Turkey 
Turkey 
Ukraine 
United States  Ripe Olives 
United States  Ripe Olives 

SG 

Provisional  01-08-2018 

SG 
SG 
AD 
SG 
AD 
CVD 

03-02-2018  Germany, Sweden 

Definitive 
Provisional  02-10-2018 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Provisional  18-01-2018  Spain 
01-08-2018  Spain 
Definitive 

02-03-2018  Germany, Sweden 
01-09-2018 

United States 

United States 

United States 

United States 

United States 

United States 

United States 
United States 

citric acid, sodium citrate, and 
potassium citrate (also in blends 
under HS 382499) 
Certain carbon and alloy steel 
wire rod 
Certain carbon and alloy steel 
wire rod 
crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
(CSPV) cells (whether or not 
partially or fully assembled into 
other products) 
Large residential washers (LRWs) 
and certain parts thereof 
Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical 
Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel 
Forged steel fittings 
Large Diameter Welded Pipes 

AD 

Provisional  02-01-2018  Belgium 

AD 

Definitive 

20-03-2018 

Spain, Italy, United 
Kingdom 

CVD 

Definitive 

19-03-2018 

Italy 

SG 

Definitive 

07-02-2018  Germany, Italy 

SG 

Definitive 

07-02-2018 

Germany, Spain, Italy, 
Sweden 

AD 

AD 
AD 

Definitive 

10-04-2018  Germany, Italy 

Provisional  14-05-2018 
Provisional  27-08-2018  Greece 

Italy 

 EN 

113 

     EN 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
D. Measures imposed by third countries in 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 

2015 

2016  2017 

2018 

2015  2016 

2017 

2018  2015 

2016 

2017  2018 

2015 

2016  2017 

2018 

Argentina 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

Chile 

China 

Colombia 

Costa Rica 
Dominican 
republic 
Ecuador 

Egypt 
Eurasian 
Economic Union 
GCC 

India 

Indonesia 

Jordan 

Korea 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Morocco 

Philippines 

South Africa 

Thailand 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

United States 

Vietnam 

Zambia 

TOTAL 

0 

3 

8 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

4 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

6 

0 

0 

21 

19 

15 

20 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

2 

3 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

15 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

9 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

3 

8 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0 

0 

1 

3 

2 

1 

1 

0 

3 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

6 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

1 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

6 

2 

0 

0 

4 

1 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

3 

1 

10 

0 

0 

10 

37 

30 

26 

32 

 EN 

114 

     EN 

 
 
  
 
 
E. Third countries’ measures in force at the end of 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 

Country 

AD 

CVD 

SG 

TOTAL 

2015  2016  2017  2018  2015  2016  2017  2018  2015  2016  2017  2018  2015  2016  2017  2018 

