COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT […] Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 38th 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 2019
Date: 2020-04-30
Institutions: Directorate-General for Trade and Economic Security, European Commission
Subjects: activity report, 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, 30.4.2020  SWD(2020) 71 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT […] Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 38th 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 2019 {COM(2020) 164 final}  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 
Accompanying the document 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND 
THE COUNCIL 

38th 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 2019 

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 .......................................................................................................... 5 

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

2.1. 

2.2. 

2.3 

Measures in place ...................................................................................................................... 7 

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

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

3. Overview of activities in 2019 ............................................................................................................. 9 

3.1. 

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

3.1.1. Initiations ........................................................................................................................ 9 

3.1.2. Provisional measures .................................................................................................... 10 

3.1.3. Definitive measures ...................................................................................................... 11 

3.1.4. Details on individual cases with application of new provisional or definitive duties ... 11 

3.1.5. New investigations terminated without measures ......................................................... 26 

3.2. 

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

3.2.1. Expiry reviews .............................................................................................................. 27 

3.2.2. Interim reviews ............................................................................................................. 35 

3.2.3. New exporter reviews ................................................................................................... 35 

3.2.4. Anti-absorption investigations ...................................................................................... 36 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.5. Anti-circumvention investigations ................................................................................ 36 

3.2.6. “Other” reviews (reinvestigations) ................................................................................ 38 

3.3. 

Safeguard investigations ......................................................................................................... 38 

3.3.1. Details on individual safeguard cases ........................................................................... 39 

3.4. 

Verification activities .............................................................................................................. 41 

4. Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures..................................................................... 41 

4.1. 

4.2. 

4.3. 

Follow-up of measures ............................................................................................................ 42 

Monitoring of undertakings .................................................................................................... 42 

OLAF activity ......................................................................................................................... 42 

5. Refunds ............................................................................................................................................... 43 

6. Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts ......................................................... 43 

7. Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice (CJ) and the General Court (GC) .............. 44 

7.1. 

7.2. 

7.3. 

7.4. 

7.5. 

Overview of the judicial reviews in 2019 ............................................................................... 44 

Cases pending ......................................................................................................................... 44 

New cases................................................................................................................................ 44 

Judgments rendered by the General Court (a selection) ......................................................... 44 

Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice (a selection) ....................................................... 51 

8. Activities by third countries targeting the EU .................................................................................... 53 

9. Activities in the framework of the WTO ............................................................................................ 58 

9.1. 

9.2. 

Dispute settlement in the field of trade defence ...................................................................... 58 

Other WTO activities (in more detail) .................................................................................... 59 

LIST OF ANNEXES .............................................................................................................................. 61 

ANNEX A .............................................................................................................................................. 62 

ANNEX B .............................................................................................................................................. 63 

ANNEX C .............................................................................................................................................. 65 

ANNEX D .............................................................................................................................................. 66 

ANNEX E .............................................................................................................................................. 67 

ANNEX F ............................................................................................................................................... 68 

ANNEX G .............................................................................................................................................. 70 

ANNEX H .............................................................................................................................................. 71 

ANNEX I ................................................................................................................................................ 72 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX J ............................................................................................................................................... 74 

ANNEX K .............................................................................................................................................. 75 

ANNEX L .............................................................................................................................................. 77 

ANNEX M ............................................................................................................................................. 78 

ANNEX N .............................................................................................................................................. 79 

ANNEX O .............................................................................................................................................. 80 

ANNEX P ............................................................................................................................................... 98 

ANNEX Q ............................................................................................................................................ 100 

ANNEX R ............................................................................................................................................ 101 

ANNEX S ............................................................................................................................................. 105 

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

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

3 

 
 
 
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  World  Trade  Organisation 
(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  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) 
2  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) 

4 

 
 
                                                           
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 the Protocol of Accession 
of the People’s Republic of China (China), 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. 

1.2.2.  The EU legislation 

The above-mentioned principles are all reflected in the relevant EU regulations, except 
for the “unforeseen development requirement” (which is not found explicitly in the EU 
legislation nor in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards but has been confirmed as a self-

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

5 

 
 
                                                           
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),5  

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

- Regulation  (EU) 2019/287  of the European Parliament and of the Council of 
implementing  bilateral  safeguard  clauses  and  other 
13  February  2019 
mechanisms  allowing  for  the  temporary  withdrawal  of  preferences  in  certain 
trade agreements concluded between the European Union and third countries,7 

- Regulation (EU) 2015/936 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 
June  2015  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).8 

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 2019 was substantially higher compared 
to  the  previous  year,  at  16  initiations  (compared  to  10  in  2018).  In  addition,  the 
Commission reopened 7 cases to implement findings following court rulings (see "Other 
reviews").  The  number  of  measures  imposed  in  2019  also  increased  as  compared  to 
2018:  7  new  definitive measures  and  5  provisional  measures  were  imposed,  a  total  of 
12, versus 6 in 2018.9 At the same time, 5 investigations were also terminated without 
the  imposition  of  measures,  which  brought  the  total  number  of  new  investigations 
concluded in  2019 to  17. Moreover, during 2019, the Commission initiated 16 review 
investigations  (excluding  re-openings).  Among  the  latter,  there  were  8  initiations  of 
expiry reviews (two of which regarding anti-subsidy measures). As many as 18 expiry 
reviews  were  concluded  in  2019  -  16  with  a  confirmation  of  the  duty  and  2  by 
termination and  repeal  of measures.  In other words, 2019 stood  as a particularly busy 
year, with even more significant new casework and reviewing activity than 2018. Below 
are details on new investigations and review investigations.  

5  OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p.16 
6  OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p.33 
7  OJ L 53, 22.2.2019, p.1 
8  OJ L 160, 25.6.2015, p.1 
9  Not including safeguard measures 

6 

 
 
                                                           
2.1.  Measures in place 

At  the  end  of  2019,  the  EU  had  in  force  94  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  (which 
were extended10 in 27 cases) and 15 countervailing measures in force (extended in one 
case).11 

The anti-dumping measures  product  coverage remained at  67 products,  concerning 15 
countries  (see  Annex  O);  the  countervailing  measures  covered  13  products  and  6 
countries – two more than in 2018 (see Annex P). The large majority of measures was 
in the form of duties. In one case, undertakings have been put in place. 

Of all the 121 anti-dumping measures in force at the end of 2019, the countries affected 
were  China  (86),  Russia  (10),  US  (4),  India  and  Korea  (3  each),  Belarus,  Indonesia, 
Taiwan, Thailand and Ukraine (2 each), Brazil, Iran, Japan, Malaysia,  and Trinidad and 
Tobago (1 each).  

Of  the  16  anti-subsidy  measures  in  place,  7  concerned  imports  from  China,  whereas 
India remained subject  to 4 measures, the US  to 2 measures and Argentina,  Indonesia 
and Turkey to 1 measure each.  

2.2. 

New investigations – recent evolution 

In the 5-year period from 2015 to 2019, 66 new investigations were initiated on imports 
from 22 countries. The sectors concerned by the investigations were mainly:  'iron and 
steel'  –  30  investigations,  and  'chemical  and  allied  industries'  –  18  investigations,  A 
breakdown of the product sectors is available in Annex B(A). 

The countries concerned by the highest number of initiations in the period from 2015 to 
2019  include  China  –  25  investigations;  Egypt  and  Russia  –  5  each;  Brazil,  India, 
Indonesia, Korea and Turkey – 3 each. A table showing all the investigations initiated 
over the last 5 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 2015 – 2019.  

Evolution of new anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard investigations 
during the period 1 January 2015 - 31 December 201912 

TABLE 1 

New investigations in progress at the beginning of 
the period 

2015 

2016 

2017 

201813 

2019 

20 

20 

20 

17 

15 

New investigations initiated during the period 

New investigations in progress during the period 

14 

34 

15 

35 

11 

31 

10 

27 

16 

31 

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

found. 

11  The measures are counted per product and country concerned. 
12  The simultaneous initiation of a case concerning several countries but the same product is accounted as 

separate investigation/proceeding per country involved. 

13  Updated to take into proper account the Steel safeguard investigation 

7 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
New investigations concluded : 

- 

- 

by imposition of definitive duty or 
acceptance of undertakings 
terminations14 

Total new investigations concluded during the 
period 

New investigations in progress at the end of period 

Provisional measures imposed during the period 

11 

3 

14 

20 

10 

7 

8 

15 

20 

9 

12 

2 

14 

17 

2 

4 

8 

12 

15 

3 

10 

5 

15 

16 

5 

2.3. 

Review investigations – recent evolution 

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 2015 to 2019, 133 such review investigations were initiated 
by the Commission. Reviews represented 2/3 of all TDI investigations initiated.  

In  2019,  specifically,  the  Commission  initiated  23  reviews  of  a  broad  range  of  types. 
interim  reviews,  4  anti-circumvention 
These  comprised  8  expiry  reviews,  2 
investigations,  1  anti-absorption  investigation,  1  ‘new  exporter’  review  and  7  re-
openings. At the same time, 22 reviews were concluded by the Commission. 

An  overview  of  the  review  investigations  in  2019  can  be  found  in  Annexes  F  to  K. 
Table 2 below provides statistical information for the years 2015 – 2019. 

14    Investigations  might  be  terminated  for  reasons  such  as  the  withdrawal  of  the  complaint,  de  minimis 

dumping or injury, lack of causal link etc. 

8 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
TABLE 2 
Reviews of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations 
during the period 1 January 2015 - 31 December 201915 

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 period17 

Reviews in progress at the end of the period 

2015 

2016 

2017 

201816 

2019 

36 

33 

69 

36 

33 

33 

23 

56 

27 

29 

29 

30 

59 

31 

28 

28 

25 

53 

28 

25 

25 

23 

48 

22 

26 

3. 

OVERVIEW OF ACTIVITIES IN 2019 

3.1. 

New investigations 

3.1.1. 

Initiations 

In  2019,  the  Commission  initiated  11  new  anti-dumping  and  5  new  anti-subsidy 
investigations.  Iron  and  steel  as  well  as  glass  fibre  products  stood  out  in  terms  of 
product  coverage.  The  investigations  concerned  6  different  countries,  with  the  highest 
number  of  initiations  occurring  against  China  (7)  and  Egypt  (4).  Details  of  the 
investigations are given in Annexes A and B.  

The list of cases initiated in 2019 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 

Steel road wheels 

Glass fibre fabrics (AD) 

Glass fibre fabrics (AS) 

China 

Egypt 

China 

Egypt 

China 

Association of European Wheel 
Manufacturers 

Tech-Fab Europe 

Tech-Fab Europe 

15  The simultaneous initiation of a case concerning several countries but the same product is accounted as 
includes  reopenings  of 

investigation/proceeding  per  country 

involved.  The 

table 

separate 
investigations (‘other’ reviews). 

16  Year 2018 data was updated upwards to take into proper account all case conclusions/terminations. 
17    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. 

9 

 
 
 
                                                           
Glass fibre reinforcements (AD) 

Bahrain 

Egypt 

European Glass Fibre Producers 
Association 

Glass fibre reinforcements (AS) 

Egypt 

European Glass Fibre Producers 
Association 

Polyvinyl alcohols (AD) 

China 

Kuraray Europe GmbH 

Stainless steel hot-rolled flat products 
(AD) 

Stainless steel hot-rolled flat products 
(AS) 

Indonesia 

China 

Taiwan 

Indonesia 

China 

Heavyweight thermal paper (AD) 

Rep. of Korea 

Pins and staples (AD) 

China 

Eurofer 

Eurofer 

European Thermal Paper 
Association 

Atrom Impex srl 
Bizon Int. Sp. z o.o.  
Ergo Staples 
Grupodesa  
Omer SpA 
Velo srl 

3.1.2.  Provisional measures 

In 2019, provisional duties were imposed in four 4-dumping investigations, and 1 anti-
subsidy investigation.18  

The list of cases where provisional measures were imposed during 2019 can be found 
below, together with the measures imposed. More information can be obtained from the 
Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex C. 

Product 

Origin 

Type19 and level of measure 

Biodiesel  

Indonesia 

CVD:  8% – 18% 

Steel road wheels  

China 

Russia 

Urea and ammonium nitrate 

Trinidad and Tobago 

US 

AD:  50.3% – 66.4% 

AD:  31.9% – 34% 

AD:  16.3% 

AD:  22.6% 

18  It has to be noted that anti-subsidy investigations run often in parallel to anti-dumping investigations, 

where the provisional anti-dumping duty already provides some relief to the Union industry. 

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

10 

 
 
 
                                                           
3.1.3.  Definitive measures 

During 2019, definitive duties were imposed in 4 anti-dumping investigations and in 3 
anti-subsidy  investigations.  The  list  of  cases  where  definitive  measures  were  imposed 
during  2019  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. 

Origin 

Type20 and level of measure 

Product 

Biodiesel 

Argentina 

Indonesia 

Electric bicycles 

China 

CVD:  25% – 33.4% 

CVD:  8% – 18% 

AD:  10.3% – 70.1% 

CVD:  3.9% – 17.2% 

Urea and ammonium nitrate 

Trinidad and Tobago 

AD:  22.24 EUR/t 

US 

AD:  29.48 EUR/t 

Russia 

AD:  27.77 EUR/t – 42.47 EUR/t 

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

duties 

Electric bicycles from China (Definitive CVD) 

On  21  December  2017,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-subsidy  investigation  with 
regard to imports into the Union of electric bicycles originating in China. The initiation 
was  based  on  a  complaint  lodged  on  8  November  2017  by  the  European  Bicycle 
Manufacturers  Association  (EBMA)  on  behalf  of  Union  producers  representing  more 
than  25%  of  the  total  Union  production  of  electric  bicycles.  The  complaint  contained 
evidence  of  subsidisation  and  of  a  resulting  injury  that  was  sufficient  to  justify  the 
initiation.  

Sampling 

The  final  sample  of  Union  producers  consisted  of  four  Union  producers,  which 
accounted  for  60%  of  total  production  volume  and  58%  of  total  sales  of  the  Union 
industry. The Commission selected a sample of five unrelated importers on the basis of 
the  largest  volume  of  imports  into  the  Union.  It  has  also  selected  a  sample  of  five 
groups of exporting producers on the basis of the volume of the product concerned and 
considered  as  the  largest  representative  volume  of  exports  to  the  Union  which  could 
reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sampled exporting producers 
represented 43% of the total imports of the product concerned to the Union. 

Product concerned  

The product concerned was defined as: cycles, with pedal assistance, with an auxiliary 
electric  motor,  originating  in  the  PRC  The  Commission  concluded  that  speed  electric 
bicycles,  L1e-A  category  electric  bicycles  and  electric  tricycles  shared  the  same  basic 

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

11 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
physical  characteristics  and  properties  as  well  as  end-uses  with  other  types  of  electric 
cycles, and therefore could not be excluded from the product scope of the investigation. 

Subsidisation 

The  following  subsidies  were  investigated:  (1)  provision  of  preferential  loans  and 
directed  credits  by  State  policy  banks  and  State-owned  commercial  banks;  (2) 
preferential  Export  credit  insurance;  (3)  grants;  (4)  Government  revenue  that  is 
otherwise  due  or  forgone  or  not  collected;  (5)  revenue  foregone  through  Indirect  Tax 
and Import Tariff Programmes; (6) Government provision of goods and services for less 
than adequate remuneration. Given the partial non-cooperation from the Government of 
China (GOC) and the sampled exporting producers, the Commission had to use the best 
facts  available  in  relation  to  the  preferential  lending,  export  credit  insurance,  and 
provision of inputs for less than adequate remuneration. 

The  investigation  showed  that  the  following  subsidies  and  subsidy  programmes  were 
countervailable subsidies: 

(1)  Provision  of  preferential  loans  and  directed  credits  by  State  policy  banks 
and  State-owned  commercial  banks:  financial  institutions  had  provided  loans,  credit 
lines or bank  acceptances to  exporting producers. Those of the banks that  were State-
owned  qualified  in  a  straightforward  manner  as  public  bodies.  With  regard  to  other 
banks,  which  were  not  directly  owned  by  the  State,  the  Commission  found  that  they 
were  nevertheless  entrusted  and  directed  by  the  GOC  to  carry  out  functions  normally 
vested  in  the  Government.  Chinese  bicycle  producers  benefited  from  advantageous 
credit lines (without the need to pay additional fees to compensate the bank’s costs and 
risks)  and  from  bank  acceptances  with  extended  repayment  deadlines,  which  were 
granted  at  conditions,  which  the  market  does  not  normally  offer.  This  preferential 
lending was only available to a limited number of companies/industries compliant with 
the GOC’s policies.  

(2)  Preferential  Export  credit  insurance:  These  insurance  agreements  were 
provided by a State-owned enterprise (“SOE”) to electric bicycles producers at rates that 
were not market-oriented nor based on risk assessment. Premiums were also insufficient 
to  cover  the  claims’  cost  and  the  overhead  expenses  of  the  SOE.  Furthermore,  some 
exporting  producers  benefited  from  a  partial  or  total  refund  of  the  export  credit 
insurance premiums. These agreements could not be obtained without exporting (hence 
were export contingent). 

(3)  Grant  Programmes:  some  sampled  companies  were  found  to  benefit  from 
one-off  or  recurring  grants  from  different  levels  of  government  authorities.  These 
subsidies  constituted  a  transfer  of  funds  from  the  GOC  in  the  form  of  grants  to  the 
producers of the product. They were specific as they were limited to certain companies 
or specific projects in concrete regions and/or specifically the electric bicycle industry. 
In addition, some of the grants were contingent upon export performance.  

(4)  Government  revenue  that  is  otherwise  due  or  forgone  or  not  collected:  the 
direct tax exemption within the Enterprise Income Tax (EIT) regime allowed some high 
and  new  technology  enterprises  determined  by  the  State  to  benefit  from  a  reduced 
income tax rate of 15% (instead of 25 %). This tax reduction was found to be a specific 
subsidy as it conferred a benefit to only some companies. Furthermore, the EIT offset 
for  research  and  development  (R&D)  expenses  entitled  companies  to  preferential  tax 
treatment for their R&D activities in certain high technology priority areas determined 
by the State, when certain thresholds for R&D spending were met. A tax exemption on 
dividend income between qualified resident enterprises was also regarded as a subsidy 

12 

 
 
as  it  conferred  a  benefit  to  specific  companies  the  development  of  which  was 
encouraged by the State. 

(5)  Revenue  foregone  through  Indirect  Tax  and  Import  Tariff  Programmes: 
Chinese  producers  benefited  from  an  exemption  from  VAT  and  import  tariffs  for 
imports  of  capital  equipment  used  in  their  production  processes.  To  that  end,  the 
equipment must not fall in a list of non-eligible equipment and the claiming enterprise 
had to obtain a Certificate of State-Encouraged project issued by the Chinese authorities 
or by the NDRC, thereby making the subsidy specific. 

(6) Government provision of goods/inputs for less than adequate remuneration: 
the Commission concluded that the GOC was entrusting or directing Chinese producers 
of  engines  and  suppliers  of  batteries  to  supply  these  inputs  for  less  than  adequate 
remuneration  to  the  domestic  producers  of  electric  bicycles.  These  subsidies  were  not 
generally  available.  No  evidence  was  submitted  suggesting  that  those  subsidies  were 
based  on  objective  criteria  or  conditions.  In  addition,  the  electric  bicycles  sector 
benefited, as a key industry, from the granting of Land Use Rights at preferential rates, 
which were also considered countervailable subsidies.  

Injury and causation  

the  Union 

During  the  IP,  where  the  Union  sales  and  production  developed  negatively  despite  a 
industry  suffered  from  a  decreasing 
growing  Union  consumption, 
productivity per employee. Such a decreasing productivity and the consequent negative 
impact  on  the  profitability  of  the  Union  industry  was  directly  linked  to  the  increasing 
quantities  of  subsidized  imports  of  Chinese  electric  bicycles  during  the  period 
considered. Confronted with an accelerating flow of subsidized imports from China, the 
Union  Industry  was not  able to  capitalise on the growth of the electric bicycle market 
and has lost market share to Chinese imports. The pressure on prices and the inability to 
seize economies of scale in a nascent market kept the profitability of the Union industry 
at  depressed  levels  throughout  the  period  considered.  This  low  level  of  profit  and  the 
variation  of  stocks  led  to  low  operating  cash  flows  which  were  below  the  level  of 
investment incurred during the period considered and created an additional element of 
vulnerability  for  this  cash-intensive  business,  strongly  dependent  on  the  liquidity 
provided by banks. Four producers went into bankruptcy during the IP, thus confirming 
a situation of injury within the Union industry.  

Regarding  the  causality  analysis,  the  Commission  distinguished  and  separated  the 
effects  of  all  known  factors  on  the  situation  of  the  Union  industry  from  the  injurious 
effects of the subsidized imports. In particular, imports from Taiwan and Vietnam had 
also  average  lower  prices  than  the  Union  industry.  However,  notably,  Vietnamese 
imports  ceased  to  win  market  share  after  2015,  and  imports  from  Taiwan  were 
accompanied  by  a  significant  increase  in  prices  (while  average  prices  of  Chinese 
products  kept  on  decreasing).  This  led  the  Commission  to  conclude  that  overall  those 
imports  did  not  attenuate  the  causal  link.  Furthermore,  with  regard  to  investment  in 
capacity  by  the  Union  industry,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the  growth  in 
production capacity between 2015 and 2016 was in line with consumption levels in that 
period  and  the  EU  production  capacity  was  reduced  as  from  2016  only  due  to  unfair 
pressure  by  subsidised  Chinese  imports.  Lastly,  the  Commission  found  that  the 
introduction  of  incentives  for  electrical  bicycles’  sales  did  not  contribute  to  a  shift  to 
Chinese bicycles to the detriment of those produced in the Union. The latter was only 
caused by the price undercutting resulting from subsidisation. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

13 

 
 
The  Commission  examined  whether  it  could  clearly  conclude  that  it  was  not  in  the 
Union  interest  to  adopt  measures  in  this  case,  despite  the  determination  of  injurious 
subsidisation. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of 
all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and 
users. The Commission concluded that the imposition of a countervailing duty would be 
in the interest of the suppliers of the Union Industry and the Union industry itself. Even 
if the imposition of duties could have an adverse effect on small importers, this could be 
mitigated  by  the  possibility  to  source  bicycles  from  the  Union  Industry,  in  other  third 
countries, and in the PRC at fair, non-injurious prices. In any case, any potential adverse 
effect  on  importers  would  not  outweigh  the  positive  effect  of  measures  on  the  Union 
industry.  What  is  more,  the  European  Cyclists  Federation  argued  that  price  is  not  the 
determining  factor  in  whether  people  cycle  more  or  less  and  provided  evidence  that 
countries where people cycle more are the countries where bicycles and electric bicycles 
cost  more.  The  Commission  therefore  concluded  that  the  measures  would  not  unduly 
affect the situation of consumers and would contribute to the sustainable development 
of  electric  bicycles  in  the  Union  as  well  as  its  wider  benefits  to  society  in  terms  of 
protection of the environment and improved mobility. 

A definitive countervailing duty was imposed at a level sufficient to eliminate the injury 
caused by the subsidised imports without exceeding the amount of subsidisation found. 
The definitive countervailing duty rates ranged between 3.9% and 17.2%.  

Biodiesel from Argentina (Definitive CVD) 

On 31 January 2018, the Commission initiated an anti-subsidy investigation with regard 
to imports into the Union of biodiesel originating in Argentina. The initiation was based 
on a complaint lodged on 18 November 2017 by the European Biodiesel Board (EBB) 
on behalf of Union producers representing more than 70% of the total Union production 
of biodiesel. The complaint contained evidence of subsidisation and of a resulting threat 
of injury that was sufficient to justify the initiation. The investigation covered the period 
from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017.  

Sampling 

The final sample of Union producers consisted of three Union producers, accounting for 
23%  of  total  production.  Sampling  of  importers  was  not  carried  out  due  to  the  low 
number  of  unrelated  importers  that  provided  information.  The  Commission  selected 
eight  exporting  producers  which  exported  biodiesel  to  the  Union  during  the 
investigation  period  (IP).  This  last  sample  represented  84%  of  the  total  exports  of  the 
product concerned to the Union. 

The product concerned 

The  product  concerned  was  ‘biodiesel’,  in  pure  form  or  as  included  in  a  blend, 
originating in Argentina. The investigation showed that biodiesel produced in Argentina 
was  exclusively  soybean  methyl  ester  derived  from  soybean  oil,  whereas  biodiesel 
produced  in  the  Union  is  mainly  rapeseed  methyl  ester  but  made  also  from  other 
feedstock,  including  waste  oils  as  well  as  virgin  oils.  However,  both  the  product 
concerned and the biodiesel produced and sold in the EU were found to have the same 
basic physical, chemical, and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses. 

Subsidisation 

The  following  subsidies  were  investigated:  (1)  the  Government's  support  to  the 
biodiesel  industry  including  through  the  provision  of  soybeans  for  less  than  adequate 

14 

 
 
 
remuneration;  (2)  the  Government's  mandated  purchase  of  biodiesel  for  more  than 
adequate remuneration (‘Biodiesel Supply Agreement’); (3) the Provision of loans and 
export financing on preferential terms and preferential lending by the National Bank of 
Argentina  (Banco  de  la  Nación  Argentina,  ‘BNA’);  (4)  the  Government's  revenue 
forgone  or  not  collected,  such  as  the  accelerated  depreciation  for  biodiesel  producers 
under the Biofuels Law of 2006, the exemption and deferral of the minimum presumed 
income  tax  for  biodiesel  producers  under  the  Biofuels  Law  of  2006;  as  well  as  (5) 
Provincial  and  municipal  tax  exemptions.  Given  the  partial  non-cooperation  from  the 
Government  of  Argentina  (‘GOA’)  and  the  sampled  exporting  producers,  the 
Commission had to use the best facts available in relation to the provision of soybeans 
for less than adequate remuneration.  

(1)  Government's  support  to  the  biodiesel  industry  including  through  the 
provision of soybeans for less than adequate remuneration (‘LTAR’):  

The  GOA  supported  the  biodiesel  industry  through  various  measures,  notably  by 
implementing a policy of imposing high export taxes and other regulations relating to 
soybeans  and  soybean  oil.  As  soybean  oil  is  the  key  raw  material  used  for  the 
production  of  biodiesel  in  Argentina,  these  measures  allowed  domestic  prices  of  this 
raw  material  to  remain  significantly  lower  than  global  prices.  The  investigation  found 
that the GOA resorted to the following measures with regard to soybeans: export taxes 
on  soybeans,  subsidies  to  soybean  producers  to  continue  producing  and  selling 
domestically to biodiesel producers, countermeasures on producing other grains such as 
by imposing export quotas, and public statements to encourage soybean producers not 
to  stop  their  production,  but  to  continue  selling  domestically.  The  GOA  explicitly 
pursued the support and development of the biodiesel industry as a policy objective. The 
Commission  also  established  that  the  GOA  entrusted/directed  the  input  producers  to 
carry out its policy, which created a compartmentalised domestic market by providing 
goods  to  the  domestic  users  of  soybeans  (the  biodiesel  producers)  for  LTAR.  The 
Commission  considered  that  the  provision  of  soybeans  located  on  Argentinian  soil  to 
the  Argentinian  biodiesel  industry  was  a  function  which  was  normally  vested  in  the 
government.  Alternatively,  the  Commission  also  analysed  whether  the  measures 
followed  by  the  GOA  could  be  considered  as  ‘income  or  price  support’.  The 
investigation  showed  that  several  legislative  acts  clearly  and  explicitly  pointed  to  the 
GOA’s  support  the  domestic  biodiesel  industry.  Thus,  the  Government  directly  or 
indirectly  provided  income/price  support  to  the  biodiesel  industry  resulting  in  an 
increase of exports of biodiesel. 

The  Commission  then  analysed  whether  the  GOA's  support  to  the  biodiesel  industry 
conferred  a  benefit.  As  the  prices  paid  by  the  domestic  biodiesel  producers  differed 
from a benchmark based on the prevailing market conditions in Argentina for soybeans, 
this  difference  represented  the  ‘savings’  obtained  by  the  Argentinian  producers  of 
biodiesel which purchase soybeans in the Argentinian distorted market, compared to the 
price  which  they  would  have  paid  in  the  absence  of  subsidies.  Ultimately,  this  total 
amount  ‘saved’  represented  the  benefit  conferred.  Lastly,  the  GOA's  set  of  measures 
was  directed  to  benefit  certain  industries,  including  the  domestic  biodiesel  industry. 
Indeed,  even  though  the  distortions  on  soybeans  also  benefited  downstream  products 
other  than  biodiesel,  the  benefit  was  available  only  to  certain  industries  in  Argentina, 
being  those  in  the  soya  value  chain.  Thus,  the  Commission  concluded  that  these 
measures  were  specific  and  they  therefore  qualified  as  a  countervailable  subsidy.  The 
subsidy  amount  was  calculated  as  reflecting  a  rate  in  the  range  of  25.05%  –  33.15%, 
depending on the beneficiary. 

15 

 
 
(2)  Government's  mandated  purchase  of  biodiesel  for  more  than  adequate 
remuneration (‘Biodiesel Supply Agreement’) 

These agreements were designed to provide biodiesel to the domestic market given the 
blending  mandate  in  force  since  2010.  This  mandate  required  blending  companies  to 
purchase biodiesel and blend it with mineral diesel before sale. Furthermore, the GOA 
established individual and collective quotas for biodiesel to supply the domestic market. 
Given  that  none  of  the  sampled  exporting  producers  received  a  quota  during  the  IP, 
none  of  these  companies  sold  biodiesel  on  the  domestic  market  through  the  quota 
system in force during that period. In addition, no Biodiesel Supply Agreement was in 
force during the IP with respect to the exporting producers. Therefore, the Commission 
concluded  that  there  was  no  inherent  benefit  from  any  quota  system  received  by  the 
sampled exporting producers.  

(3)  Provision  of  loans  and  export  financing  on  preferential  terms  and 
preferential lending 

The  complainant  argued  that  the  Banco  de  la  Nación  Argentina,  a  State-owned  bank, 
was lending money to micro, small and medium enterprises for investment and working 
capital  at  preferential  rates.  The  investigation  showed  that  the  loans  granted  to  the 
sampled  companies  were  not  at  preferential  rates  when  compared  to  similar  loans 
provided by privately owned banks.  

(4)  Government's  revenue  forgone  or  not  collected  under  the  Biofuels  Law  of 
2006 

The complainant also alleged that provisions of the Biofuels Law would allow biofuel 
producers  to  reduce  the  tax  base  on  which  the  minimum  presumed  income  tax  is 
calculated  as  well  as  an  accelerated  depreciation  for  capital  goods.  The  investigation 
showed  however  that  none  of  the  sampled  exporting  producers  benefited  from  these 
promotional  benefits  and  thus  the  Commission  concluded  that  there  was  no 
countervailable subsidy involved.  

(5) Provincial and municipal tax exemptions 

Despite  several  schemes  providing  either  tax  exemptions  to  the  biodiesel  industry 
(Province  of  Cordoba),  exemptions  from  the  payment  of  taxes  (Province  of  Buenos 
Aires)  or  tax  advantages  (Province  of  Santiago  del  Estero),  the  investigation  showed 
that none of the sampled exporting producers benefited from these measures. Finally, it 
was  found  that  the  Province  of  Santa  Fe  had  been  granting  during  15  years  an 
exemption from income tax, stamp duty, real estate tax and vehicle duties to biodiesel 
companies located in that province. This fiscal exemption was considered a subsidy due 
to the revenue being foregone by the GOA and to specificity to only certain industries 
which  could  avail  from  it.  The  subsidy  rate  was  calculated  in  the  range  of  0.06%  - 
2.15%. 

Threat of injury and causation  
Due to the effect of anti-dumping duties on imports of biodiesel from Argentina21 that 
were in place between 2014 and August 2017, there were no or negligible imports from 
Argentina  to  the  Union.  However,  in  September  2017,  the  latter  anti-dumping  duties 
were reduced22 and, as a result, imports from Argentina started to increase rapidly and 
significantly,  reaching  a  2.8%  market  share  in  the  IP.  Despite  a  5%  growth  between 
2014 and 2016, the Union production of biodiesel did not increase at the same rate as 

21  Regulation (EU) 1194/2013 of 19 November 2013 
22  Regulation (EU) 2017/1578 of 18 September 2017 

16 

 
 
                                                           
the  Union  consumption  due  to  the  Argentinian  subsidised  imports  which  started 
entering the Union market at the end of the IP. The Commission found that the IP was 
already negatively influenced by imports from  Argentina and the period following the 
IP indicated a further deterioration of the situation of the Union industry. In spite of an 
increase of sales and production, caused by increasing consumption during the  IP, the 
Union  industry  did  not  show  indications  of  improving  its  economic  situation.  In  fact, 
during  the  IP,  the  Union  industry  showed  almost  no  profits,  in  view  of  the  pressure 
exercised by the low prices of the subject imports. The low profits during the IP turned 
into losses in the first six months of 2018. The trends showed that the Union industry 
appeared not to have fully recovered from the effects of past dumping. The Commission 
also examined whether the subsidised imports caused a threat of material injury to the 
Union  industry.  Taking  into  account  the  nature  of  the  subsidies,  which  decreased  the 
costs  of  inputs,  the  reduction  of  the  anti-dumping  duties,  the  spare  capacity  of  the 
Argentinian  biodiesel  producers,  and  the  lower  price  of  biodiesel  imports,  the 
Commission  concluded that the fragile  economic condition  of the Union  industry was 
likely to be aggravated by the imminent and continuing massive quantities of subsidised 
imports  of  biodiesel  from  Argentina.  There  was  therefore  a  threat  of  a  clearly 
foreseeable and imminent injury to the Union industry at the end of the IP.  

Regarding  the  causality  analysis,  the  Commission  established  that  there  was  a  causal 
link  between  the  threat  of  injury  suffered  by  the  Union  industry  and  the  subsidised 
imports  of  biodiesel  from  Argentina.  In  particular,  the  sharp  increase  in  subsidised 
imports  at  prices  undercutting  the  Union  industry's  prices  coincided  in  time  with  the 
drop  of  the  Union  industry's  performance.  At  the  same  time  the  Union  industry  was 
unable to reap the benefits of increased Union consumption and had to limit its increase 
in production, lost market share and was unable to achieve profits. The Union industry 
was  forced  to  follow  the  price  level  set  by  the  subsidised  imports  in  order  to  avoid  a 
further shrinking of its market share. Exports from third countries, sales performance of 
the Union industry and a reduction of capacity of the Union industry were found not to 
attenuate the causal link between subsidised imports and the threat of injury.  

Union interest and definitive measures 

The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various 
interests  involved,  including  those  of  the  Union  industry,  importers  and  users.  With 
regard  to  importers,  they  were  found  usually  not  only  to  import  but  also  to  trade 
biodiesel  purchased  from  Union  producers.  Importers  might  have  faced  additional 
difficulties to fully replace the level of imports affected by measures with supplies from 
Union  producers,  which  normally  used  their  own  distribution  channels.  However,  the 
Commission  concluded  that  this  possible  negative  effect  could  be  balanced  by  the 
increased  volume  of  trade  of  biodiesel  purchased  from  the  Union  industry.  Regarding 
the  final  consumers,  they  could  be  affected  by  the  price  increase  following  the 
imposition  of  measures.  The  Commission  found  that  the  imposition  of  duties  would 
have the negative effect of increasing consumer prices. However, because of the limited 
content of biodiesel in the final product purchased by consumers (typically less than 10 
%),  this  negative  effect  on  the  price  of  diesel  fuel  would  only  be  a  small  proportion 
compared to the direct change in the price of biodiesel on the Union market.  

A definitive countervailing duty was therefore imposed in the range of 25% - 33,4%, at 
a level sufficient to eliminate the threat of injury caused by the subsidised imports but 
without exceeding the amount of subsidisation found,   

Undertakings 

17 

 
 
Further  to  the  disclosure  by  the  Commission  of  the  case  facts,  cooperating  exporting 
producers offered price undertakings in accordance with Article 13(1) of the basic AS 
Regulation.  The  offer  consisted  in  selling  biodiesel  in  the  Union  market  at  one 
minimum  import  price,  linked  to  the  average  monthly  soybean  oil  price  quoted  the 
GOA, which comprised the soybean export tax. Moreover exporters were to ensure that 
the  volume  of  imports  would  be  set  at  an  annual  level  corresponding  to  their  overall 
market  performance  (around  10%  of  the  average  annual  Union  consumption  between 
2014 and the IP).  

The  Commission  carefully  analysed,  inter  alia,  the  current  export  prices  of  biodiesel, 
the  level  of  countervailing  duty  as  well  as  other  relevant  investigation  findings  and 
found  that  the  injurious  subsidisation  could  be  removed  by  the  price  undertakings 
offered  at  the  proposed  annual  level  of  imports,  while  an  ad  valorem  duty  levied  on 
imports  exceeding  that  annual  level  would  provide  for  a  safety  net  against 
circumventing the measure. The Commission therefore concluded that the undertakings 
offered could be accepted in that latter form. 

Biodiesel from Indonesia (Definitive CVD) 

On  6  December  2018,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-subsidy  investigation  with 
regard to imports into the Union of biodiesel originating in Indonesia. The initiation was 
based on a complaint lodged on 22 November 2018 by the European  Biodiesel  Board 
(EBB) on behalf of Union producers representing 32% of the total Union production of 
biodiesel.  Producers  representing  63%  of  the  total  Union  production  of  biodiesel 
supported  the  complaint.  The  investigation  of  subsidisation  and  injury  covered  the 
period from 1 October 2017 to 30 September 2018.  

Sampling 

The final sample of Union producers consisted of three Union producers. A sample of 
importers was not selected due to the low number of unrelated importers that provided 
information. Four Indonesian exporting producers accounting for 100% of exports to the 
Union  provided  information.  The  Commission  decided  not  to  carry  out  sampling  but 
rather to investigate all these Indonesian exporting producers. 

The product concerned 

The  product  concerned  was  commonly  known  as  ‘biodiesel’,  in  pure  form  or  as 
included  in  a  blend,  originating  in  Indonesia.  Biodiesel  produced  in  Indonesia  is 
primarily palm oil methyl ester, which is derived from palm oil. Biodiesel produced in 
the Union is instead mainly rapeseed methyl ester but made also from other feedstock, 
including waste oils as well as virgin oils. However, both the product concerned and the 
biodiesel  produced  and  sold  in  the  EU  were  found  to  have  the  same  basic  physical, 
chemical, and technical characteristics as well as the same basic uses. 

Subsidisation 

The  following  subsidies  were  investigated:  (1)  direct  transfer  of  funds,  such  as  direct 
subsidies granted through the Oil Palm Plantation Fund; (2) government support to the 
biodiesel industry including through the provision of crude palm oil (CPO) for less than 
adequate  remuneration  (LTAR);  and  (3)  government  support  via  revenue  forgone  via 
the  Bonded  Zone  scheme.  Given  the  partial  non-cooperation  from  the  Government  of 
Indonesia  (‘GOI’)  and  the  sampled  exporting  producers,  the  Commission  had  to 
partially rely on facts available in relation to the existence and the extent of the alleged 

18 

 
 
 
support  granted  to  the  biodiesel  industry  including  through  the  provision  of  CPO  for 
LTAR and for the government support via revenue forgone. 

(1) Government support to the biodiesel industry through direct transfer of funds 
via the Oil Palm Plantation Fund: 

According  to  the  complaint,  the  GOI  supported  the  biodiesel  industry  by  providing 
grants to the Indonesian biodiesel producers covering the difference between the GOI's 
reference  price  for  biodiesel  and  the  price  at  which  oil  companies  purchase  biodiesel, 
namely  the  reference  price  for  diesel  oil.  The  GOI  established  an  Oil  Palm  Plantation 
Fund (‘OPPF’) to support purchases of biodiesel by entities appointed by governmental 
bodies.  A  Biodiesel  Subsidy  Fund  was  part  of  the  OPPF  and  served  the  procurement 
and  utilization  of  biodiesel  on  the  domestic  market.  Additionally,  the  GOI  created  a 
management agency to collect export levies on the exportation of palm oil commodities 
and to  manage the OPPF. These compulsory export duties were then used to  fund the 
OPPF.  The  Directorate  General  of  New  Renewable  Energy  and  Energy  Conservation 
(EBKTE)  selected  the  domestic  biodiesel  producers  which  participated  in  the 
procurement  of  biodiesel,  and  the  allocation  of  the  volume  of  biodiesel  for  each 
producer. The selected producers were then constrained to sell the monthly amount of 
biodiesel to the Petrofuel Entities. The OPPF envisaged a specific payment mechanism, 
whereby the buyers paid biodiesel producers the diesel reference price (lower than the 
actual biodiesel price). The Ministry of Energy and Mineral Resources determined the 
reference  price.  The  difference  between  such  diesel  reference  price  and  the  biodiesel 
reference price was paid to the biodiesel producers out of the OPPF by the Management 
Agency.  

The Commission analysed whether this set of measures adopted by the GOI to support 
the  Indonesian  biodiesel  industry  would  amount  to  a  countervailable  subsidy.  First, 
regarding  the  possible  existence  of  a  financial  contribution,  the  investigation  showed 
that all the exporting producers chose to participate in the procurement of biodiesel and 
thus were under the obligation to sell biodiesel to Pertamina and AKR. Furthermore, the 
reference price for biodiesel was higher than the reference price for mineral diesel and, 
thus,  all  the  exporting  producers  received  payments  from  the  OPPF.  The  OPPF  was 
created by an act of the GOI and the Management Agency was explicitly entrusted by 
the  GOI  with  the  duty  to  make  payments  to  biodiesel  producers.  The  Management 
Agency was granted the exercise of governmental functions with respect to the biodiesel 
sector,  thus  acting  as  a  public  body.  The  legal  acts  implementing  the  OPPF  expressly 
confirmed that its funds (from the export levies and taxes) were used for the benefit of 
the  biodiesel  producers.  The  compensation  of  differences  between  reference  prices 
made  by  the  Management  Agency  to  the  biodiesel  producers  qualified  as  financial 
contributions  in  the  form  of  a  direct  transfer  of  funds  from  the  government.  This 
situation  allowed  exporting  producers  to  be  in  a  better  situation  than  they  would  be 
absent  the  scheme,  thus  entailing  a  benefit.  As  the  OPPF  was  only  available  to  some 
industries (those industries in the CPO value chain), the Commission concluded that the 
subsidy  was  specific.  The  subsidy  amount  was  calculated  as  reflecting  a  rate  in  the 
range of 7.91% - 12.76%, depending on the beneficiary. 

(2)  Government  support  to  the  biodiesel  industry  including  through  the 
provision of CPO for LTAR 

CPO was the main raw material used for the production of biodiesel in Indonesia. It was 
contended  that  CPO  prices  were  distorted  in  Indonesia  due  to  GOI’s  intervention, 
namely  through  the  imposition  of  high  export  taxes  on  CPO.  This  ensured  that  the 
CPO’s price remained significantly lower than global prices, thus benefiting Indonesian 

19 

 
 
biodiesel  producers.  Additionally,  the  GOI  introduced  an  export  levy  of  50  USD  per 
tonne on CPO and a lower levy on downstream processed palm oil products.  Overall, 
this policy of high export taxes and levies on CPO imposed by the GOI allowed for a 
depressing  effect  on  the  domestic  palm  oil  price  in  Indonesia.  It  encouraged  private 
CPO  producers  to  sell  their  products  internally  and  leading  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
GOI  entrusted  or  directed  Indonesian  palm  oil  producers  to  provide  CPO  to  biodiesel 
producers for LTAR. Further to this export restraint system, the GOI also intervened in 
the market in order to de facto control CPO prices through the company PTPN - a CPO 
producer wholly owned by the State, which ensured that CPO was sold at an artificially 
low level. The investigation showed that in the CPO’s daily auctions organized by this 
company, the price of CPO was set by the GOI and did not reflect undistorted market 
conditions. Also, all the independent CPO suppliers aligned their prices with the daily 
PTPN prices. The Commission concluded that PTPN was a public body and exercised 
governmental  functions  when  selling  CPO  on  the  market.  The  GOI  directed  the  CPO 
suppliers  to  provide  CPO  at  less  than  adequate  remuneration  to,  inter  alia,  biodiesel 
producers  by  de  facto  setting  a  maximum  price  on  the  Indonesian  domestic  CPO 
market. The Commission concluded that the set of measures adopted by the GOI lead to 
a financial contribution in the form of government's provision of CPO for LTAR to the 
Indonesian biodiesel exporting producers.  

Alternatively, the Commission further concluded that the GOI provided income or price 
support  to  the  biodiesel  producers  through  its  intervention  in  the  CPO  market,  as  the 
categories  of  ‘financial  contribution’/‘income  or  price  support’  are  not  mutually 
exclusive. The investigation showed that the GOI’s intention to support the creation and 
development of the Indonesian biodiesel industry was manifest.  Through the measures 
mentioned above (export taxes and levies, control of PTNP and direct subsidies to CPO 
producers),  the  GOI  intervened  in  the  market,  allowing  biodiesel  producers  to  benefit 
from  artificially  low  prices  for  CPO.  These  measures  qualified  as  ‘a  form  of 
the  financial 
income/price  support” 
contribution  or  the  income/price  support,  this  set  of  measures  allowed  the  Indonesian 
biodiesel  producers to  benefit from  ‘savings’ when purchasing CPO in  the  Indonesian 
distorted domestic market.  

industry.  Either 

the  biodiesel 

through 

to 

The  GOI  and  most  of  the  exporting  producers  argued  that  the  Commission  erred  in 
qualifying  the  export  restraints  as  a  countervailable  subsidy  as  those  measures  are 
WTO-consistent.  However,  the  Commission  observed  that  it  did  not  consider  export 
restraints  per  se  as  countervailable  subsidies  but  rather  the  imposition  of  export 
restraints  (such  as  export  taxes  and  levies)  was  one  of  the  tools  used  by  the  GOI  to 
provide  CPO  for  LTAR  which  amounted  to  a  countervailable  subsidy.  The  latter  was 
calculated to be in the range of 0.13% - 5.15%. 

(3) Government Support via revenue forgone: the Bonded Zone scheme 

The  Bonded  Zones  scheme  allowed  import  duties  and  VAT  on  imported  goods  to  be 
suspended  or  exempted  for  certain  companies.  The  Commission  considered  that, 
particularly,  the  import  duty  exemption  on  machineries  granted  by  the  Bonded  Zones 
scheme constituted a financial contribution by the GOI to the exporting producers in the 
form  of  revenue  forgone.  The  investigation  showed  that  the  exporting  producers 
essentially  never  paid  the  import  duty  and  the  VAT  on  the  machinery  they  imported. 
The  GOI  conferred  a  benefit  to  the  exporting  producers  which  allowed  them  to  be 
placed in a better financial position that they would be absent the scheme. The scheme 
was  specific  as  it  was  available  only  to  certain  companies  depending  on  their  export 
performance and location in specific geographic areas. The subsidy rate was calculated 
in the range of 0.03% - 0.16%. 

20 

 
 
The  Commission  also  identified  certain  other  support  schemes  of  relevance,  which 
however  were  found  not  to  be  used  by  the  exporting  producers  or  not  to  provide  a 
benefit, hence these schemes were not analysed further. 

The  definitive  total  subsidies  rates  reflecting  subsidies  amounts  in  the  companies’ 
turnover were in the range of 8 to 18%, depending on the beneficiary.  

Injury, threat of injury and causation  

With  regard  to  the  analysis  of  imports  price,  the  Commission  calculated  the  level  of 
undercutting  according  to  various  methodologies,  depending  on  the  type  of  biodiesel 
product. It was established that the prices of Indonesian imports significantly undercut 
the prices of the Union industry, by at least 6%, and as much as 17.5%, depending on 
the methodology chosen. 

Due  to  the  previous  anti-dumping  duties  on  biodiesel  from  Indonesia,  which  were  in 
place, until March 2018, imports from Indonesia were negligible. However, as a result 
of  the  repeal  of  the  latter  duties,  imports  of  the  product  concerned  increased 
significantly.  While  the  Union  consumption  increased  during  the  IP  by  33%,  this 
positive development could not be reflected in the production and sales volumes of the 
Union industry which have only increased by 11% and 13% respectively. This allowed 
Indonesian  imports  to  increase  their  market  share.  During  the  period  considered,  the 
injury  indicators  showed  a  mixed  picture.  Union  production  and  sales  followed  the 
market  demand.  Investments  fluctuated  throughout  the  period  considered  and  the 
number of employees in the Union industry remained stable. However, the profitability 
of  the  Union  industry  remained  poor,  thus  leading  to  the  conclusion  that  the  Union 
industry did not manage to reach the level of normal profitable operations.  