Argentina 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

Chile 

China 

Colombia 

Costa Rica 

Dominican Republic 

Ecuador 

Egypt 

Eurasian Economic Union 

GCC 

India 

Indonesia 

Japan 

Jordan 

Korea 

Lebanon 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Morocco 

New Zealand 

Pakistan 

Philippines 

South Africa 

Thailand 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

USA 

Vietnam 

Zambia 

TOTAL 

5 

5 

5 

6 

5 

7 

16 

15 

16 

4 

0 

4 

0 

6 

0 

5 

10 

16 

7 

0 

17 

17 

17 

16 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

15 

19 

19 

19 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

5 

3 

2 

4 

0 

2 

1 

7 

1 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

5 

4 

2 

2 

0 

3 

1 

8 

1 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

7 

4 

1 

2 

0 

3 

1 

10 

0 

16 

19 

22 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

3 

0 

0 

6 

4 

1 

2 

0 

3 

1 

10 

0 

27 

0 

0 

108 

116 

125 

133 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

2 

0 

4 

8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

3 

1 

3 

5 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

5 

7 

0 

1 

0 

0 

3 

0 

2 

0 

0 

3 

1 

3 

2 

2 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

4 

0 

1 

0 

1 

3 

0 

3 

0 

0 

3 

1 

3 

2 

1 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

2 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

3 

0 

0 

2 

3 

3 

4 

2 

2 

4 

0 

5 

5 

5 

6 

5 

7 

16 

15 

16 

4 

1 

5 

0 

7 

0 

5 

10 

16 

9 

0 

19 

19 

20 

18 

0 

1 

1 

1 

3 

3 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

19 

24 

21 

21 

8 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

5 

5 

2 

4 

3 

3 

4 

7 

1 

1 

2 

0 

3 

5 

6 

2 

2 

3 

4 

4 

4 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

7 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

4 

12 

10 

12 

3 

3 

1 

18 

21 

26 

1 

1 

3 

0 

4 

0 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

6 

7 

1 

2 

2 

6 

4 

14 

2 

33 

4 

0 

38 

35 

30 

35 

150 

156 

162 

174 

 EN 

115 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
F. Detail of third countries’ measures in force at the end of 2018 

Country 

Product 

Instrument 

Argentina 
Argentina 
Argentina 
Argentina 
Argentina 

Ceramic borders  
Coated paper 
Electrical terminals 
PVC profiles 
Straight handsaw blades 

Australia 

A4 Copy paper 

Australia 
Australia 

Australia 

Australia 
Australia 
Australia 
Australia 
Australia 
Australia 

Brazil 

Brazil 
Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 
Brazil 
Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Canada 

Canada 
Canada 

Canada 

Ammonium nitrate 
Chrome bars 

Prepared or preserved tomato 
products (all other exporters) 

Processed dried currants 
Processed tomatoes 
Q&T Steel Plate 
Railway wheels 
Steel Reinforcing Bar 
Steel reinforcing bar 

Adipic Acid 

Butyl Acrylate 
Elastomeric rubber pipes 

Ethanolamines and 
triethanolamines 

Frozen fries 

Galvanized steel wire 
Glazed papers  
Laminated steel 

Lightweight paper 

Milk powder 

Monobutyl ethers of ethylene 
glycol  

Nitrile Rubber 

Offset printing plates 

Phenol 

Plastic Tubes for Blood Collection 

Seamless steel pipes  

Certain fabricated industrial steel 
components 

Certain steel products 
Copper tubes 

Hot-rolled carbon steel plate and 
high-strength low-alloy steel plate 

AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

SG 
AD 

AD 

Type Of 
Measure 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

Exporting MS 

Date Of 
Imposition 
02-07-2014 
14-06-2012 
02-04-2009  Germany 
03-06-2014  Germany 
Sweden 
21-02-2008 

Spain 
Austria, Finland 

Provisional 

18-05-2018 

Austria, Slovakia, 
Finland 

Provisional 
Definitive 

25-10-2018 
Sweden 
06-09-2016  Romania 

Definitive 

16-04-2014 

Italy 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Provisional 
Definitive 
Definitive 

14-01-2009  Greece 
11-02-2016 
05-11-2014 
18-06-2018 
19-11-2015 
06-03-2018  Greece, Spain 

Italy 
Finland, Sweden 
France 
Spain 

Definitive 

01-04-2015 

Germany, France, 
Italy 

Definitive 
Definitive 

25-09-2015  Germany 
22-06-2015  Germany, Italy 

Definitive 

04-11-2013  Germany 

Definitive 

17-02-2017 

Belgium, Germany, 
France, 
Netherlands 
Sweden 
Finland 

30-01-2015 
22-10-2008 
04-10-2013  Germany, Finland 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

Definitive 

23-04-2012 

Belgium, Germany, 
Finland, Sweden 

Definitive 

23-02-2001  Denmark, Ireland 

Definitive 

22-04-2016  Germany 

Definitive 

13-08-2018 

France 

Definitive 

05-03-2015 

Belgium, Germany, 
United Kingdom 

Definitive 

16-10-2002 

Belgium, Germany 

Definitive 

30-04-2015 

Definitive 

07-10-2005 

Definitive 

25-05-2017 

Germany, United 
Kingdom 

Spain, United 
Kingdom 

Provisional 
Definitive 

25-10-2018 
02-01-2014  Greece 

Definitive 

09-01-2004 

Czech Republic, 
Bulgaria, Romania 

 EN 

116 

     EN 

 
 