The  Commission  could  not  conclude  on  the  existence  of  material  injury  and  thus 
examined  whether  the  subsidised  imports  from  Indonesia  could  constitute  a  threat  of 
material  injury  to  the  Union  industry.  As  imports  of  the  product  concerned  benefited 
from  governmental  support,  the  significant  undercutting  and  price  depression  found 
during  the  IP  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  the  delicate  economic  situation  of  the  Union 
industry  could  develop  even more negatively in  the future. This  could  happen notably 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  Union  market  was  very  attractive  for  Indonesian  exports  (it 
constituted 40% of the global demand), that production inputs could be obtained at low 
cost  in  Indonesia,  that  the  production  capacity  of  the  Indonesian  biodiesel  producers 
exceeded  the  domestic  demand  and  that  provisional  anti-dumping  and  countervailing 
duties on biodiesel from Indonesia were imposed by the US. Moreover, the analysis of 
post-IP  indicators  indicated  that  the  economic  situation  of  the  Union  industry  further 
deteriorated.  The  Commission  concluded  therefore  that  subsidized  imports  from 
Indonesia constituted a threat of material injury to the Union industry. 

The  Commission  also  established  that  there  was  a  causal  link  between  the  threat  of 
injury  and  the  subsidised  imports  of  biodiesel  from  Indonesia,  notably  as  the 
undercutting  of  the  Union  industry  prices  by  at  least  6.0%  to  11.6  %  due  to  the 
significant  and  sudden  increase  of  imports  during  the  IP  contributed  to  the  loss  of 
market share by EU producers. Exports from third countries, sales performance of the 
Union industry, and a reduction of capacity of the Union industry did not attenuate the 
causal  link  between  subsidised  imports  and  the  threat  of  injury  found.  Notably,  with 
regard  to  export  from  third  countries,  Argentinian  imports,  which  featured  generally 
lower prices than Indonesian ones in the IP, were now subject to countervailing duties, 
with a price undertaking since February 2019. Therefore, the latter could no longer be 
the main cause for a threat of injury to the Union industry. With regard to imports from 
Malaysia, the Commission found that, while they featured a similar market share than 

21 

 
 
those  from  Argentina  in  the  IP,  the  prices  of  Malaysian  biodiesel  were  higher  than 
Indonesian prices (and the Union sales prices). The same applied to imports from China, 
which also held a much smaller market share. Therefore, the former and latter could not 
be considered as a price-setting factor on the market, and they did not weaken the causal 
link. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

The  Commission  analysed  finally  whether  it  was  not  in  the  Union  interest  to  adopt 
countervailing  measures  despite  the  determination  of  injurious  subsidisation.  The 
Commission  based  the  determination  of  the  Union  interest  on  an  analysis  of  all  the 
various  interests  involved,  including  those  of  the  Union  industry,  importers  and 
consumers. Regarding the interest of the Union industry, the Commission found that the 
situation  of  the  Union  industry  was  fragile  since  it  did  not  recover  from  the  dumping 
previously suffered. Furthermore, the investigation showed that the Union industry used 
feedstock  produced  by  the  Union  agriculture  and  the  upstream  agricultural  oil  sector 
also largely depended on the biodiesel industry. Thus, the Commission concluded that 
the imports of biodiesel from Indonesia would affect both the Union biodiesel industry 
and the agricultural sector. With regard to importers, they were found usually not only 
to  import but  also to  trade biodiesel  purchased from Union producers, and they might 
have  faced  additional  difficulties  to  fully  replace  the  level  of  imports  affected  by 
measures  with  supplies  from  Union  producers,  which  normally  used  their  own 
distribution channels.  However, the Commission  concluded that this possible negative 
effect could be balanced by the increased volume of trade of biodiesel purchased from 
the  Union  industry.  Regarding  the  final  consumers,  the  Commission  found  that  the 
imposition  of  duties  would  have  the  negative  effect  of  increasing  consumer  prices. 
However, because of the limited content of biodiesel in the final product purchased by 
consumers  (typically  less  than  10%),  this  negative  effect  on  the  price  of  diesel  fuel 
would only be a small proportion compared to the direct change in the price of biodiesel 
on the Union market. 

The  Commission  concluded  that  a  definitive  countervailing  duty  should  be  imposed, 
corresponding  to  the  total  amount  of  countervailable  subsidies  established.  The 
countervailing duty rates ranged between 8.0 % and 18.0%. 

In  relation  to  the  measures,  one  of  the  exporting  producers  made  an  offer  of  price 
undertaking. However, the latter was judged by the Commission as unworkable, notably 
due  to  the  level  of  minimum  price  proposed  (considered  as  insufficient  to  offset  the 
subsidies amounts), to the unsatisfactory level of annual imports, and to the applicant’s 
complex structure and sales channels, which increased the likelihood of circumvention 
and cross-compensation, putting at risk the proper enforcement of such undertaking.  

Urea and ammonium nitrate from Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States 
(US) (Definitive AD) 

On  13  August  2018,  the  Commission  initiated  an  anti-dumping  investigation  with 
regard to imports into the Union of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating 
in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the. The initiation was based on a complaint lodged 
on  29  June  2018  by  the  Fertilizers  Europe  on  behalf  of  Union  producers  representing 
more than 50% of the total Union production of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate 
(UAN). The complaint contained evidence of dumping and of a resulting material injury 
that was sufficient to justify the initiation of the investigation.  

Registration of imports and provisional measures 

22 

 
 
 
The  Commission  made  imports  of  the  product  concerned  subject  to  registration.23  A 
provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed on 12 April 2019 on imports into the Union 
of UAN originating in all three countries.24  

Sampling 

The Commission selected the provisional sample on the basis of the reported production 
and Union sales volume by the Union producers. The sample consisted of three Union 
producers that accounted for around 70% of Union production and sales.  

Product concerned  

The  product  concerned  (UAN)  was  a  liquid  nitrogen  fertilizer:  mixtures  of  urea  and 
ammonium nitrate in aqueous or ammoniacal solution. The most significant feature of 
this product was the nitrogen content which can vary depending on the water added to 
the  solution.  However,  whatever  their  nitrogen  content,  all  solutions  of  UAN  are 
considered  to  have  the  same  basic  physical  and  chemical  characteristics  and  therefore 
constitute a single product. UAN produced and sold in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and 
the US, as well as UAN produced in the Union by the Union industry, were regarded as 
like products.  

Dumping  

Two  Russian  companies  produced  UAN  and  exported  to  the  Union  during  the 
investigation (Acron and Eurochem). For Acron, the domestic sales were found not to 
be representative as the like product was sold in low quantities on the domestic market. 
Thus, the Commission constructed the normal value. For Eurochem, it was found that 
the like product was sold in representative quantities on the domestic market.  

The investigation found  that wholesale prices of natural  gas produced by  State-owned 
company Gazprom in Russia were regulated by the State via federal laws and based on 
policy  objectives.  At  the  same  time,  Gazprom  was  the  biggest  gas  provider  in  the 
country with a market share of above 50% and acted as a price-setter. The investigation 
confirmed  this  price-setting  behaviour,  as  all  other  providers  sold  gas  at  low  price 
levels,  similar  to  Gazprom’s.  In  addition,  it  was  established  that  Gazprom  was  the 
owner  of  the  pipelines  through  which  all  gas,  including  the  one  supplied  by  the 
independent producers. Therefore, Gazprom held a de facto monopoly for the export of 
Russian piped gas, which was transported at tariffs that were also regulated by the State, 
as the investigation found. Therefore natural gas prices in Russia did not reflect normal 
market conditions. Under normal market  conditions, prices would mostly be set based 
on production costs and profit expectations of each producer. The Commission therefore 
concluded that the price of Russian natural gas needed to be adjusted. The Commission 
selected  the  price  at  the  Waidhaus  hub  -  the  price  of  exported  Russian  gas  at  the 
German/Czech border - as the proper benchmark for gas adjustments. 

With regard to  Trinidad  and Tobago, the only  cooperating exporting producer did  not 
have  sales  of  the  like  product  on  the  domestic  market  and,  therefore  the  Commission 
constructed the normal value.  

Only one US producer exported the product concerned to the Union during the IP. The 
total  volume  of  domestic  sales  of  this  producer  was  regarded  as  representative.  The 
normal value was calculated as a weighted average of the profitable sales only. 

23  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/455 
24  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/576 

23 

 
 
                                                           
On  the  basis  of  a  comparison  between  normal  value  and  export  prices,  the  following 
dumping margins were calculated: a) Russia: between 20% and 31.9 %; b) Trinidad and 
Tobago: 55.8% and c) US: 37.3 % 

Injury, causation and level of measures 

During the period considered, the Union consumption fluctuated with an overall fall of 
5%. Imports from the countries concerned increased by 64% over the period considered, 
which  led  to  an  increase  in  market  share  (increase  by  72%,  from  21.9  %  in  2015  to 
37.7%  in  the  IP).  The  steep  increase  in  market  share  by  the  countries  concerned  was 
clearly to the detriment of other market participants. Regarding price undercutting, the 
investigation showed that imports from the countries concerned undercut  the prices of 
the  Union  industry  by  6,8%  on  average.  Besides  price  undercutting,  the  investigation 
showed  that  the  effect  of  the  dumped  imports  caused  also  price  suppression  on  the 
Union market and thus sales prices could not be raised to cover substantial increases in 
costs. 

In  terms  of  macroeconomic  indicators,  due  to  increased  imports  from  the  countries 
concerned,  the  Union  production  of  UAN  fell  by  8%  over  the  period  of  2015  -  2017. 
Production  capacity  increased  whereas  capacity  utilization  fell  by  12%  over  the  same 
period.  Overall,  the  Union  industry  was  not  able  to  grow  over  the  period  considered. 
The  impact  of  the  magnitude  of  dumping  margins  on  the  Union  industry  was 
substantial,  given  the  volume  and  prices  of  imports  from  the  countries  concerned. 
Regarding  microeconomic  indicators,  sales  prices  and  unit  cost  of  production  in  the 
Union fell over the period considered. Labour costs per employee increased, especially 
in  2017,  when  production  and  productivity  increased.  On  the  basis  of  the  above,  the 
Commission therefore concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within 
the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic AD Regulation. 

Regarding the causation analysis, over the period considered and against a backdrop of 
decreasing consumption in the Union, import volumes from the countries concerned and 
their market shares increased significantly whereas prices from the countries concerned 
fell on average by 33%. The increase in the market share of the imports coincided with 
a similar decrease of market share for the Union industry. Bearing in mind that UAN is 
a  price-sensitive  commodity,  that  the  market  share  of  imports  from  the  countries 
concerned  was  37.7  %  in  the  IP,  and  that  those  imports  were  made  at  prices  that 
undercut Union industry prices, such imports produced substantial harmful effects. The 
price  pressure  from  imports  from  the  countries  concerned  on  Union  producers  was 
particularly  damaging  in  2017  and  the  IP  when  costs  were  increasing.  The 
Commission’s analysis found that no other factor had a significant impact on the Union 
industry's injurious situation. On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that 
the material  injury to  the Union industry was caused by the dumped imports  from  the 
countries concerned.  

Furthermore,  the  Commission  needed  to  determine  the  amount  of  duty  necessary  to 
eliminate the injury suffered by the Union industry. It therefore proceeded to calculate a 
target  price  which  would  allow  it  to  cover  for  all  costs  of  production  (including  the 
additional costs resulting from complying with Multilateral Environmental Agreements, 
to  which  the  EU  is  party  to  and  relevant  ILO  Conventions)  and  to  still  obtain  a 
reasonable profit. With respect to additional costs, non-injurious price was increased by 
3.7% to cover for the EU producers’ future compliance with the EU Emission Trading 
System,  based  on  the  cost  of  average  estimated  additional  EU  ETS  allowances  which 
will have to be purchased during the life of the measures. 

24 

 
 
The  injury  elimination  level  was  determined  on  the  basis  of  a  comparison  of  the 
weighted average import price of the cooperating exporting producers in and the US as 
established  for  the  price  undercutting  calculations,  with  the  weighted  average  non-
injurious  price of the like product  sold  by the sampled Union producers  on the Union 
market during the IP. The underselling margins for Trinidad and Tobago was eventually 
at 16.2%, for the US at 23.9% and for Russia ranged from 13.7 % to 16.3%. 

To determine the level of the measures with regard to Russia, the Commission found the 
existence  of  raw  material  distortions  under  Article  7(2a)  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation. 
Notably, the investigation showed that natural gas was subject to an export tax of 30%, 
which affected the sales of natural gas in Russia. Furthermore, an exclusive right for gas 
export  in  gaseous  state  was  granted  to  the  Unified  Gas  Supply  System  (UGSS),  the 
latter  entity  being  controlled  by  the  Russian  State.  As  Gazprom  enjoyed  a  unique 
licence  to  export  natural  gas  through  the  UGSS,  the  Commission  argued  that  this 
measure could also qualify as either a “licensing requirement” or a “qualified exporter 
list”  measure.  Lastly,  a  dual  pricing  of  natural  gas  for  domestic  and  export  sales  was 
found in  the investigation, in  the form  of the domestic price being significantly lower 
(more than twice) as compared to the Waidhaus price.  

Consequently,  pursuant  to  Article  7(2a)  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation,  the  Commission 
decided to set the provisional level of duties for Russia at the dumping margin. 

It was also argued that raw material distortions were existent in the natural gas markets 
of Trinidad and Tobago  and the US.  The Commission  concluded that such distortions 
did not exist.  

Union interest 

The  determination  of  the  Union  interest  was  based  on  an  appreciation  of  all  pertinent 
information to the investigation, including the spare capacities in the exporting country, 
competition for raw materials and the effect on supply chains for Union companies. In 
particular, the Commission first established that there were distortions on raw materials 
with  regard  to  the  product  concerned  in  Russia.  Second,  the  Commission  found  that 
Russia  had  spare  capacity  which  can  be  used  to  increase  exports  into  the  Union.  In 
addition, the Commission found that Russian producers had an unfair advantage vis-à-
vis  Union  producers  with  regard  to  natural  gas  due  to  the  regulation  in  the  Russian 
market.  The  Commission  concluded  that  measures  would  not  negatively  affect  the 
supply  chain  in  Europe.  More  specifically,  the  Commission  found  that,  although  a 
limited number of farmers in the Union could potentially be affected by measures, any 
impact  would  be  limited  and  not  disproportionate  overall.  Finally,  the  Commission 
considered  that  imports  of  UAN  would  continue  and,  therefore,  supply  would  not  be 
disrupted  by  measures.  Imports  from  the  countries  concerned,  with  a  market  share 
above 37% in the IP, were expected to continue in light of the growth foreseen in UAN 
demand. In addition, Union producers, with spare capacities, could produce significant 
volumes of UAN.  

Additionally,  regarding  the  Union  industry,  the  Commission  concluded  that  the 
measures would allow the Union industry to exploit its potential on a Union market on a 
level-playing field  basis, recover lost market  share, and improve profitability to  levels 
considered  sustainable.  Importers  would  also  benefit  from  the  imposition  of  the 
measures. From the side of the users, even though it has been argued that ultimate users 
(farmers)  could  be  affected  by  price  increases  steaming  from  the  measures,  the 
Commission found that UAN represented less than around 1% of overall farming costs 
in  the  Union.  A  price  increase  derived  from  measures,  if  any,  should  thus  not  have  a 
significant  impact  on  the  farming  sector  as  a  whole  in  the  Union.  Even  in  specialised 

25 

 
 
firms where UAN is used as a sole source of nitrogen fertiliser and it represents a high 
percentage  of  the  costs  (ex:  common  wheat),  the  increase  in  the  cost  of  production 
would not be higher than 3%.  

Definitive anti-dumping measures 

The  Commission  concluded  that  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  should  be  imposed 
on imports of UAN originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago, and the US in order to 
prevent  further  injury  being  caused  to  the  Union  industry.  In  the  determination  of  the 
form  of  the  measures,  with  regard  to  arguments  from  importers  to  apply  a  minimum 
import  price  or  the  opposition  of  complainants  to  a  specific  duty,  the  Commission 
considered  that  minimum  import  prices  were  not  justified  and  could  not  protect  the 
Union industry and that ad valorem duties could be insufficient to eliminate injury when 
prices would be low or could unduly hurt the user industry when prices would peaking. 
Consequently,  it  concluded  that  a  specific  duty  reflecting  previously  calculated  ad-
valorem duties would be more appropriate for the present situation. Therefore, the anti-
dumping duty was determined as a fixed amount per tonne applicable to imports of the 
product originating in: Russia - at 27.77 EUR/t (Azot and Nevinnomyssky Azot), 42.47 
EUR/t (Acron and other companies); in  Trinidad and Tobago  -  at  22.24 EUR/t and in 
the US - at 29.48 EUR/t. 

3.1.5.  New 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  2019,  5 
new  proceedings  (all  were  anti-dumping  investigations)  were  terminated  without 
measures, as compared to 8 in 2018. 

The list of cases which were terminated without the imposition of measures during 2019 
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. 

Product 

Origin 

Main reason for termination 

Hollow sections 

North Macedonia 

Russia 

Turkey 

Negligible injury  
(North Macedonia) 

De minimis dumping  
(Russia, Turkey) 

Hot-rolled steel sheet piles 

China 

Withdrawal of the complaint 

Solar glass 

Malaysia 

Withdrawal of the complaint 

26 

 
 
 
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  5  years,  unless  an  expiry  review  demonstrates  that  they  should  be 
maintained in their original form. 

In 2019, 1 anti-dumping measure expired automatically. The references for this measure 
are available in Annex N. 

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

3.2.1.1.  Initiations 

During 2019, the Commission initiated 6 expiry reviews of anti-dumping measures and 
2 concerning anti-subsidy measures. The list of the expiry reviews initiated in 2019 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) 

Ferro-silicon (AD) 

Solar glass (AD) 

Solar glass (AS) 

Origin 

China 
Russia 

China 

China 

Complainant 

Euroalliages 

EU Pro Sun Glass 

EU Pro Sun Glass 

Ammonium nitrate (AD) 

Russia 

Fertilizers Europe 

Citrus fruits (AD) 

China 

FENAVAL 

Glass fibre products (AS) 

China 

European Glass Fibre Producers 
Association 

Sulphanilic acid (AD) 

China 

Bondalti Chemicals S.A. 

3.2.1.2.  Expiry reviews concluded with confirmation of duties 

In 2019, the Commission concluded 16 expiry reviews with a confirmation of the duties 
for a further period of 5 years. 

The list of the measures, which were renewed during 2019, 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. 

27 

 
 
 
 
Product 

Threaded tube or pipe cast 
fittings, of malleable cast 
iron 

Origin 

China 

Thailand  

Type25 and level of measure 

AD: 24.6% – 57.8% 

AD: 14.9% – 15.5% 

Aluminium radiators 

China 

AD: 12.6% – 61.4% 

Chamois leather 

China 

AD: 58.9% 

Tube and pipe fittings 

Rep. of Korea 

Malaysia  

Organic coated steel 
products 

Aluminium foil in small 
rolls 

Ceramic tableware and 
kitchenware 

Russia 

China 

China 

China 

AD: 49.9% – 75% 

AD: 32.4% – 44% 

AD: 23.8% 

AD: 5.9% – 26.1% 

CVD: 13.7% – 44.7% 

AD: 14.2% – 35.6% 

AD: 13.1% – 36.1% 

Tungsten electrodes 

China 

AD: 17% – 63.5% 

Polyethylene terephthalate 
(PET) 

India 

CVD:  18.73 EUR/t – 74.6 EUR/t 

Bicycles 

China 

AD: 19.2% – 48.5% 

Ironing boards 

China 

AD: 18.1% – 42.3% 

Sweetcorn in kernels 

Thailand  

AD: 3.1% – 14.3% 

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

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware from China (AD) 

On 15 May 2018, the Commission decided to initiate an expiry review of the measures 
on  imports  of  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware  originating  in  China.  The  initiation 
was  based  on  a  request  filed  by 
the  European  Federation  for  Table-  and 
Ornamentalware (FEFP) that represented more than 28% of the total Union production 
of ceramic tableware and kitchenware.  

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

28 

 
 
                                                           
Sampling  

The Commission decided to limit its investigation to a reasonable number of exporting 
producers  by  using  a  sample  of  three  groups  based  on  the  largest  sales  volume  to  the 
Union  during  the  RIP.  The  three  sampled  groups  covered  8.8%  of  the  total  Chinese 
exports to the Union in the RIP. On 25 July 2018, one of the sampled groups withdrew 
from cooperation forcing the Commission to select a new sample by adding one more 
group, the fourth largest in terms of Union sales during the RIP. The Commission also 
sampled  five  Union  producers,  out  of  which  two  SMEs,  covering  all  major  product 
types  and  located  in  five  Member  States.  That  sample  represented  over  10%  of  the 
estimated total production of the Union industry in 2017.  

Existence of significant distortions and Normal value 

The Commission examined whether it was appropriate or not to use domestic prices and 
costs in China in view of the possible existence of significant distortions in the Chinese 
market.  The  analysis  mainly  covered  the  substantial  government  interventions  in  the 
Chinese  economy  in  general  and  in  the  specific  market  conditions  of  the  sector  that 
includes  the  product  under  review.  The  Commission  found  that  all  the  available 
evidence  pertaining  to  China’s  economy  in  general  as  well  as  to  the  Chinese  ceramic 
sector  specifically  pointed  to  the  fact  that  prices  or  costs,  including  the  costs  of  raw 
materials, energy and labour, were not determined by free market forces, because they 
are  affected  by  substantial  government  intervention  within  the  meaning  of  Article 
2(6a)(b)  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation.  Among  others,  the  Commission  found  that 
tableware  and  kitchenware  producers  in  China  were  subject  to  control  or  policy 
supervision  or  guidance  by  the  Chinese  government.  While  the  sector  included  a 
significant  number  of  private  companies,  the  high  level  of  government  control  and 
intervention in the sector and the economy as a whole prevented even privately owned 
producers  from  operating  under  market  conditions.  It  was  also  established  that  the 
Government interfered with respect to prices and costs through its presence in ceramic 
tableware  and  kitchenware  firms,  as  well  as  in  the  financial  sector  and  other  input 
sectors,  Moreover,  the  Commission  found  extensive  evidence  of  policy  directives 
whereby  the  State  steered  the  development  of  the  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware 
sector with regard to: market composition and restructuring, raw materials, investment, 
capacity  management,  product  range,  geographical  location,  or  upgrading.  All  this 
evidence  pointed  to  the  fact  that  public  policies  or  measures  influenced  free  market 
forces in the Chinese ceramics sector.  

On  the  basis  above,  and  in  the  absence  of  any  cooperation  from  the  Chinese 
government,  the  Commission  concluded  that  it  was  not  appropriate  to  use  domestic 
prices and costs to establish normal value in this case. In that context, the Commission 
needed  to  determine  the  normal  value  based  on  undistorted  prices  or  benchmarks 
pertaining to  a representative country. The Commission  identified three such potential 
countries: Brazil, Thailand and Turkey. All three countries met the essential criteria to 
be  eligible  for  a  representative  country:  first,  they  have  a  level  of  economic 
development  similar  to  the  PRC,  they  all  produce  the  product  concerned  and  thirdly 
there are relevant public data available. Thus, the Commission analysed the data on all 
factors  of  production  in  the  three  potential  representative  countries.  It  was  concluded 
that  Turkey  was  the  most  appropriate  representative  country  to  establish  a  reliable 
normal  value.  Notably,  as  compared  to  the  other  countries,  Turkey  featured  relatively 
high  import  quantities  of  inputs  concerned,  had  information  on  labour  costs  publicly 
available, and the lead Turkish producer had published recent audited financial reports.  

Likely continuation of dumping and recurrence of injury  

29 

 
 
After  having  constructed  the  normal  value,  the  Commission  compared  it  with  the 
average Chinese export prices and concluded that the dumping margin in the RIP stood 
at  of  35%  for  the  only  cooperating  exporting  producer,  and  at  circa  70%  for  all  other 
exporting producers. Further to the finding of the existence of dumping during the RIP, 
the  Commission  investigated  the  likelihood  of  continuation  of  dumping,  should  the 
measures  be  repealed.  To  that  end,  the  Commission  analysed  the  production  capacity 
and spare capacity in the PRC, the pricing behaviour of Chinese exporting producers in 
other markets  and the attractiveness of the Union market. The Commission found that 
Chinese  imports  of  the  product  concerned  continued  to  enter  the  Union  market  at 
dumped prices during the RIP.  In addition, China was the biggest exporter of ceramic 
tableware in  the world  characterized by significant  spare capacities, which could  have 
turned in a continuation of dumped exports. Furthermore, the pricing behaviour of the 
Chinese  exporting  producers  in  third  markets  supported  the  likelihood  of  continuation 
of dumping into the Union. Finally, the Commission established that the Union market 
remained  an  attractive  market  for  Chinese  exporting  producers  of  ceramic  tableware 
even  after  the  impositions  of  measures  (Chinese  exports  of  ceramic  tableware 
represented  almost  60%  of the Union consumption). Considering all these factors, the 
Commission concluded that there was a strong likelihood that the repeal of the measures 
would  result  in  increased  exports  of  ceramic  tableware  from  China  into  the  Union  at 
dumped prices. 

Concerning  injury,  the  Commission’s  analysis  showed  that  the  situation  of  the  Union 
producers  improved  in  the  period  considered  (increased  production,  Union  sales 
volumes  and  market  share).  It  was  inferred  that  the  Union  industry  did  not  suffer 
anymore material  injury  in  the RIP and started  recovering. However, the  Commission 
also  found  that  this  recovery  was  slow  and  the  industry’s  general  economic  situation 
still fragile. What is more, given the high spare capacities in China, the attractiveness of 
the Union market and the pricing behaviour of Chinese exporting producers, there was a 
high  likelihood  of  significant  volumes  of  low-priced  Chinese  ceramic  tableware  and 
kitchenware available for sale/redirection to the Union already in the short term, in case 
the measures  were allowed to  lapse. The Commission simulated the potential increase 
of low-priced imports, and found that  it could  amount to  additional imports  of 67,800 
tonnes  and  a  decrease  in  EU  production  by  12,000  tonnes,  which  was  considered 
sufficient  to  cause  material  injury  to  the  Union  industry,  as  it  would  lead  to  a  lower 
capacity  utilisation,  an  increase  in  the  average  cost  of  production,  and  thereby  lower 
profitability  (which  was  already  below  the  target  profit).  As  per  all  these  facts,  the 
repeal of the measures on the imports from China would likely result in a recurrence of 
material injury. 

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  by  further 
deteriorating its current low profitability. 

With  regard  to  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 in the EU did not manifest any significant 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.  

30 

 
 
Accordingly,  an  anti-dumping  duty  on  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware  products 
originating in China, was extended for five years: at the individual rates in the range of 
13.1% - 23.4%; at the individual rate of 17.9% for all other cooperating companies; at 
the residual rate of 36.1% for all other companies. The definitive duty imposed was also 
extended  to  imports  consigned  from  Morocco  and  the  Republic  of  Korea,  whether 
declared as originating in those countries or not. 

Organic coated steel products from China (AD) 

On 14 March 2018, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the measures imposed 
on imports of certain organic coated steel (OCS) products originating in China, further 
to  a  request  lodged  by  The  European  Steel  Association  (EUROFER)  on  behalf  of 
producers representing more than 70% of the total Union production.  

Sampling 

The  Commission  selected  a  sample  of  three  operators  which  were  found  to  be 
representative of the Union industry in terms of volume of production and sales of the 
like  product  in  the  Union.  The  sample  accounted  for  28%  of  the  estimated  total 
production of the Union industry and for 27% of total Union sales volume of the Union 
industry  to  unrelated  customers  in  the  Union  during  the  review  investigation  period 
(RIP). No Chinese exporting producers cooperated in the case. 

Dumping and continuation of dumping 

The  Commission’s  analysis  showed  that  due  to  China’s  intervention  in  the  economy 
and,  in  particular,  in  the  steel  sector,  prices  or  costs,  including  the  costs  of  raw 
materials, energy and labour, are not the result of free market forces as they are affected 
by  substantial  government  intervention.  No  exporting  producer  cooperated  with  the 
investigation and no claim was presented that some domestic costs would be undistorted 
under  the  third  indent  of  Article  2(6a)(a)  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation.  Therefore, 
Chinese  domestic  prices  and  costs  could  not  be  used  and  the  normal  value  for  China 
was constructed based on corresponding costs of production and sale in an appropriate 
representative  country.  Malaysia  and  Mexico  met  all  the  criteria  to  be  considered  as 
appropriate  as  potential  representative  countries:  they  had  a  substantial  production  of 
the  product  under  review  and  a  complete  set  of  data  available  for  all  factors  of 
production, manufacturing overheads, SG&A expenses and profit. In that situation, the 
Commission  additionally  assessed  both  countries’  level  of  social  and  environmental 
protection.  Mexico  had  ratified  almost  all  fundamental  International  Labour 
Organisation  (ILO)  conventions  (except  for  one)  and  all  major  environmental 
conventions,  whereas  Malaysia  had  not  ratified  three  out  of  the  eight  core  ILO 
conventions,  nor  one  of  the  major  environmental  agreements.  The  Commission 
therefore decided to choose Mexico as appropriate representative country, in accordance 
with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic AD Regulation. 

The Commission compared the constructed normal value price with the export price to 
countries  other  than  the  Union  on  an  ex-works  basis  and  concluded  that  dumping 
continued  during  the  RIP.  The  Commission  found  the  average  dumping  margin, 
expressed  as  a  percentage  of  the  CIF  Union  frontier  price,  to  be  134%.  The  expiry 
review investigation showed that despite the low level  of imports, Chinese imports of 
OCS products continued to enter the Union market at dumped prices. 

The  Commission  further  analysed  whether  there  was  a  likelihood  of  continuation  of 
dumping  should  the  measures  lapse.  Given  the  significant  spare  capacities  found  in 

31 

 
 
 
China, the fact that other countries have imposed trade defence measures against China 
and the attractiveness of the Union market compared to some of the third markets and 
the domestic market,  it  was considered likely that  Chinese exporting producers would 
(re)enter  the  Union  market  with  significant  quantities  at  dumped  prices  in  case  the 
measures  would  be  allowed  to  lapse.  Thus,  the  expiry  of  the  anti-dumping  measures 
would be likely to lead to a continuation and, in any case, recurrence of dumping. 

Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury 

The Union industry economic situation improved significantly during the review period. 
The  imposition  of  the  definitive  anti-dumping  measures  in  March  2013  allowed  the 
Union industry to slowly but steadily recover from the injurious effects of the dumping. 
The  fact  that  the  Union  industry  has  significantly  benefited  from  the  measures  is 
illustrated,  inter  alia,  by  an  increase  in  production  and  Union  sales  volumes,  positive 
cash flow and return on investments, selling prices in general higher than the unit cost 
of production, minimum increase in labour costs and improved profitability. However, 
even if the Union industry had largely recovered from the past injury and seemed to be 
on the right track to further improve its condition in the long-run, it was still in a fragile 
situation  due  to  its  limited  profitability,  which  was  still  below  the  target  profit. 
Moreover, China's overcapacity in steel production was well enshrined and 80% of the 
production  was  exported.  At  the  same  time,  the  Union  was  the  largest  OCS  market 
(after  Asia  and North/Central  America) and trade defence measures by third countries 
were  in  place  against  Chinese  steel  products.  All  these  facts  led  the  Commission  to 
conclude that the repeal of measures on the imports from China would likely result in a 
recurrence of injury to the Union industry. 

Union interest and definitive measures 

With regard to the interest of importers, the investigation showed that the measures in 
force  had  no  substantial  negative  effect  on  the  financial  situation  of  importers. 
Similarly, key users experienced improvements in profitability during the period under 
review and the measures in place did not have a sizeable impact on users and consumers 
as  OCS  represented  a  negligible  part  of  the  cost  of  downstream  products.  The 
investigation showed that the measures allowed the Union industry to further exploiting 
its potential on a Union market that was now a level-playing field and thus its expiration 
would likely have a significant negative effect on the Union industry. As a consequence, 
the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons that maintaining the 
definitive anti-dumping measures would go against the Union interest. 

Therefore, the anti-dumping measures applicable to certain OCS products originating in 
China were maintained in the range of 5.9% - 26.1%. 

Organic coated steel products from China (AS) 

On 13 December 2017, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the countervailing 
measures imposed on imports of certain OCS products originating in China. The request 
was also lodged by EUROFER on behalf of producers representing more than 70% of 
the total Union production. The request was based on the grounds that the expiry of the 
countervailing  measures  would  be  likely  to  result  in  the  continuation  or  recurrence  of 
subsidisation and injury to the Union industry. 

Sampling 

The  Commission  selected  the  same  three  operators  as  in  the  case  of  the  parallel  anti-
dumping investigation (see above).  

32 

 
 
 
Likelihood of continuation of subsidisation 

The  original  investigation  determined  that  the  following  measures  constituted 
countervailing subsidies:  

1)  the  provision  of  goods  and  services  for  less  than  adequate  remuneration  (LTAR): 
both SOE and private bodies entrusted by the GOC provided hot-rolled and cold rolled 
steel  at  LTAR;  the  GOC  proved  land-use  rights  bellow  the  normal  market  rate  and 
electricity was provided at lower rates and limited to certain enterprises and regions;  

2)  direct  transfer  of  funds  through  privately  owned  banks  entrusted  by  the  GOC  to 
provide  financial  contributions  to  steel  producers  at  more  favourable  terms  than  those 
obtained  on  the  market  (in  the  form  of  preferential  lending  and  below  the  market 
interest  rates)  or  through  public  bodies  entrusted  by  the  GOC  to  provide  financial 
contributions  in  the  form  of  equity  infusion  and/or  loans  or  in  the  form  of  revenue 
forgone resulting from debt cancelled or not repaid (debt for equity swaps) or grants to 
exporting steel producers, either under national, regional and municipal programmes or 
through export subsidy programmes at rates that were not market-oriented nor based on 
risk assessment criteria; 

3) government revenue forgone or not collected that was due in the form of preferential 
treatment in income, direct and indirect tax regimes or import tariff programmes which 
were only available to certain enterprises such as the OCS producers;  

In the absence of cooperation from Chinese exporters, the Commission resorted to facts 
available.  The  overall  conclusion  was  that  the  OSC  producers  in  China  continued  to 
benefit  from  countervailable  subsidies  during  the  RIP.  In  order  to  evaluate  the 
likelihood  of  continuation  of  subsidisation,  the  following  elements  were  taken  into 
account: the production  and spare capacity in  China, the availability of other markets, 
and the attractiveness of the Union market. Chinese exporting producers had significant 
spare capacity as only 20% of capacity utilisation was reached. Thus, in case of removal 
of countervailing measures, OCS producers would have spare capacity to export to the 
Union market. Furthermore, trade defence measures against Chinese OCS exports had 
already been imposed in other important markets (India, Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey and 
Vietnam). The removal  of measures would have allowed Chinese exporting producers 
to  redirect  exports  towards  the  Union.  Lastly,  the  Union  industry’s  price  was  higher 
than  the  Chinese  export  price  thus  in  case  of  removal  of  the  measures,  Chinese 
exporting producers could easily redirect the exports of substantial volumes of OCS into 
the  Union  market.  The  Commission  concluded  that  there  was  sufficient  evidence  that 
subsidisation of the OCS industry could continue in the future.  

Injury and likelihood of recurrence of injury 

The Union industry improved significantly during the review period. The imposition of 
the  definitive  countervailing  measures  in  March  2013  allowed  the  Union  industry  to 
slowly but steadily recover from the injurious effects of the subsidisation and allowed 
the Union consumption to increase by 18%. Due to the measures, imports from China to 
the Union remained low. However, the analysis of Chinese export prices to other third 
markets  showed  that  China  was  selling  in  some  of  its  main  export  markets  at  prices 
similar  to  or  sometimes  even  lower  than  those  to  the  Union,  thus  reinforcing  the 
conclusion that the current level of Chinese prices would undercut the sales prices of the 
Union  industry  in  the  Union  market.  The  analysis  of  the  imports  from  third  countries 
(India,  Korea,  Turkey  and  Taiwan)  to  the  Union  showed  that,  in  general,  the  import 
price was higher than the average price of Chinese imports. However, even if the Union 
industry had largely recovered from the past injury and seemed to be on the right track 

33 

 
 
to further improve its condition in the long-run, it was still in a fragile situation due to 
its limited profitability, which was still below the target profit. The precarious situation 
of the Union industry could be undermined in case of repeal of measures. As the parallel 
AD  investigation  had  also  established,  China's  overcapacity  in  steel  production  was 
significant  and  80%  of  the  production  was  exported.  The  Commission  therefore 
concluded that the repeal of countervailing measures on the imports from China would 
likely result in a recurrence of injury to the Union industry. 

Union interest and countervailing measures 

The  Commission  analysed  whether  the  maintenance  of  the  existing  countervailing 
measures would not be against the interest of the Union as a whole. With regard to the 
interest of the Union industry, the repeal would result in a significant negative effect as 
sales  and  profitability  would  decrease.  The  investigation  also  showed  that  the 
countervailing measures had no substantial negative effect on the financial situation of 
importers and users and that the continuation of the measures would not unduly affect 
the latter.  

Therefore,  the  Commission  concluded  that  there  were  no  compelling  reasons  that 
maintaining  the  countervailing  measures  would  go  against  the  Union  interest. 
Consequently,  the  measures  imposed  by  Implementing  Regulation  (EU)  No  215/2013 
were applied anew in the range of 13.7% to 44.7%. 

3.2.1.4.  Reviews concluded by termination 

In 2019, 2 expiry reviews were concluded by the termination of measures in force. One 
selected example is described in more detail below. 

Tube and pipe fittings from Turkey (termination of expiry review) 

On 25 October 2017, the Commission received a request for an expiry review regarding 
measures  on  imports  of  certain  tube  and  pipe  fittings  (TPF)  originating  in  Korea, 
Malaysia, Russia, and Turkey. The request was lodged by the Defence Committee of the 
Steel  Butt-Welding  Fittings  Industry,  on  behalf  of  Union  producers  representing 
approximately 51% of the total Union production of TPF, on the grounds that the expiry 
of the measures would likely result in continuation and/or recurrence of dumping and/or 
the  recurrence  of  injury  to  the  Union  industry.  The  Commission  initiated  the  expiry 
review on 27 January 2018. 

Dumping 

The  Commission  analysed  first  whether  imports  of  TPF  from  the  countries  concerned 
were dumped during the RIP. While dumping was found to occur in the case of imports 
from  Russia  (with  a  margin  of  41.8%),  Korea  (with  a  margin  of  7.2%  -  9.1%),  in  the 
case  of  Turkey  no  dumping  was  established  during  the  RIP,  while  imports  from 
Malaysia were negligible thus not allowing a dumping analysis. 

Further to that, the Commission analysed whether there was a likelihood of recurrence 
of dumping in case the measures on imports of TPF from the countries concerned would 
lapse.  The  following  elements  were  analysed:  exports  to  other  destinations,  the 
production capacity and spare capacities, and the attractiveness of the Union market.  

The Commission found that TPF producers from Malaysia, Korea and Russia would be 
likely to export significant quantities of TPF at dumped prices to the Union should the 
measures  be  allowed  to  lapse:  Malaysia  had  a  spare  capacity  close  to  the  Union 
consumption  and  US  AD  measures  were  in  place  on  imports  of  Malaysian  TPF;  the 

34 

 
 
 
Korean  spare  capacity  equalled  two  times  the  Union  consumption  and  AD  duties 
blocked  access  to  Korean  TPF  in  Japan,  while  their  exports  to  the  US  were  already 
significant; finally, Russia's spare capacity was close to the Union consumption too and 
the EU had been traditionally a key export market for Russian TPF. 

Regarding  Turkey  however,  the  Commission  found  that  the  Turkish  domestic  market 
remained  the  main  focus  of  Turkish  TPF  producers,  and  exports  to  third  countries 
(besides  the  Union)  were  negligible.  On  the  other  hand,  Turkish  spare  capacity 
represented  close  to  half  of  the  Union  consumption  of  TPF  during  the  review  period. 
However, the investigation established that the spare capacity would be unlikely to be 
re-directed  to  the  Union  market  in  large  quantities  should  the  measures  lapse:  indeed, 
despite  having  benefited  from  low  anti-dumping  duties,  which  gave  a  comparative 
advantage in  relation  to  other exporting producers, Turkish  producers did  not  increase 
their  market  share  in  the  Union.  What  is  more,  as  no  dumping  was  found  concerning 
exports during the RIP, future exports to the Union were unlikely to be dumped.  

Consequently,  the  Commission  concluded  that  dumping  of  TPF  from  Turkey  was  not 
likely  to  recur,  and  thus  the  measures  on  Turkish  imports  should  be  repealed.  (With 
regard  to  the  other  countries  concerned,  the  investigation  has  shown  that  measures 
should be extended for five years more.) 

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/subsidisation  and  injury 
have changed significantly and whether these changes are of a lasting nature. Reviews 
can be limited to dumping/subsidisation or injury aspects. 

During  2019,  the  Commission  initiated  2  interim  reviews  (both  with  regard  to 
countervailing measures). Three interim reviews were concluded during the same period 
- one was terminated confirming the duties unchanged and two amended 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 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

Withdrawal of the request  

 Seamless pipes and tubes 

Russia 

Ukraine 

Amendment of duty 

3.2.3.  New exporter reviews 

As  far  as  anti-dumping  measures  are  concerned,  Article  11(4)  of  the  basic  AD 
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 IP.  

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 

35 

 
 
 
to  the  anti-dumping  measures,  and  that  they  have  actually  started  to  export  to  the  EU 
following the IP, or that they have entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to 
export a significant quantity to the EU. 

When a review for a new exporter is initiated, the duties are repealed with regard to that 
exporter, though its imports are made subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the 
basic AD 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  AS  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  2019,  the  Commission  initiated  1  ‘new  exporter’  review.  Since  the  Commission 
carried  out  the  first  reviews  of  this  type  in  1990,  a  total  of  78  such  reviews  were 
initiated so far. (Annex I) 

3.2.4.  Anti-absorption investigations 

Where there is sufficient information showing that, after the original IP 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  2019,  1  anti-absorption  investigation  was  initiated  and  1  such  investigation  was 
terminated without increase of duty (Annex J). 

3.2.5.  Anti-circumvention investigations 

The  possibility  of  investigations  being  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  2019,  The  Commission  initiated  4  anti-circumvention  investigations.  More 
information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is 
given in Annex K. 

36 

 
 
 
 
 
Ceramic tableware and kitchenware from China (anti-circumvention)  

Ex-officio investigation 

In 2019, the Commission  analysed available  evidence on the patterns and channels  of 
sales of ceramic tableware and kitchenware products from China since the imposition of 
the  original  measures.  The  comparison  of  export  figures  between  2014  and  2018 
revealed a sharp rise or fall in the exports of certain exporting producers. Moreover, in 
some cases, the actual exports from certain exporting producers exceeded the declared 
production.  These  indicators  suggested  that  certain  exporting  producers  currently 
subject to the (higher) residual or individual duty were selling their ceramic tableware 
and kitchenware via other exporting producers subject to a lower duty (mainly 17.9%) – 
a  practice  called  channelling,  aimed  at  circumventing  anti-dumping  measures. 
Consequently,  on  21  March  2019,  the  Commission  opened  an  anti-circumvention 
investigation which was not based on a complaint or request. 

The  Commission  proceeded  to  sending  questionnaires  to  50  Chinese  exporting 
producers  listed  in  the  Annex  to  the  initiating  Regulation  asking  for  all  the  relevant 
information, including with respect to any related company located in China. Of the 50 
exporting  producers,  48  belonged  to  the  group  of  non-sampled  cooperating  exporting 
producers subject to a duty of 17.9 %; and two had individual rates of duty of 22.9 % 
and 23.4 %.  

Circumvention 

19 exporting producers submitted complete questionnaires replies, out of which 17 were 
found  not  to  be  engaged  in  the  circumvention  practices  after  verification  visits.  The 
remaining  exporting  producers  either  did  not  submit  (13)  or  submitted  an  incomplete 
questionnaire (18). The companies that did not reply were already subject to a duty of 
17.9% and their exports sharply increased during the period 2014-2018, without a valid 
economic  justification  the  Commission  concluded  based  on  the  facts  available  on  the 
file that these producers were engaged in channelling practices.  

Out of the 18 that submitted highly deficient questionnaires, 15 were also subject to the 
rate  of  duty  of  17.9%  and  experienced  a  sharp  increase  in  the  exports  in  the  period 
under  analysis.  Two  other  exporting  producers  had  decreased  their  exports  yet  they 
were also subject to duties of 22.9% and 23.4% - that is lower than the residual duty but 
also  higher than 17.9%  duty. Therefore with  regard to  the latter 17  (15+2) companies 
the lack of adequate replies to Commission questionnaire and of economic justification 
other  than  possible  circumvention  practice  led  the  Commission  to  establish,  based  on 
the facts available on the file that channelling was practiced by the said companies.  

Change in the pattern of trade 

During  the  expiry  review,  the  Commission  analysed  the  development  of  the  import 
volumes  from  China  into  the  Union  with  reference  to  Eurostat  data,  which  provided 
countrywide  figures.  In  the  anti-circumvention  investigation,  an  assessment  of 
company-specific data was  necessary. Through its internal  database, established based 
on Article 14(6) of the basic AD Regulation, the Commission identified the change in 
the pattern of trade by comparing exporting producers with higher and lower duties for 
the  purpose  this  investigation.  The  exporting  producers  subject  to  this  investigation 
accounted  for  26%  of  the  total  Chinese  export  volumes  of  the  product  under 
investigation to the Union. 

The Commission noted a clear change in the pattern of trade within the period 2015 – 
2018.  The  30  exporting  producers  engaged  in  circumvention  increased  their  sale 

37 

 
 
volumes to the Union by more than 20% in 2018, in clear contrast with the increase of 
all  Chinese  imports  into  the  Union  by  about  11%.  In  addition,  when  differentiating 
between these 30 companies based on their applicable duty rate, the Commission found 
that 28 exporting producers subject to the non-sampled cooperating rate of duty (17.9%) 
increased their sales volume to the Union by about 12,600 tonnes on an aggregate level, 
whereas the remaining 370 exporting producers subject to the non-sampled cooperating 
rate  of  duty  increased  their  sales  volume  to  the  Union  by  only  about  20,000  tonnes 
during the same period.  

The Commission considered that these changes in trade flows to the Union constituted a 
change  in  the  pattern  of  trade  which  stemmed  from  a  practice,  process  or  work  for 
which the investigation did not establish any due cause or economic justification other 
than  the  avoidance  of  the  residual  or  the  higher  duty  in  force  on  tableware  and 
kitchenware originating in China. 

Dumping and measures 

The Commission compared the average normal value as established in the recent expiry 
review Regulation with the weighted average export prices during the review period of 
the 30 producers found to be circumventing the measures. The conclusion was that the 
exports  of  Chinese  ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware  continued  to  be  dumped  in 
relation to the normal value previously established through the channelling practice. 

The Commission also concluded that the latter practice was undermining the remedial 
effects of the existing measures in terms of both quantities (as the circumvented imports 
represented a significant 10% of the Union market) and prices (as the average CIF price 
of the 30 exporting producers was found to be below the average cost of production in 
the Union). 

There  was  neither  due  cause  nor  economic  justification  for  the  channelling  other  than 
the avoidance, by the 30 Chinse exporting producers, of the higher duty in force. 

The  Commission  therefore  concluded  that  it  was  appropriate  that  the  residual  duty  of 
36.1% should be applied to the circumventing 30 exporting producers that initially had a 
lower  duty.  The  additional  duties  were  to  be  retroactively  collected  on  the  registered 
imports from the 30 companies. 

3.2.6.  “Other” reviews (reinvestigations, or re-openings) 

These investigations fall outside Article 11(3) or Article 19 of the basic Regulations and 
focus on the implementation of court rulings. In 2019, the Commission initiated 7 such 
investigations. 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. 

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.  

38 

 
 
 
 
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). 
On 14 March 2019, an EU Horizontal Safeguard Regulation entered in force,26 with the 
aim  to  streamline  the  implementation  of  the  EU’s  bilateral  safeguard  measures.  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. 

In terms of casework, in 2019, the EU concluded three safeguard cases with definitive 
measures (Annex L): 

- on 16 January 2019, further to two bilateral safeguard investigations, the Commission 
imposed  definitive  duties  on  Indica  rice  originating  in  Cambodia  and  Myanmar  under 
the rules of the GSP, by re-establishing the applicable Common Customs Tariff rate of 
175 EUR/tonne, with a progressive liberalisation to 125 EUR/tonne over three years;27 

-  on  2  February  2019,  the  EU  imposed  an  erga  omnes  definitive  safeguard  duty  on 
certain steel products.28 The steel safeguard measure was described in the 37th Annual 
Report  on  Trade  Defence  Activities  in  year  201829  (due  to  the  fact  that  provisional 
measures  were  imposed  in  2018  and  to  the  political  importance  of  the  case).  These 
measures were reviewed on 1 October 2019, as per the description below. 