 
 
  
  
Sweden 
Spain, Portugal 
Denmark, 
Germany, 
Netherlands, 
United Kingdom 
European Union  

Germany, France, 
Italy 

Germany, France, 
Italy 

Czech Republic, 
Germany, Spain, 
Netherlands, 
Poland 

Germany, Spain, 
France, Italy, 
Netherlands, 
Poland, Sweden, 
United Kingdom 

Germany, France, 
European Union  

Germany, France, 
Sweden 

Germany, Poland, 
United Kingdom 

Belgium, United 
Kingdom 

Denmark, 
Germany, France, 
Italy, Netherlands 

Netherlands, 
United Kingdom 

Belgium, Germany, 
Italy, Netherlands, 
Poland 

France, Italy, 
United Kingdom 

Germany, France, 
Netherlands 

Germany, France, 
Netherlands 

Canada 
Canada 

Nitisinone capsules 
Rebar 

Canada 

Refined sugar 

Canada 
Canada 

China 

Refined sugar 
Steel plate 

Adipic acid 

China 

Alloy Seamless Tubes 

AD 
AD 

AD 

CVD 
AD 

AD 

AD 

Provisional 
Provisional 

20-12-2018 
03-01-2017 

Definitive 

06-11-1995 

Definitive 
Definitive 

06-11-1995 
04-06-2014  Denmark, Italy 

Definitive 

02-11-2009 

Definitive 

10-05-2014 

China 

Caprolactam 

AD 

Definitive 

22-09-2011 

China 

Certain iron or steel fasteners 

AD 

Definitive 

29-06-2010 

China 

China 

China 

China 

China 

China 

China 

China 

China 

China 

China 
China 

China 

Chloroprene Rubber 

AD 

Definitive 

10-05-2005 

Ethylene Glycol Monobutyl Ether 

AD 

Definitive 

25-01-2013 

Grain oriented flat-rolled steel 
(GOES) 

halogenated butyl rubber 

Optical fiber 

Perchlorethylene 

Photographic paper 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

23-07-2016 

Definitive 

20-08-2018 

Definitive 

22-04-2011 

Definitive 

30-05-2014  Germany, France 

Definitive 

23-03-2012 

China 

Polyamide-6 (PA6) 

AD 

Definitive 

22-04-2010 

Polyamide-6,6 

AD 

Definitive 

12-10-2009 

Potato Starch 

CVD 

Definitive 

17-09-2011 

Potato Starch 

sugar 
Toluidine 

Unbleached sack paper 

Colombia 

Frozen fries 

Costa Rica 

Pounded Rice 

Dominican 
Republic 

Steel bars 

 EN 

AD 

SG 
AD 

AD 

AD 

SG 

AD 

117 

Definitive 

06-02-2007 

Definitive 
Definitive 

22-05-2017 
13-03-2013  Germany 

Definitive 

09-04-2016 

Definitive 

09-11-2018 

Austria, Finland, 
Sweden, Bulgaria 

Belgium, Germany, 
Netherlands 

Definitive 

19-02-2015 

Italy 

Definitive 

30-07-2014 

Spain 

     EN 

 
  