3.3.1.  Details on individual safeguard cases 

General safeguard measures on certain steel products – Review 
On  17  May  2019,  the  Commission  initiated  the  first  review30  of  the  steel  safeguard 
measures. These measures had been in place since 2 February 2019.31 When imposing 
definitive  safeguard  measures,  the  Commission  had  committed  to  review  them 
regularly32 and to adjust the level or allocation of the tariff-rate quotas (‘TRQs’) in case 
of changes of circumstances during the period of imposition. 

After  analysing  over  200  submissions  from  interested  parties,  the  Commission 
concluded  its  investigation  and  the  resulting  adjustments  were  published  in  the 

26  Regulation (EU) 2019/287 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 February 2019 
27  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/67 of 16 January 2019, OJ L 15, 17.1.2019, p.5 
28  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019, OJ L 31, 1.2.2019, p.27 
29  See COM(2019) 158 and SWD(2019) 141 
30  OJ C 169, 17.5.2019, p.9 
31  OJ L 31, 1.2.2019, p.27 
32  Recital (161) of the Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159. 

39 

 
 
                                                           
amending Regulation33, which entered in force on 1 October 2019. The Commission’s 
findings and adjustments to the definitive safeguard measures are summarised below:  

a)  Potential adjustment to the level and allocation of tariff-rate quotas 

For  product  category  1  (hot-rolled  flats),  the  Commission  imposed  a  30%  cap  on  the 
imports  of  any  individual  country  –  per  quarter  –  with  a  view  to  preserving  the 
traditional  trade  flows  in  terms  of  origins.  In  addition,  regarding  product  category  25 
(large  welded  tubes)  the  Commission  observed  that  if  the  allocation  of  TRQs  per 
country set out in the definitive measures were maintained, the participation of suppliers 
of  other  potential  countries  of  origins  in  procurement  processes  for  other  ongoing  or 
future  projects  could  unduly  be  distorted.  The  same  problem  could  also  arise  if  the 
Commission  were  to  set  a  cap  per  supplying  country,  as  it  decided  to  do  for  product 
category  1.  The  Commission  thus  considered  that  maintaining  the  original  situation 
would not be in the Union interest and that the change in the allocation of TRQs for this 
category – by removing the country-specific TRQs and transforming this category into a 
single global TRQ – was justified. 

Moreover, the Commission considered it in the Union interest to adjust the functioning 
of the TRQ for category 4, in such a way that the use of category 4B is restricted to only 
imports that could demonstrate an end-use in the automotive sector. 

To  this  end,  imports  under  category  4B  continued  to  be  subject  to  the  safeguard 
measures but, as regards formal requirements, were placed under the end-use procedure 
referred  to  in  Article  254  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  952/201334.  This  requirement  was 
however subsequently removed35, with retroactive application, since the system did not 
function as originally expected and imports under product category 4B were disrupted. 

b)  ‘Crowding out’ of traditional flows 

The  Commission  identified  negative  crowding  out36  effects  in  two  product  categories 
(13 – rebars, and 16  –  wire rod). Accordingly,  the Commission  decided to  impose, in 
the last quarter of a given period, a cap of 30% of the imports of those countries that had 
previously exhausted their country-specific quota. In this way, the Commission sought 
to ensure that traditional import volumes from other origins – usually smaller exporting 
countries – were preserved. 

c)  Potential detrimental effects in achieving the integration objectives pursued with 

preferential trading partners 

The  Commission  concluded  that  the  definitive  measures  did  not  markedly  limit  the 
ability for the Western Balkan countries to export steel to the Union. This fact, coupled 
with  the  quota  increase  resulting  from  the  liberalisation  of  the  measures  as  of  1  July 
2019,  led  the  Commission  to  conclude  that  the  current  TRQ  was  not  producing 
detrimental effects to their integration objectives. 

33  OJ L 248, 27.9.2019, p.28 
34  OJ L 269, 10.10.2013, pp.1–101 
35  Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/35 of 15 January 2020  
36  ‘Crowding out’ refers here to those situations where, in the last quarter of a period,  countries having 
exhausted  their  country-specific  quota,  had  substantially  limited  the  ability  to  export  for  smaller 
exporters  within  that  quota.  This  situation  was  against  the  objective  that  traditional  trade  flows,  in 
terms of origins, were preserved. 

40 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                           
d)  Update of the list of developing WTO member countries excluded from the scope 

of the measures based on their most recent level of imports 

Under  the  applicable  legislation,  safeguard  measures  should  not  apply  to  any  product 
originating in a developing country member of the WTO as long as two conditions are 
met. First, that its share of imports of that product into the Union does not exceed 3%; 
Second, that developing country members of the WTO with less than a 3% import share 
account  collectively  for  not  more  than  9%  of  total  Union  imports  of  the  product 
concerned. 

In the context of the review, the Commission reassessed the list of exclusions based on 
the  most  recent  and  consolidated  data  available  at  the  time  of  the  investigation  –  i.e. 
import  data  of  2018.  As  a  result,  imports  of  some  product  categories  of  certain 
developing countries became subject to the measures and vice versa.  

e)  Other changes in circumstances that may require an adjustment to the level 

of allocation of the TRQs 

Following  an  in  depth  assessment  of  the  functioning  and  effects  of  the  existing 
safeguard  measures,  the  Commission  also  considered  it  appropriate  to  lower  the 
liberalisation level of the measures from an initially foreseen 5% per year, to a 3% pace 
for  the  second  and  third  period  of  measures.  The  Commission  considered  that  this 
lowered liberalisation pace is in line with the most-recently published general economy 
and industrial outlooks, which foresee a growth reduction for the Union and the world 
economy. 

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 2019, EU TDI services made 137 such visits, which amounted to 
1948 man-days of verification work. Circa 30% of this activity aimed at verifying EU 
companies’  data  relating  to  injury  and  Union  interest,  while  the  rest  constituted 
verifications at companies in 12 third countries. 

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 2019, the TDI services continued their follow-up activities aimed 
at ensuring that measures were effectively enforced. In the framework of an integrated 
approach measures were considered in  all their forms  -  duties and undertakings  –  and 
synergy  was  sought  between  the  TDI  services  and  enforcement-oriented  services 
(OLAF, DG Taxud and customs authorities in Member States).  

More  information  on  the  Commission’s  enforcement  focus  can  be  found  in  the  main 
body of the Report (hereafter the Annual Report) to which this Staff Working Document 
(hereafter SWD) is attached. 

41 

 
 
 
 
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 2019, there were 3 undertakings in force. Eight new undertakings 
were accepted during the year. Therefore, the number of undertakings in force at the end 
of 2019 was 11. 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 the European Anti-Fraud 
Office  (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. 

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 

42 

 
 
publishes a 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  2019,  26  new  refund  requests  were  submitted.  At  the  end  of  2019,  2  refund 
investigations were on-going, covering 66 requests.  The Commission  adopted in  2019 
22  Implementing  Decisions  granting  partial  refund  or  rejecting  refund  requests.  More 
details  on  these  decisions  and  on  the  status  of  refund  investigations  can  be  found  at: 
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tdi/refunds.cfm?sta=1&en=20&page=1&c_order=number&c_o
rder_dir=Down. 

6. 

INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION ACTIVITIES / BILATERAL CONTACTS 

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.  

During 2019, besides the activities described in this Annual Report and SWD in other 
sections  (notably  with  regard  to  SMEs),  the  Commission’s  trade  defence  services 
continued  to  entertain  contacts  with  practically  all  key  stakeholder  organisations 
affected  by  trade  defence.  Two  sessions  of  the  Civil  Society  Dialogue,  in  April  and 
December, were dedicated to trade defence matters. In April, the EU’s Annual Report 
on Trade Defence activities in 2018 was presented, while in December, an update was 
provided of the practical implementation of the legislative reforms of TDI carried out in 
2017 and 2018.  

Similarly  to  previous  years,  in  2019,  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 (e.g. Japan). These meetings 
allow  continuing  a  constructive  dialogue  despite  potential  differences  as  regards  the 
applied TDI methodology. 

In addition, the Commission came back in 2019 to the idea of organising a seminar for 
officials  from  third  countries.  The  aim  of  this  training  seminar,  which  took  place  in 
December 2019, was to allow the participants to gain a deeper understanding of how the 
European Commission applies trade defence rules and exchange experiences on how to 
manage  trade  defence  investigations.  15  participants  from  five  different  foreign 
administrations (Indonesia, Taiwan, Tunisia, Ukraine and the Gulf Cooperation Council 
(GCC))  attended  the  seminar.  The  participants  also  presented  the  TDI  administration 
and investigation practice of their respective countries. 

43 

 
 
 
7. 

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

7.1. 

Overview of the judicial reviews in 2019 

In 2019, the General Court (GC) and the Court of Justice (CJ) rendered 31 judgments 
and  orders  in  the  areas  of  application  of  anti-dumping  or  anti-subsidy  measures:  14 
rulings were handed down by the GC, whereas the CJ issued 8 judgments in appeals of 
GC rulings, 5 orders in relation to taxation of costs and 4 preliminary rulings. 

7.2. 

Cases pending 

At the end of 2019, 48 cases were pending before the GC and 13 before the CJ. A list of 
the cases is given in Annex S. 

7.3. 

New cases 

In 2019, 24 new court cases were lodged in the field of trade defence. Twelve of these 
were lodged before the GC (all actions for annulment) and 12 before the CJ (5 appeals 
and 7 preliminary rulings). 

7.4. 

Judgments rendered by the General Court (a selection) 

T-607/15 – Yieh United Steel Corp. (Yusco) v European Commission  

The General Court dismissed the action brought by Yusco (the applicant), an exporting 
producer  of  stainless  steel  cold-rolled  flat  products  (the  product  concerned).  The 
applicant  sought  the  partial  annulment  of  the  regulation  by  which  the  Commission 
imposed anti-dumping duties on the product concerned from China and Taiwan.  

The GC supported the Commission’s rejection of the applicant’s claim for a deduction 
of scrap value from its cost of production. The objective of that claim was to reduce the 
applicant’s  cost  of  production  and  consequently  decrease  the  duty  rate.  The 
Commission’s  decision  was  based  on  the  finding  that  the  applicant’s  cost  allocation 
method was peculiar, was not clearly explained until very late in the investigation and 
there was a risk of double deduction. The GC recalled that Article 2(5) of the basic AD 
Regulation  does  not  require  the  Commission  to  accept  unconditionally  and  without 
carrying  out  the  necessary  checks  the  information,  contained  in  the  applicant’s 
accounting records. Under this provision costs shall normally be calculated on the basis 
of  records,  kept  by  the  party  under  investigation,  if  certain  conditions  set  therein  are 
met.  This  conclusion  is  confirmed  by  Article  6(8)  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation, 
according to which the information provided by interested parties shall be examined for 
accuracy as far as possible. The objective of the verification visits is precisely this one.  

Importantly,  the  GC  further  explained  that  it  was  for  the  applicant  to  provide  to  the 
Commission, from the beginning of the procedure and to the best of its ability, all the 
information necessary for a proper understanding of its accounting methods and with a 
view  to  allowing  the  Commission  to  carry  out  the  necessary  checks.  As  the  applicant 
has grouped together the cost of production of different products (including the product 
concerned), the GC concluded that the Commission did not commit manifest error when 
considering that it was impossible to verify that all costs were accurately reflected in the 
cost  of  production  declared.  The  GC  recalled  that  Article  6(2)  of  the  basic  AD 
Regulation does not allow the interested parties not to mention all necessary information 
immediately in their replies to anti-dumping questionnaires and to reveal it only in the 

44 

 
 
light  of  the  progress  of  the  investigation.  Although  it  is  for  the  Commission,  as 
investigating authority, to determine whether there is  dumping, injury  and causal link, 
the Commission depends on the voluntary cooperation of the parties. The GC concluded 
that the Commission was entitled, without committing a manifest error of assessment or 
erring in its interpretation of article 2(5) of the basic AD Regulation, to reject the claim 
to deduct recycled scrap from the cost of production, having been unable to verify the 
accounting record.  

This  judgment  also  clarifies  the  relevant  criterion  to  qualify  sales  as  “domestic”.  The 
applicant complained about the exclusion from the determination of the normal value of 
one important part of its sales it considered as domestic. For the applicant, the relevant 
criterion is the “intention” or the “subjective knowledge” of the destination of the sale 
and the Commission did not demonstrate the existence of this intention. The GC, after 
having examined different linguistic versions of the basic AD Regulation and also the 
relevant  provisions  of  the  WTO  AD  Agreement  and  jurisprudence,  took  a  different 
stand and considered that the “destination” of the product should be considered and not 
the “intention”. For the General Court, making the exclusion of sales subject to proof of 
the  intention  of  the  vendor  would  allow  to  take  into  account  export  prices  in  the 
determination  of  the  normal  value,  which  will  compromise  its  correct  determination. 
The  GC  concluded  that  the  Commission  based  its  decision  to  exclude  the  sales  in 
question  on  the  existence  of  objective  evidence  of  export37. Subjective  elements 
(intention or knowledge) did not play any role in its assessment. On this basis, the Court 
rejected also this part of the complaint.  

After rejecting all pleas, the GC dismissed the action in its entirety. 

T-300/16  and  T-301/16  –  Jindal  Saw  Ltd  and  Jindal  Saw  Italia  v  European 
Commission, supported by Saint-Gobain Pam 

The  General  Court  annulled  both  Regulations  imposing  respectively  countervailing 
(CVD) and anti-dumping (AD) duties on ductile pipes from India as far as Jindal Saw 
Ltd is concerned (‘Jindal’). 

T-300/16 (anti-subsidy) 

The GC upheld the findings that the export restraints in effect in India (export tax plus 
dual freight policy consisting in charging higher rail transport fees to iron ore destined 
for export in comparison with the one destined for domestic consumption) amounted to 
a  “financial  contribution  ”within  the  meaning  of  Article 3(1)(a)(iii)  of  the  basic  AS 
Regulation  

Indeed,  the  GC  found  that  “the  Commission  established  that,  through  the  export 
restrictions in question, the Indian government had sought to obtain from Indian mining 
companies the provision of iron ore on the Indian market. Indeed, instead of buying iron 
ore  and  supplying  it  themselves  on  that  market,  the  Indian  government  introduced  a 
system which rendered the export of iron ore commercially unattractive through export 
restraints and, hence, obtained from Indian producers of iron ore that they rather sell on 
the domestic market”. The GC found evidence of the design, introduction and operation 
of  the  export  restraints  to  produce  the  desired  effects  and  stressed  that  the  export  tax 
was  not  merely  a  measure  to  collect  public  revenue.  The  GC  further  noted  that  the 

37  This  objective  evidence  consists  in:  1)  the  application  of  a  rebate  system  related  to  exports;  2)  a 
calculation  performed  by  the  Commission  and  based  on  production  data  and  statistics  showing  that 
amongst the declared “domestic” sales approximately 50% were indirect export sales. 

45 

 
 
 
                                                           
Indian  government  performed  more  than  mere  acts  of  encouragement.  The  GC 
confirmed  that  the  Commission  did  not  base  its  analysis  on  side-effects  but  on  acts 
attributable  to  the  Government  of  India.  The  GC  also  upheld  the  Commission’s 
assessment  that  the  iron  ore  producers’  behaviour  to  favour  the  domestic  market  was 
irrational, given the higher prices of iron ore on the world market.  

The  GC  upheld  the  findings  that  the  measure  was  specific  to  the  steel  industry, 
regardless of spillovers on other downstream industries. The GC noted that if access to 
the  subsidy  is  limited  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  only  certain  enterprises  could  use  the 
subsidised product, the subsidy is specific.  

The GC confirmed the need to determine the existence of a benefit for the recipient “for 
the whole period investigated”, and thus agreed that the Commission could focus on the 
transactions  showing  a  benefit  when  compared  to  the  benchmark  price  (no  need  to 
offset with negative amounts).  

According  to  the  GC,  “as  far  as  possible,  the  method  used  by  the  Commission  to 
calculate the advantage must make it possible to reflect the benefit actually conferred on 
the recipient”. In this case, the Commission did not take the actual transport costs from 
the  mine  incurred  by  Jindal  but  the  average  of  those  costs  of  the  two  cooperating 
exporting  producers  when  establishing  the  net  benefit  amount  resulting  from  the 
purchase  of  iron  ore.  As  a  consequence,  the  GC  found  that  the  Commission  made  an 
error and violated Article 6(d) of the basic AS Regulation.  

Regarding price undercutting calculations, the GC found an error when the Commission 
compared  Union  industry’s  prices  to  the  first  independent  buyer  and  Jindal’s 
constructed CIF prices on the basis of Article 2(9) of the basic AD Regulation due to the 
fact that Jindal sold to the EU mostly via a related importer.  

T-301/16 (anti-dumping) 

The  GC  annulled  the  regulation  on  the  basis  of  the  wrong  undercutting  analysis 
mirroring the reasoning made in the anti-subsidy ruling described above. However, the 
GC  upheld  how  the  Commission  constructed  the  export  price  in  this  case  for  the 
purpose  of  the  dumping  calculations.  In  line  with  Article  2(9)  of  the  basic  AD 
Regulation,  the  Commission  considered  the  final  export  prices  of  Jindal’s  selling 
entities  unreliable  because  of  the  existence  of  an  association  between  the  exporting 
producer  and  its  related  importer.  The  GC  referred  to  the  history  of  Articles  2(8)  and 
2(9) of the basic AD Regulation, including in the GATT and WTO context, to conclude 
that  there  is  no  additional  requirement  for  the  Commission  to  show  that  the  prices 
between the exporting producer and its related importer were not reliable. Likewise, the 
GC confirmed that the Commission did not make a manifest error of assessment when 
constructing the export price. 

T-741/16 – Changmao Biochemical Engineering v European Commission 

The  General  Court  dismissed 
the  action  brought  by  Changmao  Biochemical 
Engineering (the applicant) against the Regulation imposing a definitive  anti-dumping 
duty on imports of aspartame originating in the People's Republic of China (contested 
regulation).  The  applicant  contested  in  particular  the  rejection  of  its  Market  Economy 
Treatment (MET) claim, the rejection of its claims for adjustments, the process on the 
selection  of  the  analogue  country  and  the  use  of  some  EU  Industry  data  to  construct 
normal value. 

46 

 
 
 
On the examination of MET claims, the GC confirmed the Commission’s requirement 
that the applicant’s accounting records  –  and not  just the audit of such records,  as  the 
applicant claimed - be in line with international accounting standards, as this allows the 
Commission to ascertain whether a company operates under market economy conditions 
and its accounting records reflect the actual costs.  

The  GC  examination  of  this  claim  is  interesting  for  various  reasons.  First,  the  GC 
stresses  the  importance  of  mission  reports  to  disprove  an  argument  by  the  applicant, 
underlining  the  usefulness  of  having  complete  mission  reports.  Second,  the  GC 
reaffirms the discretion of the Commission to disregard documents provided at so late a 
stage  of  the  verification  visit  that  they  cannot  be  verified,  if  the  required  documents 
were  requested  early  on  during  the  visit  and  the  company  is  informed  throughout  the 
visit of what remains missing. Third, the GC found that no legitimate expectations can 
arise from MET findings in previous investigations and that the Commission’s review 
of MET claims can be “strict and thorough”.  

Regarding the adjustments to ensure price comparability when calculating dumping, the 
GC recalled that it falls on the applicant to make a claim under Article 2(10) of the basic 
AD  Regulation  to  request  an  adjustment  and  provide  evidence.  In  this  case,  the 
applicant  requested  an  adjustment  because  customers  pay  different  prices  on  the 
domestic  market  because  of  differences  in  the  cost  of  production.  However,  the 
applicant  did  not  provide  any  evidence  supporting  the  claim.  On  that  basis,  the 
Commission did not do any adjustment. The GC upheld the Commission’s approach.  

On  the  choice  of  analogue  country,  the  GC  ruled  that  given  the  rarity  of  aspartame 
producers  in  similar  countries  and  the  difficulty  of  finding  a  producer  willing  to 
cooperate  in  the  investigation,  the  Commission  took  all  due  care  in  the  search  for  an 
appropriate analogue country. The GC recalled the voluntary nature of cooperation by 
third  parties  and  the  lack  of  tools  on  the  Commission’s  side  to  force  cooperation; 
consequently, non-cooperation cannot be viewed as a breach of the Commission’s duty 
of care. On that basis, the GC upheld the Commission’s choice to use some EU industry 
data  for  establishing  normal  value,  as  that  choice  was  made  in  a  reasonable  manner, 
taking into account all the reliable information available at the time of that choice, and 
with all due care. 

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

T-749/16 – Stemcor London Ltd, Samac Steel Supplies Ltd v Commission  

The General Court dismissed the action brought  by two importers based in the United 
Kingdom,  Stemcor  and  Samac  (the  applicants)  against  Commission  Implementing 
Regulation imposing a definitive retroactive anti-dumping duty on the imports of certain 
cold-rolled flat steel products from China and Russia (the contested regulation). By the 
contested regulation, the Commission ordered for the first time retroactive collection of 
registered duties. The judgement gives important clarifications as to the interpretation of 
Article 10(4)(c) and (d) of the basic AD Regulation which lay down the conditions for 
retroactive collection of duties.  

The first  plea concerns the requirement laid down in  Article 10(4)(c) of the basic AD 
Regulation  that  the  duty  on  registered  imports  may  only  be  levied  retroactively  if  the 
importer was aware or should have been aware of the dumping as regards the extent of 
dumping and the injury alleged or found. The GC first explained that the purpose of the 
retroactive collection is to prevent the remedial effects of the definitive measures from 

47 

 
 
 
being  undermined.  Therefore,  the  requirement  of  awareness  of  dumping  cannot  be 
interpreted as awareness of actual level of dumping because, in general, the importers’ 
awareness  of  actual  dumping  can  only  be  established  as  from  the  adoption  of  the 
definitive measures. Consequently, such restrictive interpretation would deprive Article 
10(4) of all practical effect. 

The  GC  also  clarified  that  the  awareness  of  dumping  is  not  a  non-rebuttable 
presumption. The Commission must establish objective evidence that the importer was 
aware or should have been aware of the extent of the dumping and the injury alleged or 
found. In order to determine whether the Commission has established the existence of 
such objective  evidence  in  the case at  hand,  GC examined the notice of initiation  and 
the non-confidential version of the complaint. GC found that the notice of initiation and 
the  non-confidential  version  of  the  complaint  contained  a  number  of  statements  and 
items of evidence supporting and stating the extent of the dumping and injury alleged. 
Consequently,  the  Commission  was  entitled  to  infer  that  applicants,  who  are 
experienced  professionals,  were  aware  of,  or  should  have  been  aware  of  the  extent  of 
the dumping and injury alleged. On that basis, the General Court rejected the first plea. 

The second plea takes issue with  the assessment of the condition  laid down in  Article 
10(4)(d) of the basic AD Regulation relating to a further substantial rise in imports. The 
applicants  had  argued  that  the  further  substantial  rise  in  imports  must  take  place  after 
the  beginning  of  registration.  The  GC  confirmed  that  the  Commission  was  entitled  to 
compare the imports made during the IP with those which took place between the first 
full month following publication of the notice of initiation of investigation and the last 
full month preceding the imposition of provisional measures.     

The  Third  plea  concerns  the  interpretation  of  the  condition  that  the  further  rise  in 
imports  must  be  likely  to  ‘seriously  undermine  the  remedial  effect’  of  the  definitive 
anti-dumping duty to be applied, within the meaning of Article 10(4)(d) of the basic AD 
Regulation.  

The GC clarified that it is not required to carry out an individual analysis of the conduct 
of each importer given that injury caused to an established Union industry by dumped 
imports must also be assessed as a whole. The further rise in imports must therefore be 
assessed  as  a  whole,  without  considering  the  individual  and  subjective  position  of  the 
importers in question. The GC also clarified that retroactive imposition is not punitive, 
but serves to preserve a level playing field. 

Next,  the  GC  examined  whether  the  Commission  had  rightly  established  the  serious 
undermining of the remedial effect. While recognizing a broad margin of discretion, the 
GC examined in detail all arguments that have been included in the contested regulation 
one  after  the  other.  The  GC  clarified  that  the  ‘substantial’  nature  of  the  rise  is  to  be 
determined  on  a  case-by-case  basis.  While  a  comparison  between  the  two  monthly 
averages  is  an  important  element,  it  is  not  necessarily  the  decisive  element  in 
determining  whether  the  further  rise  in  imports  is  ‘substantial’.  Other  relevant 
considerations must also be taken into account such as in particular: the development of 
the overall consumption of the products concerned in the Union, the evolution of stocks 
and the evolution of market shares. Accordingly, the Commission was fully entitled to 
conclude, that the further substantial  rise in  imports,  in  the light  of  its volume, timing 
and  other  circumstances,  namely  the  substantial  decrease  in  prices  and  increase  in 
stocks,  had  a  further  negative  bearing  on  the  prices  and  Union  market  share  of  the 
Union  industry  and  was  therefore  likely  to  seriously  undermine  the  remedial  effect  of 
the definitive anti-dumping duty. 

After rejecting all pleas, the GC dismissed the action in its entirety. 

48 

 
 
T-228/17 – Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry Co. Ltd v European Commission   

The General Court confirmed the legality of a regulation imposing anti-dumping duties 
on imports of certain stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings, whether or not 
finished, originating in China. The contested regulation was adopted as the result of an 
investigation  initiated  prior  to  the  expiry  of  certain  provisions  of  Section  15  of  the 
Protocol  on  the  Accession  of  the  Peoples  Republic  of  China  to  the  WTO  on  11 
December 2016, but concluded only after that date.  

Regarding  the  adjustment  of  the  normal  value,  the  applicant  claimed  that  the 
Commission  committed  a  manifest  error  of  assessment  when  it  refused  to  adjust  the 
normal  value  based  on  the  price  lists  for  welded  and  seamless  pipes  used  by  Chinese 
producers  and  submitted  for  that  purpose  by  CCCMC38.  Instead,  the  Commission 
adjusted the normal value for difference in raw material used and difference in grade of 
steel based on verified Union Industry cost data. The GC confirmed that, when the use 
of non-market methodology is warranted like in the present case, the Commission is not 
required  to  take  into  consideration  data  from  the  non-market  economy  country  and  is 
authorised to  use data from  Union  Industry. Furthermore, in  the case  at  hand, the fact 
that the price list originated in the non-market economy country was not the only reason 
why  those  data  were  rejected:  sales  prices  could  not  be  considered  suitable  for 
calculating the production costs. In addition, the applicant never submitted the claim for 
market  economy  treatment  in  order  to  prove  that  it  operates  under  market  economy 
conditions.  

GC  also  rejected  the  plea  regarding  an  alleged  breach  of  the  applicant’s  rights  of 
defence. In particular, the GC clarified that the applicant cannot rely on the CCCMC’s 
failure  to  receive  certain  data  before  the  Court  because  it  had  not  proved  that  the 
CCCMC acted on its behalf. Furthermore, the applicant would have to establish that the 
outcome  of  the  procedure  would  have  been  different  had  it  been  aware  of  those  data 
before the final disclosure.    

Lastly,  the  applicant  argued  that  the  Commission  should  not  have  applied  non-market 
economy methodology to the case at hand, because Section 15(a) of the Protocol on the 
Accession of China to the WTO had allegedly expired. The Court clarified that it cannot 
review  the  legality  of  the  contested  regulation  in  the  light  of  the  Protocol  on  the 
Accession  of  the  China  of  the  WTO.  Moreover,  the  Commission  was  not  required  to 
interpret  Article  2(7)  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation  in  the  light  of  Section  15  of  the 
Protocol  on  the  Accession  of  China  to  the  WTO.  Article  2(7)  lays  down  rules 
concerning the calculation of normal value for non-market economy countries and has 
no equivalents in the WTO agreements. Article 2(7) of the basic AD Regulation cannot 
be considered a measure intended to ensure implementation in the EU legal order of a 
particular  obligation  assumed  in  the  context  of  the  WTO.  Hence,  the  GC  rejected  the 
applicant’s complaints in that regard as ineffective. 

After rejecting all pleas, the GC dismissed the action in its entirety. 

T-500/17 – Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co Ltd v European Commission   

The General Court upheld the action brought by Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube Co Ltd 
(the applicant), a Chinese exporting producer of certain seamless pipes and tubes of iron 

38  China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals and Chemical Importers & Exporters representing 

certain Chinese producers of tube and pipe fittings in the procedure before the Commission. 

49 

 
 
 
 
                                                           
or steel, against the Commission Regulation (contested regulation) imposing a definitive 
anti-dumping duty on imports of tubes and pipes originating in China.  

The applicant contested the Commission regulation based on two claims concerning the 
injury  assessment  and  causation.  First,  it  challenged  the  Commission’s  undercutting 
calculation  methodology,  arguing  that  the  Commission  (i)  only  considered  in  its  price 
comparison one of the four years taken into account for the injury assessment, and (ii) 
failed to properly compare the prices of the dumped imports with the Union industry’s. 
In this regard, the applicant argued that the Commission disregarded product types sold 
by the Union industry but not exported by the sampled exporting producers and that it 
failed  to  consider  separately  the  impact  of  imports  on  the  three  market  segments 
identified  during  the  investigation.  In  the  second  plea,  the  applicant  claimed  that  the 
Commission based its causation analysis on an erroneous finding of undercutting. 

In  relation  to  the  first  plea,  the  GC  rejected  the  applicant’s  argument  that  the 
Commission  should  have calculated the undercutting for the four  years  considered for 
the  injury  assessment.  The  Court  confirmed  that  calculating  the  undercutting  only  for 
the IP - that is, the same period used to calculate the dumping margin – was within the 
Commission’s discretion. On the other hand, the GC agreed with the applicant that the 
Commission should have considered the three market segments on its assessment. In the 
Court’s  view,  the  Commission  failed  to  take  into  account  all  the  data  available  in  its 
analysis  of  price  undercutting  and  the  effect  of  the  dumped  imports  on  prices  in  the 
Union market for the like product, thereby breaching Articles 3(2) and (3) of the basic 
AD Regulation. As a result, the GC also upheld  the second plea. The Court held that, 
since  the  Commission  failed  to  consider  all  information  before  it  in  its  injury 
assessment, the conclusion of a causal link between dumped imports and injury was also 
based on an incomplete set of data. 

The Commission appealed the judgement. 

T-650/17 – Jinan Meide Casting Co. Ltd v Commission 

The General Court annulled the regulation re-imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty 
on imports of threaded tube or pipe cast  fittings, of malleable cast  iron, originating in 
the  People's  Republic  of  China,  manufactured  by  Jinan  Meide  Castings  Co.,  Ltd  (the 
applicant).  

GC examined all four pleas in law raised by the applicant and rejected three of them as 
unfounded.  

The  third  plea  was  upheld.  According  to  the  Court,  the  Commission  adopted  an 
unreasonable methodology to reflect the differences in physical characteristics between 
product types produced in the analogue country and those exported from China. In the 
absence  of  data  relating  to  domestic  production  in  the  analogue  country,  the 
Commission  used the difference in  prices observed for the export sales of the various 
product  types  from China. According to  the Court, the Commission  could  not  assume 
that prices likely to be affected by dumping can form the basis for a reasonable estimate 
of the market value of differences in physical characteristics as such prices may not be 
the result of normal market forces. 

50 

 
 
 
 
8.5. 

Judgments rendered by the Court of Justice (a selection) 

C-612/16 – C&J Clark International Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue 
& Customs 

The  Court  of  Justice  upheld  the  validity  of  the  regulations  re-imposing  anti-dumping 
duties  on  imports  of  shoes  from  China  and  clarified  that  the  re-imposition  is  not  time 
barred in the case of an appeal. 

In  particular,  the  CJ  confirmed  that  the  Commission  has  the  right  to  re-impose  anti-
dumping duties following the delivery of a judgment annulling an act or declaring it to 
be  invalid.  The  CJ  confirmed  that  the  basic  AD  Regulation  is  the  legal  basis  (in 
particular, Article 9(4), applied in conjunction with Article 14(1) thereof) empowering 
the  Commission  to  do  so  after  having  resumed  the  proceedings  that  gave  rise  to  the 
annulled regulations and had remedied the illegalities identified.  

In  addition,  the  Court  stipulated  that  re-imposition  of  duties,  based  on  the  substantive 
rules applicable at the time of the original investigation, does not constitute a retroactive 
application of duties. 

The Court further clarified that the content of the regulation re-imposing duties can be 
limited only to dealing with the illegalities identified in the judgment annulling it. For 
example,  the  Commission  was  not  obliged  to  deal  with  other  issues  such  as  the 
assessment of the Union interest, since this was not an issue where the illegalities were 
identified by the Court.  

C-144/18  P  –  River  Kwai  International  Food  Industry  Co.  Ltd  v  Association 
europeenne des transformateurs de mais doux (AETMD) 

The  Court  of  Justice  dismissed  the  appeal  by  a  Thai  exporting  producer  River  Kwai 
International  Food  Industry  Co.  Ltd,  against  the  judgment  of  the  General  Court  of  14 
December  2017  in  case  T-460/14  (judgement  under  appeal).  The  judgement  under 
appeal annulled Council Implementing Regulation (regulation at issue), which reduced 
River Kwai’s anti-dumping duty on imports of certain prepared or preserved sweetcorn 
in kernels from 12.8% to 3.6% following an interim review pursuant of Article 11(3) of 
the basic AD Regulation. The action for annulment of the regulation at issue before the 
GC was brought by AETMD, an association representing the interests of the sweetcorn 
processing  industry  in  the  European  Union.  During  the  investigation,  AETDM  was 
questioning  the  allocation  of  costs  between  River  Kwai  and  AgriFresh,  which 
constituted one of the possible causes of the lowering of the production costs alleged by 
River Kwai in support of its request for an interim review. However, since River Kwai 
and AgriFresh are legally separated entities and only River Kwai claimed to produce the 
product under investigation, this issue was not investigated and was not addressed in the 
final  disclosure.  Consequently,  the  GC  found  In  the  judgement  under  appeal  that 
AETDM’s procedural guarantees provided for in Article 19(2) and Article 20(2) of the 
basic AD Regulation were breached. 

In support of its appeal, the appellant, River Kwai, raised three grounds.  

Second, the appellant alleged that the GC was wrong to find that the issue of allocation 
of costs related to the calculation of the dumping margin and not to ‘lasting change of 
circumstances’ which is one of the conditions required for the modification of duty in a 
partial  interim  review  pursuant  to  Article  11(3)  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation.  The  CJ 
rejected  this  ground  of  appeal  as  ineffective.  It  concluded  that  the  impact  of  the 

51 

 
 
 
restructuring  of  River  Kwai  could  have  affected  the  assessment  of  both  the  lasting 
nature of the changed of circumstances and of the calculation of the dumping margin; 
therefore, even if well founded, this ground could not enable River Kwai to set aside the 
contested judgement. 

Finally,  River  Kwai  claimed  that  by  annulling  the  regulation  at  issue,  the  GC 
retroactively  increased  the  anti-dumping  duty  applicable  to  it.  The  CJ  first  recognised 
that  the  consequence  of  the  annulment  is  that  the  regulation  at  issue  is  removed 
retroactively from the legal order and is deemed never to have existed. In addition, the 
ECJ  clarified  that  the  in  the  judgement  under  appeal  the  GC  did  not  rule  the  duties 
applicable  to  imports  of  River  Kwai.  That  question  would  be  addressed  in  the 
implementing measures required by the judgement under appeal. Therefore, it does not 
fall within the jurisdiction of the Court in the context of the appeal. Consequently, this 
ground of the appeal was rejected and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety. 

C-251/18  –  Trace  Sport  SAS  v  Inspecteur  van  de  Belastingdienst/Douane,  kantoor 
Eindhoven (preliminary ruling) 

The Court of Justice ruled on a request for preliminary ruling concerning the validity of 
Commission  Regulation  which  extended  the  anti-dumping  duty  to  imports  of  bicycles 
consigned from Indonesia, Malaysia, Sri Lanka and Tunisia (regulation at issue).  

This preliminary ruling was requested by the Rechtbank Noord-Holland (tribunal of the 
province  of  North  Holland)  in  the  context  of  domestic  litigation  brought  by  a  French 
importer of bicycles, Trace Sport. Trace Sport challenged the validity of two payment 
notices imposing an anti-circumvention duty on its imports of bicycles from Sri Lanka. 
In the framework of this litigation the Dutch tribunal requested the CJ to judge on the 
validity  of  the  regulation  at  issue  to  the  extent  that  it  applies  to  Kelani  Cycles  and 
Creative Cycles - the Sri-Lankan producers-exporters concerned by the payment notices 
issued by the Dutch authorities. 

The  decision  to  impose  anti-circumvention  measures  relied  on  the  findings  that  there 
was a change in the pattern of trade between the Union and Sri Lanka and on the lack of 
cooperation from some of the exporting producers in that country.  

The CJ recalled that the burden of proof for the existence of circumvention is with the 
Union’s  institutions.  The  four  conditions  of  the  basic  AD  Regulation  to  establish  the 
existence of circumvention are: 1) change in the pattern of trade between third countries 
and the Union; 2) insufficient due cause or economic justification for this change other 
than  the  imposition  of  the  duty;  3)  evidence  of  injury  or  undermining  of  the  remedial 
effects  of  the  duty;  4)  evidence  of  dumping.  The  CJ  explained  that  according  to  the 
provisions of the basic AD Regulation and the jurisprudence, in case of non-cooperation 
(or  insufficient  cooperation)  by  the  exporting  producers,  the  Union  institutions  are 
allowed  to  base  their  assessment  on  a  certain  number  of  consistent  indications  to 
conclude  to  the  existence  of  circumvention.  These  indications  shall  point  to  the 
fulfilment of the four conditions above.  

The  CJ  noted  that  the  regulation  at  issue  did  not  contain  any  individual  analysis  of 
circumvention  practices  in  which  Kelani  Cycles  and  Creative  Cycles  may  have  been 
engaged.  The  Court  found  that  the  conclusion  as  to  the  existence  of  transhipment 
operations in  Sri Lanka could  not  legally be based only on the two findings expressly 
made by the Council, that is, first, that there had been a change in the pattern of trade 
between the Union and Sri Lanka and, second, that some of the producers-exporters had 
failed  to  cooperate.  The  CJ  insisted  that  there  is  no  legal  presumption  allowing  the 

52 

 
 
 
Union institutions to conclude to the existence of circumvention on the sole basis of the 
non-cooperation. On this basis the CJ decided that regulation at issue was invalid in so 
far as it concerns imports of bicycles shipped from Sri Lanka (as a whole), whether or 
not declared as originating in that country. 

C-436/18P – Shanxi Taigang Stainless Steel Co. Ltd v Commission 

The  Court  of  Justice  dismissed  the  appeal  brought  by  a  Chinese  exporting  producer 
Shanxi  Taigang,  against  the  judgement  in  case  T-675/15  concerning  the  Regulation 
imposing  definitive  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  stainless  steel  cold-rolled  flat 
products  originating  in  the  People’s  Republic  of  China  and  Taiwan.  The  appellant, 
Shanxi  Taigang,  contested  in  particular  General  Court’s  findings  with  regard  to  the 
selection of the  analogue country  and the absence of adjustment for differences  in  the 
production process and access to the raw materials. The CJ dismissed the appeal in its 
entirety and confirmed the General Court’s judgement. 

With  regard  to  the  selection  of  the  analogue  country,  the  CJ  confirmed  that  in 
accordance  with  the  second  sentence  of  the  second  subparagraph  of  Article  2(7)(a)  of 
the basic AD Regulation it is not mandatory to select the market economy third country 
subject  to  the  same  investigation.  In  this  case,  Taiwan  was  subject  to  the  same 
investigation  and  the  appellant  claimed  that  it  should  have  been  selected  as  an 
appropriate  analogue  country  over  the  US,  which  was  ultimately  chosen  by  the 
Commission.  The CJ recalled that the Commission enjoys a broad discretion to  select 
the  most  appropriate  country,  which  must  be  selected  in  a  non-unreasonable  manner. 
Whereas preference may be given to a country that is subject to the same investigation, 
there  is  no  obligation  to  select  that  country.  To  the  contrary,  the  Commission  has  the 
obligation  to  try  to  find,  whilst  taking  account  of  the  possible  alternatives,  a  market 
economy  third  country  in  which  the  prices  for  a  like  product  are  formed  in 
circumstances, which are as similar as possible to those in the country of export.  

Regarding  the  second  ground  of  the  appeal,  the  CJ  confirmed  the  General  Court’s 
finding that the EU institutions cannot be required to make adjustments on accounts of 
differences  in  the  production  process  and  regarding  the  access  to  the  raw  materials  in 
the  light  of  factors  which  are  not  directly  or  indirectly  the  result  of  normal  market 
forces. In this particular case, it was not demonstrated that differences in the production 
process  and  regarding  the  access  to  the  raw  materials  were  result  of  normal  market 
forces. To recall, in the contested judgement the General Court found that since China 
was  not  a  market  economy  and  the  appellant  did  not  claim  MET,  there  is  nothing  to 
indicate  that  the  sourcing  of  nickel  and  the  production  process  are  not  influenced  by 
parameters which are not the result of market forces. Consequently, the second ground 
of appeal was rejected and the appeal was dismissed in its entirety. 

8. 

ACTIVITIES BY THIRD COUNTRIES TARGETING THE EU 

This  section  describes  the  main  developments  and  trends  in  the  area  of  third  country 
actions  in  2019  (see  also  the  Annual  Report,  as  well  as  annex  U  (A  –  F)  below  for 
detailed figures). 

In  2019,  the  main  users  of  the  trade  defence  instruments  against  EU  exports  were  the 
US with 36 measures in force, China with 20, India with 18, Turkey and Brazil with 15. 
Besides these main users, other important cases in countries that use the instruments less 
frequently are also described below. 

53 

 
 
 
United States 

Overall trends  

In 2019, the US  initiated 1 new AD investigation affecting EU exports, 2 less than in 
2018. At the end of 2019, the US had 36 measures in force affecting EU imports, i.e. 3 
more than in 2018.  

Main cases  

Spanish ripe olives (AD/CVD)   

These  investigations  were  significant  trade  irritants  since  their  initiation.  The  AD  and 
countervailing duties (CVD) on imports of Spanish ripe olives are in force since August 
2018  despite  numerous  Commission  interventions.  The  CVD  investigation  is  of  a 
particular concern since it targets, among others, several EU subsidy schemes available 
under  the  EU  Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP),  which  are  considered  non-trade 
distorting,  non-product  specific  and  thus  non-countervailable  under  the  rules  of  the 
WTO.  Therefore,  the  Commission  decided  to  request  the  launch  of  a  WTO  dispute 
settlement  proceeding.  As  the  consultations  with  the  US  in  the  framework  of  this 
proceeding did not lead to any positive results, the EU has challenged, in particular, the 
issue of specificity and the lack of pass-through test. 

India  

Overall trends  

The total number of trade defence measures in force in 2019 has decreased as compared 
to  2018  (18  against  21),  even  though  India  remains  the  second  main  user  of  the 
instruments  against the  EU, after the US.  In particular,  India seemed to  have resumed 
the use of safeguard measures last  year and initiated 3 new investigations of this kind 
(none in 2018, one in 2017 and one in 2016).     

These  3  safeguard  investigations  significantly  contributed  to  the  7  new  investigations 
initiated by  India in  2019, which is  the highest  number of new initiations amongst  all 
third countries; the 4 anti-dumping investigations concern: INA & 2-PH, Tin mill, Flat 
rolled products of stainless steel, and Acrylic fibre. 

With  regard  to  actions  taken,  India  imposed  definitive  AD  duties  in  one  case  (High-
speed  steel  from  Germany)  and  extended  AD  duties  following  two  expiry  reviews 
(Methylene Chloride, Acetone). 

As  regards  the  Indian  trade  defence  legislation,  in  addition  to  the  amendment  of  its 
internal  AD  and  AS  rules  that  took  place  in  2018,  on  which  the  Commission  had 
provided  comments,  India  introduced  specific  provisions  to  address  the  issue  of 
circumvention,  and  proposed  some  amendments  also  to  safeguard  rules  (namely  by 
introducing tariff rate quota as form of measures).  

Main cases  

Flat rolled products of stainless steel (AD) 

This AD investigation was initiated in July 2019 and it targets imports from 15 different 
countries,  among  which  the  EU  (EU  economic  interest  of  around  €  98  million).  The 
product definition includes both hot and cold rolled products, and it excludes products 
on which measures are already in force. The Commission has already intervened orally 
and in writing, and will continue following this case closely. 

54 

 
 
 
 
Acrylic fibre (AD) 

This  investigation  was  initiated  in  September  2019.  An  investigation  on  the  same 
product  had  already  been  launched  in  2017,  which  was  then  terminated  without 
measures due to lack of injury (as mentioned in the 37th Annual Report) also as a result 
of several Commission interventions. The Commission has filed written comments upon 
initiation and is ready to intervene further if necessary. 

China  

Overall trends  

In  2019,  China's  trade  defence  activity  continued  to  be  relatively  low  compared  to 
previous years. The total number of measures in force against the EU at the end of 2019 
was  20,  as  compared  to  18  in  2018.  China  initiated  only  1  new  investigation  in  the 
chemical sector and imposed 1 anti-dumping measure on steel in 2019. 

Main cases  

Potato starch (AD/CVD)  

As  of  6  February  2019,  China  concluded  its  AD  expiry  review  investigation  by 
extending  anti-dumping  duties  on  imports  of  potato  starch  originating  in  the  EU.  The 
period  of  measures  is  5  years,  i.e.  until  February  2024.  Countervailing  duties  on  the 
same  product  also  in  place  until  September  2022.  The  EU  exports  amounted  to  €  10 
million before the imposition of measures. 

Turkey  

Following an anti-circumvention investigation initiated the year before, in 2019 Turkey 
imposed duties  on woven fabrics from Greece.  Moreover, Turkey concluded a review 
on  water  heaters,  extending  the  anti-dumping  measures  until  2024,  and  terminated 
another investigation on synthetic filament  tow.  Turkey also  initiated an anti-dumping 
review on laminated flooring, in which the Commission intervened. 

A safeguard investigation on products  of iron and steel,  initiated in  April 2018 and in 
which  provisional  measures  had  been  imposed,  was  terminated  in  May  2019  without 
imposition of measures. The Commission also intervened in a safeguard case on yarns 
of nylon and polyamide, where measures were finally imposed in 2019. 

Brazil  

Brazil  initiated  no  new  investigation  against  the  EU  in  2019,  continuing  with  the 
moderate  activity  of  recent  years.  It  imposed  one  new  anti-dumping  measure  against 
silicon electrical steel from Germany. The total number of measures in force, however, 
continued to be high, with 15 measures at the end of 2019. Two of these measures were 
under  review  at  the  end  of  2019  (Laminated  steel  from  Finland  and  Germany,  and 
Phenol from the EU).  

Morocco 

Morocco showed intense TDI activity in 2019 (total of 8 measures in force against EU 
exports). 

55 

 
 
 
 
 
 
During 2019, Morocco initiated 2 new safeguard investigations (Hot-rolled steel sheets 
and Tubes & pipes), imposed 1 new safeguard measure (Wooden panels) and reviewed 
3 safeguard measures in force (Cold-rolled steel sheets, Bars and wire rods, and Paper 
reels).  In  addition,  Morocco  initiated  an  expiry  review  on  one  AD  measure  (Insulin 
from Denmark), which is currently being negotiated bilaterally in order to reach, once 
again, an agreement (price undertaking) with the enterprise concerned.  

Regarding the two on-going safeguard investigations on steel products, there has been a 
lot of interest from the industry and Member States (mainly Spain). Consequently, the 
Commission  has  been  closely  following  and  intervening  in  all  steps  of  these 
investigations,  submitting  written  comments  and  participating  in  the  public  hearing. 
These proceedings will continue to be closely monitored.  

Other important cases  

Colombia - Frozen fries from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany (AD) 

In November 2018, Colombia imposed definitive anti-dumping measures for 2 years on 
imports of frozen fries from Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Duties on imports 
from  cooperating  producers  range  from  ~3%  to  ~8%  and  affect  75%  of  EU  exports. 
Duties on “other exporters” of 44% affect around 9% of EU exports. The Commission 
has been very active in this investigation and intervened with the Colombian authorities 
at both technical and political level more than 30 times. Despite the significant efforts, 
anti-dumping measures could not be avoided. Member States and the industry strongly 
advocated for WTO action to avoid replication by other countries (Colombia is already 
the  third  country  imposing  measures  on  frozen  fries,  after  South  Africa  and  Brazil). 
Following the imposition of measures, the Commission requested the revocation of the 
measures through an administrative procedure in Colombia (‘revocatoria directa’) in an 
attempt  to  reach  a  quick  settlement  in  the  case.  However,  Colombia  rejected  the 
revocation  on  13  May  2018.  The  EU  formally  requested  WTO  consultations  with 
Colombia on 15 November 2019. 