Belgium, Spain, 
Italy 

Belgium, Germany, 
Italy 

Belgium, Germany, 
Spain, Italy, 
Netherlands, 
Finland 

Belgium, Spain, 
France, Italy, 
Netherlands, 
Finland, Sweden, 
United Kingdom 

Belgium, Germany, 
France, 
Netherlands, 
Austria, Portugal 

Belgium, Germany, 
France, Italy, 
Austria, Sweden 

Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

Flat rolled products of iron or non-
alloy steel 

SG 

Definitive 

15-05-2018 

Belgium, Germany, 
Italy 

India 

India 

India 

2-Ethyl Hexanol 

Acetone 

Certain Rubber Chemicals 

AD 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

18-02-2016  Germany 

Definitive 

11-03-2008 

Definitive 

20-11-2005 

India 

Cold rolled steel 600 - 1250 mm 

AD 

Definitive 

24-10-2017 

Cold-Rolled Flat Products of 
Stainless Steel  

AD 

Definitive 

20-02-2010 

Colour coated/pre-painted flat 
products of alloy or non-alloy 
steel 

Flexible Slabstock Polyol 

Hot rolled flat sheets and plates 
thick =<150mm, width >= 600 mm 

Methylene Chloride 
Morpholine 

Normal Butanol or N-Butyl 
Alcohol 

Phenol 

Polyvinyl Chloride Suspension 
Grade Resin 

PVC paste resin 

SBR - Styrene Butadiene Rubber 
of 1500 series and 1700 series 

Sodium Chlorate 
Sodium Nitrate 
Sodium nitrite 

AD 

SG 

AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 
AD 

AD 

Definitive 

17-10-2017 

Definitive 

07-04-2015 

Definitive 

23-11-2016 

Definitive 
Definitive 

21-05-2014 
24-01-2012 

Definitive 

19-02-2016  Germany 

Definitive 

08-03-2016 

Belgium, Spain, 
Netherlands 

Definitive 

13-06-2014 

Definitive 

07-10-2004 

Spain, Italy 

Definitive 

30-08-2017 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

02-11-2017 
13-11-2014 
29-11-2002 

Bulgaria 
European Union  

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 
India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 
India 
India 

India 

Solar Cells whether or not 
assembled in modules or panels 

SG 

Definitive 

30-07-2018  Germany, France 

India 

Synthetic Filament Yarn of Nylon 

AD 

Definitive 

06-10-2018 

India 

Wooden flooring 

AD 

Definitive 

27-03-2018 

Denmark, 
Germany, Spain, 
Italy, Lithuania, 
Poland 

Indonesia 

Flat rolled iron  

Indonesia 

H and I sections of other alloy 
steel 

Japan 

Electrolytic Manganese Dioxide 

 EN 

SG 

SG 

AD 

118 

Definitive 

22-07-2014 

Definitive 

21-01-2015 

Definitive 

29-08-2008 

Spain 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Jordan 

Aluminium bars, rods and profiles 

Korea/South 
Korea/South 
Korea/South 
Lebanon 

Butyl Glycol Ether 
Coated printing paper 
Stainless steel bar 
Sunflower and Soya Oil 

Malaysia 

steel concrete reinforcing bar 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Mexico 

Mexico 
Mexico 

Mexico 

Mexico 
Morocco 

Morocco 

Morocco 
Morocco 
Morocco 

steel wire rods and deformed bar 
in coils 

Carbon steel tubes 

carbon steel tubes with 
longitudinal straight seam 

Hot rolled steel coils 
Seamless carbon steel pipes 

Steel plate produced in Romania 

Stranded wire ropes & cables 
Bars and wire rods 

Cold rolled steel sheets and 
plated or coated sheets 

Hot rolled steel sheets 
Insulin 
Paper A4 

Morocco 

Paper reels and reams 

Morocco 

PVC 

New Zealand 
Pakistan 
Pakistan 
Philippines 
Philippines 

South Africa 

Canned peaches 
Hydrogen Peroxide 
Phthalic Anhydride 
Steel angle bars 
Testliner board 

Certain flat rolled iron/steel 
products 

SG 

AD 
AD 
AD 
SG 

SG 

SG 

AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 
SG 

SG 

AD 
AD 
AD 

SG 

AD 

AD 
AD 
AD 
SG 
SG 

SG 

Definitive 

15-05-2017 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Provisional 
Definitive 