South Africa – Frozen potato chips from Belgium and the Netherlands - expiry review 
(AD) 

In October 2016, South Africa imposed AD measures on imports of frozen potato chips 
from Belgium and the Netherlands (measures are in the range of 6.19% - 30.77%). The 
EU economic interest  is  €  21 million.  South  Africa initiated the sunset review in  July 
2019. The Commission has submitted written comments in support of the EU industry 
and  will  continue  to  closely  monitor  the  proceedings,  particularly  in  view  of  the 
systemic implications of this case. 

South  Africa  –  Frozen  chicken  –  bilateral  safeguard  under  the  European  Partnership 
Agreement (EPA) 

In 2016, South Africa initiated a bilateral safeguard investigation concerning imports of 
poultry from the EU under its EPA with the EU. The duties, which apply until March 
2021, have been set at 35.3% and will be liberalised over time to reach 25% in the last 
year.  The  Commission  has  informed  the  Southern  African  Customs  Union  member 
countries  that  it  does  not  agree  with  the  measures  and  is  considering  to  pursue  the 
bilateral dispute settlement procedure. 

Ukraine – Certain nitrogen fertilisers and complex fertilisers – safeguards 

56 

 
 
 
Ukraine initiated two safeguard investigations on imports of certain nitrogen fertilisers 
and on imports of complex fertilisers in  September 2019. There is  active participation 
by the Member States (in particular Bulgaria, Lithuania and Poland) and EU industry in 
the  two  parallel  investigations,  especially  as  the  economic  interests  are  considerable 
(circa € 190 million in relation to both kinds of fertilizers). The Commission provided 
comments  in  support  of  the  EU  industry  and  will  continue  to  be  active,  especially  in 
view of the important economic interest of these cases. 

Commission’s successful interventions  

The Annual Report outlines the most notable examples of the Commission’s successful 
interventions in 2019, which aimed at avoiding unwarranted trade defence measures by 
third  countries.  More  examples  of  successful  Commission  interventions  are  listed 
below. 

The  Commission  argued  in  a  Chilean  safeguard  investigation  that  the  increase  of 
imports of milk powder and Gouda cheese was not due to  "unforeseen developments" 
and that the injury to the domestic industry was not caused by imports. These are both 
conditions  sine  qua  non  for  the  imposition  of  safeguards.  Following  this  submission, 
Chile terminated its safeguard investigation without imposition of measures. The main 
exporters from the EU were the Netherlands and Germany and the value of exports was 
€ 61 million in 2017. 

The Commission’s action was also fruitful in the AD investigation concerning imports 
of  emulsion-styrene  butadiene  rubber  (E-SBR)  from  Poland  initiated  by  Mexico.  The 
Commission  supported  the  EU  industry  with  written  comments  and  at  a  hearing. 
Following  these  interventions, Mexico  terminated  the  investigation in  January  2019 
with no imposition of duties.  

The Commission also managed to avoid measures in the investigation initiated by India 
on  imports  of  epoxy  resin  (the  EU  economic  interest  amounts  to  €  26  million).  The 
Commission made written and oral interventions during public hearings. Following the 
withdrawal of the complaint by the domestic industry, the investigation was terminated 
without the imposition of measures in January 2019.  

Moreover,  the  Commission  intervened  in  three  safeguard  investigations  targeting  the 
ceramic tiles producers, initiated recently (2018 and 2019) by Ecuador, the GCC and the 
Philippines. In the latter case, the Commission intervened in close cooperation with the 
EU  industry  arguing  inter  alia  that  there  was  no  increase  of  imports  during  the  IP, 
which is one of the condition for the imposition of a safeguard measure. A few months 
later, the Philippine authorities decided not to impose measures. 

Finally, the Commission, in close coordination with the industry and the Member States 
concerned  successfully  intervened  in  the  Moroccan  safeguard  investigation  on  coated 
wood board initiated in July 2018 (EU economic interest amounting to € 19 million in 
2017).  When  the  Moroccan  authorities  issued  their  final  findings  in  July  2019  – 
recommending  applying  safeguard  measures  on  all  imports  for  three  years  –  the 
Commission  requested  bilateral  consultations  in  the  framework  of  the  EU  -  Morocco 
Association  Agreement  and  obtained  a  much  less  penalizing  outcome,  allowing  EU 
exports  to  continue  along  their  historical  trend  without  being  subject  to  additional 
duties. 

Free trade agreements  

57 

 
 
 
During  2019,  the  Commission  continued  negotiations  of  free  trade  agreements,  which 
provided  an  opportunity  to  agree  with  our  partners  on  common  disciplines  in  trade 
defence  proceedings.  The  latter  included  increased  transparency  when  conducting 
investigations and ensuring a balanced approach in the application of duties. This was 
achieved,  for  example,  by  promoting  the  application  of  the  lesser  duty  rule  (where 
justified), by underlining the need for consultations prior to impositions of measures and 
by taking into account the interests of importers and downstream users. Such provisions 
are  now  part  of  the  EU  agreements  with  Korea,  Japan  as  well  as  Singapore,  and  are 
under negotiation with other partners. 

9. 

ACTIVITIES IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE WTO 

9.1. 

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.  

The  EU  also  participates  actively  in  WTO  dispute  settlement  proceedings  as  a  third 
party in relation to TDI. 

Regarding the dispute settlement cases against the EU, the main developments in 2019 
occurred in the following cases:  

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

After substantive meetings with the parties in December 2017 and May 2018, the Panel 
issued,  in  March  2019,  a  confidential  interim  report  for  the  knowledge  of  the  parties 
only and for their comments. On 7 May 2019, China requested the panel to suspend the 
proceedings,  to  which  the  panel  responded  positively,  informing  the  DSB  on  14  June 
2019 of the suspension of its work. The authority of the panel over the case is to last for 
12 months thereafter. 

58 

 
 
 
 
 
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  AD  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.  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.  Further  to  that,  parties  made  their  submissions,  and 
two substantive meetings took place. Parties replied to the Panel’s questions in relation 
to the case. It is now for the Panel to issue a report in the coming months. 

9.2.  Other WTO activities (in more detail) 

The EU remained fully committed and active in pushing a subsidies-related agenda in 
the WTO. In the course of 2019, intensive negotiations on fisheries subsidies continued 
in  Geneva.  The  EU  kept  on  positioning  itself  as  a  leading  proponent  in  these 
negotiations by submitting concrete textual proposals in both main areas of negotiation, 
namely regarding a prohibition of subsidies to IUU fishing and of subsidies contributing 
to overcapacity and overfishing. While no outcome was achieved in 2019, the EU and 
other WTO Members strive for an ambitious and comprehensive result to be reached at 
the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference in Nur-Sultan in June 2020.  

In  April  and  November  2019,  the  EU  participated  in  the  work  of  the  WTO  Subsidies 
and  Countervailing,  Anti-dumping  and  Safeguards  Committees.  The  EU  also 
participated  in  meetings  of  the  Informal  Group  on  Anti-Circumvention  as  well  as  the 
Anti-dumping  Working  Group  on  Implementation  (WGI).  These  Committees/Groups 
always meet twice yearly, in spring and autumn.  

In  the  Anti-dumping  Committee,  the  EU  continued  to  engage  in  a  discussion  on  the 
changes to the EU’s anti-dumping legislation of December 2017 and June 2018, which 
introduced  the  new  calculation  methodology  as  well  as  the  modernisation  of  TDI, 
respectively.  In  particular,  the  practical  application  of  the  legislative  amendments  was 
discussed.  The  EU  also  took  the  opportunity  to  raise  certain  cases  by  third  countries 
which impact on EU exporters such as the anti-dumping investigation by Colombia on 

59 

 
 
frozen fries from a number of EU Member States. The EU also responded to questions 
and provided clarifications regarding some of its anti-dumping investigations. 

In the Informal Group on Anti-Circumvention in April, Australia gave a presentation on 
its  anti-circumvention  legislation  and  practice.  Australia  explained  that,  so  far,  they 
have had very few cases, with their main experience of circumvention concerning slight 
modification of goods. In the November meeting of the Anti-circumvention Group, the 
US gave an update on its duty evasion investigations highlighting the fact that, since the 
legislation entered into force in 2016, the number of submissions had tripled.   

The  EU  also  participated  in  both  sessions  of  the  Anti-dumping  Working  Group  on 
Implementation  (WGI).  In  April  2019,  the  topics  discussed  were:  (i)  gathering  and 
examination  of  evidence  for  the  determination  of  a  causal  relationship  between  the 
dumped imports and the injury to the domestic industry; and (ii) assessment of domestic 
industry's  economic  indicators  in  threat  of  injury  analysis.  In  the  November  2019 
meeting of the WGI the following topics were discussed: (i) verification procedures; (ii) 
treatment  of 
in  dumping  margin 
calculations/sales  below  cost  test;  and  (iii)  determination  of  the  base  price  for  the 
below-cost test.  

financial  expenses  and 

financial 

income 

In  the  regular  meetings  of  the  Subsidies  and  Countervailing  Measures  (SCM) 
Committee,  discussions  continued  on  the  role  of  subsidies  as  a  contributor  to  excess 
capacity in various sectors of economic activity. In this context, in April, the US and EU 
co-hosted a presentation of the OECD Report on “Measuring distortions in international 
markets: the aluminium  value chain”,  given by the report’s authors.  At the November 
meeting  of  the  SCM  Committee,  the  issue  of  overcapacity  was  further  discussed 
alongside  a  presentation  on  the  work  of  the  Global  Forum  on  Steel  Excess  capacity. 
Discussions  also  took  place  on  ways  to  improve  transparency  on  subsidies  by  WTO 
members  with  the  EU  reiterating  the  importance  of  meeting  the  subsidy  notification 
obligations of the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures.  

Reviews  of the 2017 Subsidy notification continued in  April at  the special  meeting of 
the SCM Committee. At the start of July 2019, the EU submitted its new and complete 
subsidy  notification  to  the  WTO  covering  subsidies  granted  in  2017  and  2018.  This 
exercise  is  done  every  second  year  and  covers  the  subsidies  granted  at  both  EU  level 
and  by  the  individual  Member  States.  Reviews  of  the  2019  subsidy  notifications 
commenced at the November special meeting of the SCM Committee and will continue 
into 2020.  

In the WTO Committee on Safeguards, the EU raised a number of concerns relating to 
other Members’ safeguard investigations (e.g. Philippines – ceramic floor and wall tiles, 
Turkey  –  yarn  of  nylon  and  other  polyamides,  Ukraine  –  nitrogen  fertilizers, 
polyurethane  foams).  The  EU  also  responded  to  questions  by  other  WTO  members 
concerning the safeguard measures on certain steel products, notably the results of the 
most recent review of these measures. 

60 

 
 
 
ANNEX 

ANNEX A 

LIST OF ANNEXES 

SUMMARY 

New investigations, including re-openings, initiated during the period 1 January 
– 31 December 2019 

ANNEX B 

New investigations initiated  

ANNEX C 

ANNEX D 

ANNEX E 

ANNEX F 

ANNEX G 

Imposition of provisional duties in the course of new investigations during the 
period 1 January – 31 December 2019 

New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties during the 
period 1 January – 31 December 2019 

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures during the 
period 1 January – 31 December 2019 

Expiry reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2019 

Interim reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2019 

ANNEX H 

Other reviews concluded during the period 1 January – 31 December 2019 

ANNEX I 

ANNEX J 

ANNEX K 

ANNEX L 

New exporter reviews initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 31 
December 2019 

Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 
January – 31 December 2019 

Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 
January – 31 December 2019 

Safeguard investigations initiated or concluded during the period 1 January – 
31 December 2019 

ANNEX M 

Undertakings accepted or repealed during the period 1 January – 31 December 
2019 

ANNEX N 

Measures which expired during the period 1 January – 31 December 2019 

ANNEX O 

Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2019 

ANNEX P 

Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2019 

ANNEX Q 

Undertakings in force on 31 December 2019 

ANNEX R 

Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending on 31 December 2019 
(including cases were provisional measures were imposed) 

ANNEX S 

Court cases 

ANNEX T 

Safeguard measures in force on 31 December 2019 

ANNEX U 

Third countries’ measures targeting the EU 

61 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  A 

New investigations initiated 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 

A. Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Steel road wheels 

Glass fibre fabrics (certain woven and/or stitched) 

Glass fibre reinforcements (glass fibres products) (GFR) 

Polyvinyl alcohol (certain) (PVA) 

Stainless steel hot-rolled flat products (SSHR) 

Thermal paper (certain heavyweight) 

Pins and staples 

Country of 
origin 

OJ 
Reference 

People's Republic 
of China 

15.02.2019 
OJ C 60, p. 19 
[AD652] 

Egypt, 
People's Republic 
of China 

21.02.2019 
OJ C 68, p. 29 
[AD653] 

Bahrain, 
Egypt 

People's Republic 
of China 

Indonesia, 
People's Republic 
of China, 
Taiwan 

Republic of Korea 

People's Republic 
of China 

03.05.2019 
OJ C 151, p. 4 
[AD655] 

30.07.2019 
OJ C 256, p. 4 
[AD654] 

12.08.2019 
OJ C269, p. 1 
[AD658] 

10.10.2019 
OJ C342, p. 8 
[AD659] 

18.12.2019 
OJ C425, p. 21 
[AD663] 

B. Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Glass fibre fabrics (certain woven and/or stitched) 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

OJ 
Reference 

Egypt, 
People's Republic 
of China 

16.05.2019 
OJ C167, p. 11 
[AS656] 

Glass fibre reinforcements (glass fibres products) (GFR) 

Egypt 

07.06.2019 
OJ C 192, p. 
30 
[AS657] 

Stainless steel hot-rolled flat products (SSHR) 

Indonesia, 
People's Republic 
of China 

10.10.2019 
OJ C342, p. 18 
[AS660] 

62 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
     A) New investigations initiated by product sector during the period 2015 - 2019  

ANNEX  B 

Product sector 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Chemical and allied 

Textiles and allied 

Wood and paper 

Electronics 

Other mechanical engineering 

Iron and Steel 

Other metals 

Other 

Total 

6 

- 

- 

- 

- 

6 

- 

2 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

13 

- 

- 

5  

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

2 

3 

5 

- 

- 

- 

- 

4 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

8 

- 

7 

14 

15 

11 

10 

16 

Of which 

anti-dumping 

anti-subsidy 

12 

2 

14 

1 

9 

2 

8 

2 

13 

3 

63 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B) New investigations initiated by country of export during the period 2015 - 2019 
(31 December) 

Country of origin 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

Argentina 

Bahrain 

Belarus 

Bosnia and Herzegovina 

Brazil 

Egypt 

Georgia 

India 

Indonesia 

Iran 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

North Macedonia 

People's Republic of China 

Republic of Korea 

Russian Federation 

Serbia 

Taiwan 

Trinidad and Tobago 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

United States 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

2 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

6 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

6 

2 

1 

1 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

1 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

5 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

1 

1 

- 

2 

- 

- 

1 

1 

- 

1 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

4 

- 

- 

2 

- 

- 

- 

- 

7 

1 

- 

- 

1 

- 

- 

- 

- 

14 

15 

11 

10 

16 

64 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  C 

New investigations concluded by the imposition of provisional duties 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 

A. Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN) 

Steel road wheels 

Country of 
origin 

Russian 
Federation, 
Trinidad and 
Tobago, 
United States 

People's Republic 
of China 

Regulation NO 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2019/576 
10.04.2019 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2019/1693 
09.10.2019 

OJ 
Reference 

11.04.2019 
OJ L 100, p. 7 
[AD649] 

10.10.2019 
OJ L 259, p. 15 
[AD652] 

B. Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Biodiesel 

Country of 
origin 

Indonesia 

Regulation NO 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2019/1344 
12.08.2019 

OJ 
Reference 

13.08.2019 
OJ L 212, p. 1 
[AS650] 

65 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  D 

New investigations concluded by the imposition of definitive duties 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 

A. Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Bicycles (electric) 

Urea and ammonium nitrate (UAN) 

Country of 
origin 

People's Republic 
of China 

Russian 
Federation, 
Trinidad and 
Tobago, 
United States 

Regulation NO 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2019/73  
17.01.2019 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2019/1688 
08.10.2019 

OJ 
Reference 

18.01.2019 
OJ L 16, p. 108 
[AD643] 

09.10.2019 
OJ L 258, p. 21 
[AD649] 

B. Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Bicycles (electric) 

Country of 
origin 

People's Republic 
of China 

Biodiesel 

Argentina 

Biodiesel 

Indonesia 

Regulation NO 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2019/72  
17.01.2019 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
DECISION (EU) 
2019/245 
11.02.2019 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2019/2092 
28.11.2019 

OJ 
Reference 

18.01.2019 
OJ L 16, p. 5 
[AS646] 

12.02.2019 
OJ L 40, p. 71 
[AS644] 

09.12.2019 
OJ L 317, p.42 
[AS650] 

66 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  E 

New investigations terminated without the imposition of measures 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 

A. Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Decision NO 

Bioethanol 

United States 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2019/765  
14.05.2019 

Hollow sections 

Republic of North 
Macedonia,  
Russian Federation, 
Turkey 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
DECISION (EU) 
2019/1109 
28.06.2019 

OJ 
Reference 

OJ L 126; 
15.05.2019, p. 
4 

L 175; 
28.06.2019, 
p.39 

Hot-rolled sheet steel piles 

People's Republic of 
China 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
DECISION (EU) 
2019/1146 of 4 July 
2019 

L 181; 
05.07.2019, 
p.89 

B. Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

None 

Country of 
origin 

- 

- 

Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

- 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  F 

Expiry reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Ferro-silicon 

Product 

Solar glass 

Solar glass 

Initiated 

Country of origin 
People's Republic of China, 
Russian Federation 

People's Republic of China 

People's Republic of China 

Ammonium nitrate 

Russian Federation 

Citrus fruits 

People's Republic of China 

Glass fibre products (GFP) 

People's Republic of China 

Sulphanilic acid 

People's Republic of China 

OJ Reference 

02.04.2019 
OJ C 123, p. 9 
[R698] 

14.05.2019 
OJ C 165, p. 6 
[R701] 

14.05.2019 
OJ C165, p. 22 
[R702] 

23.09.2019 
OJ C 318, p. 6 
[R706] 

10.12.2019 
OJ C414, p. 14 
[R709] 

17.12.2019 
OJ C424, p. 5 
[R708] 

18.12.2019 
OJ C 425, p. 39 
[R716] 

Concluded: confirmation of duty 

Product 

Aluminium radiators (certain) 

Chamois leather 

Tube and pipe fittings (certain) 

Country of 
origin 
People's Republic 
of China 

People's Republic 
of China 

Malaysia, 
Republic of 
Korea, 
Russian 
Federation 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 
Commission Implementing 
Regulation (Eu) 2019/59  
14.01.2019 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (Eu) 2019/297  
20.02.2019 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (Eu) 2019/566 
09.10.2019 

OJ 
Reference 

15.01.2019 
OJ L 12, p. 13 
[R676] 

21.02.2019 
OJ L 50, p. 5 
[R678] 

10.04.2019 
OJ L 99, p. 9 
[R682] 

Organic coated steel products 
(certain) 

People's Republic 
of China 

Organic coated steel products 
(certain) 

People's Republic 
of China 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (Eu) 2019/687 
02.05.2019 

03.05.2019 
OJ L 116, p. 5 
[R683] 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/688 
02.05.2019 

03.05.2019 
OJ L 116, p. 
39 
[R686] 

68 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Product 

Aluminium foil in small rolls 

Tableware and kitchenware 

Concluded: confirmation of duty 

Country of 
origin 
People's Republic 
of China 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 
Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/915 
04.06.2019 

OJ 
Reference 

05.06.2019 
OJ L 146, p.63 
[R684] 

People's Republic 
of China 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1198 
12.07.2019 

15.07.2019 
OJ L189, p. 8 
[R687] 

Malleable tube fittings (threaded, 
of cast iron)(MTF) 

People's Republic 
of China, 
Thailand 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1259  
24.07.2019 

25.07.2019 
OJ L 197, p. 2 
[R692] 

Tungsten electrodes 

People's Republic 
of China 

PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) 

India 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1267 
26.07.2019 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1286 
30.07.2019 

Bicycles 

Ironing boards 

People's Republic 
of China 

People's Republic 
of China 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1379 
28.08.2019 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1662 
01.10.2019 

29.07.2019 
OJ L 200, p. 4 
[R685] 

31.07.2019 
OJ L 202, p. 
81 
[R694] 
29.08.2019 
OJ L 225, p. 1 
[R688] 

02.10.2019 
OJ L 252, p. 1 
[R693] 

Sweetcorn in kernels 

Thailand 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/1996 
28.11.2019 

02.12.2019 
OJ L310, p. 6 
[R695] 

Concluded: termination and repeal of the measures 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Tube and pipe fittings 

Turkey 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 
Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/566 
09.04.2019  

OJ Reference 

L 99; 
10.04.2019, p.9 

Bioethanol 

USA 

Commission Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 2019/765 
14.05.2019 

L 126; 
15.05.2019, p.4 

69 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  G 

Interim reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Initiated 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

OJ 
Reference 

PET (Polyethylene terephthalate) 

India 

Rainbow trout 

Turkey 

C 111; 
25.03.2019 
p. 47 

C 176; 
22.05.2019 
p. 24 

Concluded: amendment of duty 

Product 

Seamless pipes and tubes (STP) 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

Ukraine, 
Russia 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/1295 
01.08.2019 

L 204; 
02.08.2019, 
p.22 

Concluded by termination without amendment of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

Commission 
Implementing 
Decision (EU) 
2019/1145 of 4 
July 2019 

L 181; 
05.07.2019, 
p.87 

Concluded: termination and repeal of measures 

Product 

None 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

- 

- 

- 

70 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  H 

Other reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Initiated 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

OJ 
Reference 

Ductile pipes (tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron) [Re-
opening] 

Ductile pipes (tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron) [Re-
opening] 

Iron or steel fasteners (certain) [Re-opening] 

India 

India 

C 209; 
20.06.2019 
p. 35 

C 209; 
20.06.2019 
p. 35 

People's Republic 
of China, 
Malaysia (ext) 

L 223, 
27.08.2019 
p. 1 

Sweet corn in kernels  [Re-opening] 

Thailand 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings, of malleable cast iron 
[Re-opening] 

People's Republic 
of China 

Bicycles [Re-opening] 

Sri Lanka 

C 291 
29.08.2019 
p. 3 

C 403; 
29.11.2019, 
p.63 

L 310; 
02.12.2019, 
p.29 

Concluded: confirmation/amendment of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

- 

- 

- 

Concluded: termination and repeal of measures 

Product 

None 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

- 

- 

- 

71 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  I 

New exporter reviews initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 
(chronological by date of publication) 

A. Anti-dumping investigations 

Product 

Bicycles 

Initiated 

Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 

People’s Republic 
of China 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/2149 of 13 
December 2019  

L 325; 
16.12.2019, 
p.159  

Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

- 

- 

- 

Product 

Concluded: termination 

Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

- 

- 

- 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B. Anti-subsidy investigations ("accelerated" investigations) 

Product 

Initiated 

Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

- 

- 

- 

Concluded: imposition/amendment of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

- 

- 

- 

Product 

Concluded: termination 

Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

- 

- 

- 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  J 

Anti-absorption investigations initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Initiated 

Castings (cast iron articles) 

Product 

Country of 
origin 
People's Republic 
of China 

OJ 
Reference 

C 425; 
18.12.2019 
p. 9 
[R715] 

Concluded with increase of duty 

Product 

None 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

- 

- 

- 

OJ 
Reference 

L 20; 
23.01.2019, 
p.3 

Concluded without increase of duty / termination 
Regulation / 
Decision No 

Country of 
origin 

Product 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
REGULATION (EU) 
2019/99 
22.01.2019 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  K 

Anti-circumvention investigations initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 

Product 

Tableware and kitchenware (ceramic) 

Initiated 
Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 
People's Republic 
of China 

Persulphates (Peroxosulphates) 

People's Republic 
of China 

Corrosion resistant steels (CRS) 

People's Republic 
of China 

Tungsten electrodes 

People's Republic 
of China, 
India (ext), 
Lao People's 
Democratic 
Republic (ext), 
Thailand (ext) 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/464 
21.03.2019 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/1584 
26.09.2019 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/1948 
26.11.2019 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/2171 
17.12.2019 