06-12-2016 
22-07-2018 
16-11-2018 
16-05-2016 

Definitive 

14-04-2017 

Finland 
Italy 
France, Hungary 

Germany, Austria, 
Finland, United 
Kingdom 

Definitive 

15-04-2017 

Spain 

Definitive 

21-04-2016 

Spain 

Definitive 

06-01-2010  United Kingdom 

Definitive 
Definitive 

23-12-2015  Germany, France 
04-04-2018 

Spain 

Definitive 

22-09-2005 

Definitive 
Definitive 

27-02-2016 
01-04-2014 

Spain, Portugal 

Definitive 

07-09-2015 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

12-08-2014 
03-02-2015 
20-10-2014 

Definitive 

01-01-2017 

Definitive 

29-12-2016 

Germany, 
Portugal, Finland, 
Sweden 

Belgium, Germany, 
Spain, France, 
Portugal 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Provisional 
Definitive 
Definitive 

09-03-1998  Greece 
Belgium 
15-07-2011 
Italy 
07-02-2013 
31-08-2009 
16-09-2010 

Belgium, Germany 

Definitive 

11-08-2017 

South Africa 

Frozen chicken 

AD 

Definitive 

27-02-2015 

South Africa 

Frozen chicken BSG 

SG 

Definitive 

28-09-2018 

South Africa 

Potato chips 

South Africa 

Ropes & cables of iron or steel 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

21-10-2016 

Definitive 

28-08-2002 

South Africa 

screws made of steel with 
hexagon heads 

SG 

Provisional 

01-08-2018 

Belgium, Germany, 
Sweden 

Germany, 
Netherlands, 
United Kingdom 

Belgium, Denmark, 
Germany, Ireland, 
Netherlands, 
Poland, United 
Kingdom 

Belgium, 
Netherlands 

Germany, United 
Kingdom 

 EN 

119 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Thailand 

Thailand 

Thailand 

Thailand 

Turkey 
Turkey 

Turkey 

Turkey 
Turkey 

Turkey 

Hot rolled steel flat with certain 
amounts of alloying elements  

Hot-rolled flat in coils and not in 
coils 

Non Alloy Hot Rolled Steel Flat 
Products in (non) coils 

Structural Hot Rolled H-Beam 
with Alloy 

Electrical water heaters 
Fittings 

hinges 

Laminated flooring 
plywood 

Polyethylene terephthalate 

SG 

Definitive 

15-09-2013 

AD 

SG 

SG 

AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 

SG 

Definitive 

27-05-2003 

Slovakia 

Definitive 

23-12-2014 

Belgium, Germany, 
Spain, Sweden 

Definitive 

28-01-2017 

Definitive 
Definitive 

19-09-2013 
07-09-2006 

Italy 

Definitive 

20-10-2017 

Greece, Spain, 
Italy 

Definitive 
Definitive 

13-06-2015  Germany 
Bulgaria 
28-10-2016 

Definitive 

07-11-2011 

Germany, Greece, 
Spain, Italy 

Belgium, Germany, 
Greece, Italy, 
Hungary, 
Netherlands, 
Finland, Romania 

Turkey 

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 

AD 

Definitive 

06-02-2003 

Turkey 
Turkey 
Turkey 

Turkey 

Sodium Percarbonate 
steel and steel products 
Toothbrushes 

Tubes and pipes of refined 
copper 

AD 
SG 
SG 

AD 

Definitive 
Provisional 
Definitive 

02-03-2018  Germany, Sweden 
02-10-2018 
03-02-2018  Germany, Sweden 

Definitive 

17-10-2017  Greece 

Turkey 

Wall paper 

SG 

Definitive 

06-08-2015 

Belgium, Germany, 
Italy, United 
Kingdom 

Turkey 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

Ukraine 
United States 
United States 
United States 

United States 

United States 

United States 

woven fabriccs of synthetic 
filament yarn 

woven fabrics of synthetic and 
artificial staple fibres  

Flexible porous plates, blocks and 
sheets of polyurethane foam  

Sulphuric acid and oleum 
Brass sheet & strip 
Brass sheet & strip 
Brass sheet & strip 

Carbon & alloy steel cut to lenght 
plate 

Certain carbon and alloy steel 
wire rod 

Certain carbon and alloy steel 
wire rod 

United States 

Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical 
Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel 

United States 

Chlorinated isocyanurates 

 EN 

AD 

AD 

SG 

SG 
AD 
AD 
AD 

AD 

Definitive 

22-08-2015 

Bulgaria 

Definitive 

22-08-2015 

Poland, Bulgaria 

Definitive 

07-07-2016 

Hungary, Poland, 
Romania 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

01-09-2018 
06-03-1987 
06-03-1987 
06-03-1987  Germany 

Italy 
France 

Definitive 

05-05-2017 

Belgium, Germany, 
France, Italy, 
Austria 

CVD 

Definitive 

19-03-2018 

Italy 

AD 

Definitive 

20-03-2018 

Spain, Italy, United 
Kingdom 

AD 

AD 

120 

Definitive 

10-04-2018  Germany, Italy 

Definitive 

24-06-2005 

Spain 

     EN 

 
  
  
  
  
  
United States 

citric acid, sodium citrate, and 
potassium citrate (also in blends 
under HS 382499) 

United States 

Cold rolled steel flat products 

United States 
United States 

Corrosion-resistant steel 
Corrosion-resistant steel 

United States 

crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
(CSPV) cells (whether or not 
partially or fully assembled into 
other products) 

United States 

Emulsion styrene-butadiene 
rubber (ESB rubber) 

United States 
United States 

Finished Carbon Steel Flanges 
Forged steel fittings 

United States 

Hot rolled steel 

United States 

Large Diameter Welded Pipes 

United States 

United States 
United States 
United States 
United States 

United States 

United States 
United States 
United States 
United States 
United States 
United States 

United States 

United States 
United States 
United States 
United States 

United States 

Large residential washers (LRWs) 
and certain parts thereof 

Low enriched uranium 
Non-oriented electrical steel 
Pasta 
Pasta 

Pressure sensitive plastic tape 
x673 

Ripe Olives 
Ripe Olives 
Seamless pipe 
Seamless pipe small diameter 
Sodium Nitrite 
Stainless steel bar x709 

Stainless steel butt-weld pipe 
fittings 

Stainless steel plates in coils 
Stainless steel wire rod x743  
Stainless steel wire rod x745  
Steel concrete reinforcing bars 

Steel concrete reinforcing bars 
x752  

United States 

Uncoated paper 

Vietnam 

Vietnam 

Vietnam 

Vietnam 

Certain mineral or chemical 
fertilizers  

Monosodium glutamate- food 
flavour 

Pre-painted galvanized steel 
sheet and strip 

semi-finished and finished 
products of alloy&non-alloy steel 

AD 

Definitive 

25-07-2018 

Belgium 

AD 

AD 
CVD 

Definitive 

10-09-2016 

Netherlands, 
United Kingdom 

Definitive 
Definitive 

15-07-2016 
15-09-2016 

Italy 
Italy 

SG 

Definitive 

07-02-2018  Germany, Italy 

AD 

AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 

SG 

AD 
AD 
AD 
CVD 

AD 

CVD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 

SG 

SG 

SG 

Definitive 

12-09-2017 

Poland 

Provisional 
Definitive 

26-01-2017 
26-11-2018 

Spain, Italy 
Italy 

Definitive 

12-09-2016 

Netherlands, 
United Kingdom 

Provisional 

27-08-2018  Greece 

Definitive 

07-02-2018 

Germany, Spain, 
Italy, Sweden 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

37300 

France 

18-11-2014  Germany, Sweden 
Italy 
Italy 

35270 
35270 

Definitive 

21-10-1977 

Italy 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

Spain 
Spain 

01-08-2018 
01-08-2018 
04-03-1997  Germany 
11-10-2011  Romania 
27-08-2008  Germany 
02-03-1995 

Spain 

Definitive 

23-02-2001 

Italy 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

21-05-1999 
15-09-1998 
15-09-1998 
37141 

Belgium 
Spain, Italy 
Italy 
Latvia 

Definitive 

37141 

Poland 

Definitive 

20-01-2016 

Portugal 

Provisional 

04-08-2017 

Definitive 

25-03-2016 

Definitive 

15-06-2017 

Belgium, Germany, 
Spain 

Belgium, Germany, 
Austria 

SG 

Definitive 

02-08-2016 

 EN 

121 

     EN