22.03.2019 
OJ L 80, p. 18 
[R700] 

26.09.2019 
OJ L 246, p. 19 
[R707] 

26.11.2019 
OJ L 304, p. 10 
[R705] 

19.12.2019 
OJ L329, p.86 
[R710] 

Concluded with extension of duty 

Product 

Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation NO 

OJ 
Reference 

Concluded without extension of duty / termination 

Product 

Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 

75 

Regulation NO 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

None 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Exemptions granted and/or rejected 

Country of 
origin  
(consigned 
from) 

Regulation NO 

OJ 
Reference 

Product 

None 

76 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  L 

Safeguard investigations initiated or concluded 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 
(chronological by date of publication) 

New investigations initiated 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

OJ 
Reference 

None 

Review investigations initiated / concluded 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

OJ 
Reference 

Steel products 

Erga omnes 

C 169; 
17.05.2019, 
p.9 
L 248, 
27.9.2019, 
p.28 

New investigations terminated without imposition of measures 

Product 

None 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

OJ 
Reference 

Safeguard investigations concluded with measures 
Regulation / 
Decision NO 

Country of 
origin 

Product 

Steel products 

Erga omnes 

Indica rice 

Cambodia, 
Myanmar 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/159 of 
31.01.2019 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/67 of 
16.01.2019 

OJ 
Reference 

L 31; 
01.02.2019, 
p.27 

L 15; 
17.01.2019, 
p.5 

Safeguard measures which expired 

Product 

Country of 
origin 

Date of 
expiry 

None 

77 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  M 

Undertakings accepted or repealed 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 
(chronological by date of publication) 

Undertakings accepted 

Product 

Country of origin  Regulation NO 

Biodiesel 

Argentina 

Commission 
Implementing 
Decision (EU) 
2019/245 
11.02.2019 

OJ 
Reference 
L 40; 
12.02.2019, 
p.71 

Product 

None 

Undertakings withdrawn or repealed 

Country of 
origin 

Regulation NO 

OJ 
Reference 

Product 

None 

Undertakings which expired/lapsed 

Country of 
origin 

Original 
measure(s) & 
OJ Reference 

OJ 
Reference 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  N 

Measures which expired / lapsed 
during the period 1 January - 31 December 2019 
(chronological by date of publication) 

A. Anti-dumping investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

 Manganese dioxides 

 South Africa 

Original 
measure  
& OJ Reference 

Council 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
191/2014  
(OJ L 59,  
28.2.2014, p. 7) 

OJ 
Reference 

C 68; 
21.02.2019,  
p.28 

B. Anti-subsidy investigations (chronological by date of publication) 

Product 

Country of origin 

Original 
measure  
& OJ Reference 

OJ Reference 

 None 

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  O 

Definitive anti-dumping measures in force on 31 December 2019 

A. Ranked by product (alphabetical) 

Case 

Country 

Extension  Regulation 

Acesulfame potassium 

P.R. China 

Aluminium foil 

P.R. China 

Aluminium foil 

Russia 

Aluminium foil (rolls of less than 10 kg) 

P.R. China 

Aluminium radiators 
Aluminium road wheels 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Ammonium nitrate 

Russia 

Aspartame 

P.R. China 

Barium carbonate 

P.R. China 

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 146; 05.06.2019, p. 63 

L 124, 11.05.2012, p. 17 
L 310, 09.11.2012, p. 1 
L 12; 15.01.2019, p.22 
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 
L 225; 29.08.2019, p.1 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Indonesia 

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

P.R. China  Malaysia 

P.R. China  Sri Lanka 

P.R. China  Tunisia 

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 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Bicycles 

Bicycles 

Bicycles 

P.R. China  Cambodia 

P.R. China  Pakistan 

P.R. China  Philippines 

Bicycles (parts) 

P.R. China 

China 
(bicycle 
parts) 

Biodiesel 
Biodiesel 

USA 
USA 

Canada 

Cast iron articles 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tiles 

P.R. China 

Certain corrosion resistant steels 

P.R. China 

Chamois leather 
Citric acid 
Citric acid 

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

Citrus fruits 

P.R. China 

Coated fine paper 

P.R. China 

Cold-rolled flat steel products 

P.R. China 

Cold-rolled flat steel products 

Russia 

81 

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

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

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

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

L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 69 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, p.31 
L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1 

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 
L 189; 15.07.2019, p.8 

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 50; 21.02.2019, p.5 
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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
E-bicycles 
Ferro-silicon 
Ferro-silicon 

P.R. China 
Russia 
P.R. China 

Filament glass fibre products 

P.R. China 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-
electrical steel 

USA 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-
electrical steel 

Russia 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-
electrical steel 

Korea 
(Rep. of) 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-
electrical steel 

Japan 

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

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

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts 
P.R. China 
Heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel  P.R. China 

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 

P.R. China 

Ukraine 

Russia 

Iran 

Brazil 

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

P.R. China 

82 

L 181; 18.07.2018, p.7 
L 16; 18.01.2019, p.108 
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 
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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Ironing boards 

P.R. China 

Ironing boards 

P.R. China 

Lever arch mechanisms 

P.R. China 

Melamine 

P.R. China 

Mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate 

USA 

Mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate 

Trinidad 
and 
Tobago 

Mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate 

Russia 

Molybdenum wires 

P.R. China  Malaysia 

Molybdenum wires  
Monosodium glutamate 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Monosodium glutamate 

Indonesia 

L 338; 20.12.2010, p.22 
L 252; 02.10.2019, p.1 

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

L 100; 11.04.2019, p.7 
L 258; 09.10.2019, p.21 

L 100; 11.04.2019, p.7 
L 258; 09.10.2019, p.21 

L 100; 11.04.2019, p.7 
L 258; 09.10.2019, p.21 

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 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or 
lorries 

P.R. China 

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

Okoumé plywood 

P.R. China 

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

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

India 
Indonesia 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China  Thailand 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China  Taiwan 

83 

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

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

Extension (circum.) 
L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1 

Extension (circum.) 
L 11, 16.01.2013, p. 1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China  Malaysia 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

P.R. China 

Organic coated steel 

P.R. China 

Oxalic acid 

Oxalic acid 
Peroxosulphates  
Polyester high tenacity filament yarn 

P.R. China 

India 
P.R. China 
P.R. China 

PSC wires and strands 

P.R. China 

Rebars 
Ringbinder mechanisms 
Ringbinder mechanisms 
Ringbinder mechanisms 

Belarus 
P.R. China  Laos 
P.R. China  Vietnam 
P.R. China 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

Ukraine 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 
Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

Russia 
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 

Silicon metal (silicon) 
Silicon metal (silicon) 
Sodium cyclamate 

Korea 
(Rep. of) 

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

84 

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 116; 03.05.2019, p. 5 

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 

L 13; 15.01.2007, p.1 
L 179; 05.07.2016, p.1 
L 192; 16.07.2016, p.23 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sodium cyclamate 
Sodium cyclamate 
Sodium gluconate 

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

P.R. China 

Taiwan 

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 

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 

Korea 
P.R. China 
(Rep. of) 
P.R. China  Morocco 

Steel ropes and cables 
Sulphanilic acid 

P.R. China 
P.R. China 

Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in 
kernels) 

Thailand 

Tartaric Acid 

Thermal paper 

P.R. China 

Korea 
(Rep. of) 

85 

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 
L 310; 02.12.2019, p.6 

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 197;  25.07.2019, p.2 

L 318, 15.11.2012, p. 10 
L 129, 14.05.2013, p. 1 
L 197;  25.07.2019, p.2 

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 99; 10.04.2019, p.9 
L 116; 27.04.2006, p.1 
L 355; 22.11.2004, p.9 
L 335; 22.11.2004, p.4 
L 94; 14.04.2000, p.1 
L 282, 28.10.2015, p. 14 

L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L58; 04.03.2016, p.38 
L 99; 10.04.2019, p.9 

L 347, 03.12.2014, p. 17 
Amendment ((partial) 
interim review) 
L58; 04.03.2016, p.38 
L 99; 10.04.2019, p.9 

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 200; 29.07.2019, p. 4 

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 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of 
malleable cast iron 

Thailand 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of 
malleable cast iron 

P.R. China 

Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA)  

P.R. China 

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 
Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Russia 
P.R. China  Philippines 
P.R. China  Sri Lanka 
P.R. China 
Indonesia 
P.R. China  Taiwan 
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 

86 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
B. Ranked by country (alphabetical) 

Country 

Case 

Extension 

Regulation 

Belarus 

Rebars 

Belarus 

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel  

Brazil 

India 

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

Graphite electrode systems 

India 

Oxalic acid 

India 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

Indonesia 

Monosodium glutamate 

Indonesia 

Sodium cyclamate 

Iran 

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

Japan 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel 

Korea (Rep. of)  Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel 

Korea (Rep. of) 

Thermal paper 

Korea (Rep. of) 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

87 

L 345; 
20.12.2016; p.4 
L 155; 
17.06.2017, p.6 
L 20, 27.01.2015, 
p. 6 
L 258; 
06.10.2017, p.24 
L 64; 10.03.2017, 
p.46 

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 

L 246, 
21.08.2014, p. 1 
L 15, 22.01.2015, 
p. 54 
L 192; 
16.07.2016, p.49 
L 258; 
06.10.2017, p.24 

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

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

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

L 347, 
03.12.2014, p. 17 
Amendment 
((partial) interim 
review) 
L58; 04.03.2016, 
p.38 
L 99; 10.04.2019, 
p.9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
L 347, 
03.12.2014, p. 17 
Amendment 
((partial) interim 
review) 
L58; 04.03.2016, 
p.38 
L 99; 10.04.2019, 
p.9 

L 125, 
21.05.2015, p. 15 
L 287, 
31.10.2015, p. 52 

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

L 251, 
18.09.2012, p. 29 
L 69, 13.03.2013, 
p. 11 
L 146; 
05.06.2019, p. 63 

L 124, 
11.05.2012, p. 17 
L 310, 
09.11.2012, p. 1 
L 12; 15.01.2019, 
p.22 
L 18; 24.01.2017, 
p.1 

L 50; 26.02.2016, 
p.4 
L 204; 
29.07.2016, p.92 

L 27; 28.01.2005, 
p.4 
L189; 18.07.2005. 
p.15 
L 250; 
28.09.2017, p.34 

Amendment 
((partial) interim 
review) 
L 153, 
05.06.2013, p. 17 
Amendment 
L 47; 24.02.2017, 
p.13 
L 225; 
29.08.2019, p.1 

Malaysia 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

P.R. China 

Acesulfame potassium 

P.R. China 

Aluminium foil 

P.R. China 

Aluminium foil (rolls of less than 10 kg) 

P.R. China 

Aluminium radiators 

P.R. China 

Aluminium road wheels 

P.R. China 

Aspartame 

P.R. China 

Barium carbonate 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

88 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L 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 
L 189; 
15.07.2019, p.8 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Indonesia 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Malaysia 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Sri Lanka 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Tunisia 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Cambodia 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Pakistan 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

Philippines 

P.R. China 

Bicycles (parts) 

China  
(bicycle parts) 

P.R. China 

Cast iron articles 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 

89 

 
 
 
P.R. China 

Ceramic tiles 

P.R. China 

Certain corrosion resistant steels 

P.R. China 

Chamois leather 

P.R. China 

Citric acid 

Malaysia 

P.R. China 

Citric acid 

P.R. China 

Citrus fruits 

P.R. China 

Coated fine paper 

P.R. China 

cold-rolled flat steel products 

P.R. China 

E-bicycles 

P.R. China 

Ferro-silicon 

P.R. China 

Filament glass fibre products 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

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

Thailand 

90 

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 50; 21.02.2019, 
p.5 
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 181; 
18.07.2018, p.7 
L 16; 18.01.2019, 
p.108 
L 107, 
10.04.2014, p. 13 

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

L 120, 
13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 
30.10.2015, p. 
109 
L 151; 
11.06.2009, p.1 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Amendment 
((partial) interim 
review) 
L 112, 
24.04.2013, p. 1 
Amendment 
(newcomer) 
L 265, 
05.09.2014, p. 7 
Extension 
(circum.) 
L 214; 
09.08.2016, p.1 
L 50; 28.02.2017, 
p.18 

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

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

L 338; 
20.12.2010, p.22 
L 252; 
02.10.2019, p.1 

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 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 

P.R. China 

Hand pallet trucks and their essential parts 

P.R. China 

Heavy plate of non-alloy or other alloy steel 

P.R. China 

High fatigue performance steel concrete reinforcement bars 

P.R. China 

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

P.R. China 

Ironing boards 

P.R. China 

Ironing boards 

P.R. China 

Lever arch mechanisms 

P.R. China 

Melamine 

P.R. China 

Molybdenum wires 

Malaysia 

91 

 
 
 
 
 
 
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 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 

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 

P.R. China 

Molybdenum wires  

P.R. China 

Monosodium glutamate 

P.R. China 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 

P.R. China 

Okoumé plywood 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

India 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Indonesia 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Thailand 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Taiwan 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

Malaysia 

P.R. China 

Open mesh fabrics of glass fibres  

92 

 
 
 
 
 
P.R. China 

Organic coated steel 

P.R. China 

Oxalic acid 

P.R. China 

Peroxosulphates  

P.R. China 

Polyester high tenacity filament yarn 

P.R. China 

PSC wires and strands 

P.R. China 

Ringbinder mechanisms 

Laos 

P.R. China 

Ringbinder mechanisms 

Vietnam 

P.R. China 

Ringbinder mechanisms 

P.R. China 

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) 

Taiwan 

P.R. China 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

Korea (Rep. of) 

P.R. China 

Silicon metal (silicon) 

P.R. China 

Sodium cyclamate 

93 

L 252, 
19.09.2012, p. 33 
L 73, 15.03.2013, 
p. 1 
L 116; 
03.05.2019, p. 5 

L 106, 
18.04.2012, p. 1 
L 321; 
29.11.2016, p.48 
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 7; 12.01.2006, 
p.1 

L 232; 
28.06.2004, p.1 

L 122; 
12.05.2016, p.1 

L 322, 
08.12.2015, p. 21 

L 169; 
27.06.2011, p.1 
L 336; 
14.12.2011, p.6 
L 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 

L 13; 15.01.2007, 
p.1 

L 179; 
05.07.2016, p.1 
L 192; 
16.07.2016, p.23 

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

L 16; 20.01.2017, 
p.3 

L 316, 
27.11.2013, p. 8 
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 22; 27.01.2017, 
p.14 

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

L36, 09.02.2012; 
p. 1 

L36, 09.02.2012; 
p. 1 
L 101; 
20.04.2018, p.40 
L 363, 
18.02.2014, p. 82 

P.R. China 

Sodium cyclamate 

P.R. China 

Sodium gluconate 

P.R. China 

Solar glass 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings 

P.R. China 

Steel ropes and cables 

Korea (Rep. of) 

P.R. China 

Steel ropes and cables 

Morocco 

P.R. China 

Steel ropes and cables 

P.R. China 

Sulphanilic acid 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 318, 
15.11.2012, p. 10 
L 129, 
14.05.2013, p. 1 
L 197;  
25.07.2019, p.2 

Amendment 
(newcomer) 
L 157, 
27.05.2014, p. 80 
L 319; 
05.12.2017, p.10 
L 116; 
27.04.2006, p.1 
L 355; 
22.11.2004, p.9 
L 335; 
22.11.2004, p.4 
L 94; 14.04.2000, 
p.1 
L 282, 
28.10.2015, p. 14 

Initiation 
C 322; 
15.12.1988, p.7 
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 200; 
29.07.2019, p. 4 
L 20, 27.01.2015, 
p. 6 
L 268, 
15.10.2015, p. 9 

P.R. China 

Tartaric Acid 

P.R. China 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron 

P.R. China 

Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA)  

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Philippines 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Sri Lanka 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Indonesia 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Taiwan 

P.R. China 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

P.R. China 

Tungsten carbide and fused tungsten carbide 

P.R. China 

Tungsten electrodes 

P.R. China 

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel  

P.R. China 

Wire rod 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
Russia 

Aluminium foil 

Russia 

Ammonium nitrate 

Russia 

Russia 

Russia 

Russia 

Cold-rolled flat steel products 

Ferro-silicon 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel 

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

Russia 

Mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate 

Russia 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

Russia 

Russia 

Taiwan 

Taiwan 

Tube and pipe fitting, of iron or steel 

Welded tubes and pipes of iron or non-alloy steel  

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products 

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings 

Thailand 

Sweet corn (prepared or preserved in kernels) 

96 

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

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

L 37;  12.02.2016, 
p.1 
L 210; 
04.08.2016, p.1 
L 107, 
10.04.2014, p. 13 

L 120, 
13.05.2015, p. 10 
L 284, 
30.10.2015, p. 
109 
L 258; 
06.10.2017, p.24 

L 100; 
11.04.2019, p.7 
L 258; 
09.10.2019, p.21 

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

L 203, 
31.07.2012, p. 37 
L 27, 29.01.2013, 
p. 1 
L 99; 10.04.2019, 
p.9 
L 20, 27.01.2015, 
p. 6 

L 79, 25.3.15, p. 
23 
L 224, 
27.08.2015, p. 10 
L 22; 27.01.2017, 
p.14 

L 244, 
13.09.2013, p. 1 
Amendment 
((partial) interim 
review) 
L 91, 27.03.2014, 
p. 1 
L 310; 
02.12.2019, p.6 

 
 
 
 
 
Thailand 

Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron 

Trinidad and 
Tobago 

Mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate 

Ukraine 

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

Ukraine 

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel 

USA 

USA 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

Canada 

USA 

Grain oriented flat-rolled products of silicon-electrical steel 

USA 

Mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate 

L 318, 
15.11.2012, p. 10 
L 129, 
14.05.2013, p. 1 
L 197;  
25.07.2019, p.2 

L 100; 
11.04.2019, p.7 
L 258; 
09.10.2019, p.21 
L 258; 
06.10.2017, p.24 

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

L 239, 
15.09.2015, p. 69 
Amendment 
L 116; 
30.04.2016, p.31 
L 122; 
05.05.2011, p.1 

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

L 100; 
11.04.2019, p.7 
L 258; 
09.10.2019, p.21 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  P 

Definitive anti-subsidy measures in force on 31 December 2019 

A. Ranked by product (alphabetical) 

Country 

Extension  Regulation 

Case 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

Biodiesel 

Coated fine paper 

E-bicycles 

Filament glass fibre products 

USA 

Canada 

USA 

Indonesia 

Argentina 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

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

India 

P.R. China 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 

P.R. China 

Organic coated steel  

P.R. China 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

India 

Rainbow trout 

Solar glass 

Turkey 

P.R. China 

Stainless steel bars 

India 

98 

L 122; 05.05.2011, 
p.1 
L 239, 15.09.2015, 
p. 99 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, 
p.27 
L 212; 13.08.2019, 
p.1 
L 317; 09.12.2019, 
p.42 
L 40; 12.02.2019, 
p.71 
L 128; 06.05.2011, 
p.18 
L 171; 04.07.2017, 
p.134 
L 16; 18.01.2019, 
p.5 
L 367, 23.12.2014, 
p. 22 
L 64; 10.03.2017, 
p.10 
L 146; 09.06.2017, 
p.17 
L 283; 12.11.2018, 
p.1 
L 73, 15.03.2013, 
p. 16 
L 116; 03.05.2019, 
p.39 
L 208, 05.08.2015, 
p. 10 
L 202; 31.07.2019, 
p. 81 
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 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

India 

L 73; 18.03.2016, 
p.1 

B. Ranked by country (alphabetical) 

Country 
Argentina 
India 

Cases 
Biodiesel 
Graphite electrode systems 

Extension 

India 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

India 
India 

Stainless steel bars 
Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

Indonesia 

Biodiesel 

P.R. China  Coated fine paper 
P.R. China  E-bicycles 

P.R. China  Filament glass fibre products 

P.R. China  Hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel 
P.R. China  New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries 

P.R. China  Organic coated steel  

P.R. China  Solar glass 

Turkey 
USA 

Rainbow trout 
Biodiesel 

Canada 

USA 

Biodiesel 

Regulation 
L 40; 12.02.2019, p.71 
L 64; 10.03.2017, p.10 
L 208, 05.08.2015, p. 
10 
L 202; 31.07.2019, p. 
81 
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 
L 212; 13.08.2019, p.1 
L 317; 09.12.2019, 
p.42 
L 128; 06.05.2011, 
p.18 
L 171; 04.07.2017, 
p.134 
L 16; 18.01.2019, p.5 
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 116; 03.05.2019, 
p.39 
L 142, 14.05.2014, p. 
23 
L 319, 06.11.2014, p. 
1 
L 56, 27.02.2015, p. 
12 
L 122; 05.05.2011, p.1 
L 239, 15.09.2015, p. 
99 
Amendment 
L 116; 30.04.2016, 
p.27 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  Q 

Undertakings in force on 31 December 2019 

A. Ranked by product (alphabetical) 

Product 

Origin 

Measure 

Regulation 
NO 

Citric acid 

People's Republic 
of China 

Undertakings  COMMISSION 

DECISION of 2 
December 2008  
02.12.2008 

Biodiesel 

Argentina 

Undertakings  COMMISSION 

IMPLEMENTING 
DECISION (EU) 
2019/245 
11.02.2019 

OJ Reference 

03.12.2008 
OJ L 323, p.62 
[AD522] 

12.02.2019 
OJ L 40, p.71 
[AS644] 

B. Ranked by country (alphabetical) 

Product 

Origin 

Measure 

Argentina 

Biodiesel 

Undertakings 

People's Republic 
of China 

Citric acid 

Undertakings 

Regulation 
NO 

COMMISSION 
IMPLEMENTING 
DECISION (EU) 
2019/245 
11.02.2019 

OJ Reference 

12.02.2019 
OJ L 40, p. 71 
[AS644] 

COMMISSION 
DECISION of 2 
December 2008  
02.12.2008 

03.12.2008 
OJ L 323, p.62 
[AD522] 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  R 

Anti-dumping & anti-subsidy investigations pending 
on 31 December 2019 

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

Case 

AD/
AS 

Country 

NoI 

Certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils 

AD 

Indonesia 

C 342; 10.10.2019, p.18 

Certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils 

AD  P.R. China 

C 342; 10.10.2019, p.18 

Certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils 

AD 

Indonesia 

C 269I; 12.08.2019, p. 1 

Certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils 

AD 

Taiwan 

C 269I; 12.08.2019, p. 1 

Certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils 

AD  P.R. China 

C 269I; 12.08.2019, p. 1 

Certain polyvinyl alcohols 

AD  P.R. China 

C 256; 30.07.2019, p. 4 

Continuous filament glass fibre products 

AD  Egypt 

C 151; 03.05.2019, p.4 

Continuous filament glass fibre products 

AD  Bahrain 

C 151; 03.05.2019, p.4 

Continuous filament glass fibre products 

AS 

Egypt 

C 192; 07.06.2019, p.30 

Glass fibre fabrics 

Glass fibre fabrics 

Heavyweight thermal paper 

Pins and staples 

Steel road wheels 

AD  Egypt 

C 68; 21.02.2019, p.29 

AD  P.R. China 

C 68; 21.02.2019, p.29 

AD 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

C 342; 10.10.2019, p.8 

AD  P.R. China 

C 425; 18.12.2019, p.21 

AD  P.R. China 

C 60; 15.02.2019, p.19 

Woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics 

AS 

Egypt 

C 167; 16.05.2019, p.11 

Woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics 

AS 

P.R. China 

C 167; 16.05.2019, p.11 

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

Case 

Ammonium nitrate 

Bicycles 

Cast iron articles 

AD/AS 

AD 

AD 

AD 

Type 

expiry 

new exporter / 
accelerated 

absorption 

101 

Russia 

Country 

NoI 
C 318; 
23.09.2019, p.6 
L 325; 
16.12.2019, 
p.159 
P.R. China  C 425; 

P.R. China 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Ceramic tableware and 
kitchenware 

circumvention 

AD 

P.R. China 

Certain corrosion resistant steels 

circumvention 

AD 

P.R. China 

Citrus fruits 

Continuous filament glass fibre 
products 

Ferro-silicon 

Ferro-silicon 

Peroxosulphates  

expiry 

expiry 

expiry 

expiry 

expiry 

Peroxosulphates  

circumvention 

AD 

AS 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Russia 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

P.R. China 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

interim 

AS 

India 

Rainbow trout 

interim 

AS 

Turkey 

Solar glass 

Solar glass 

Sulphanilic acid 

expiry 

expiry 

expiry 

AD 

P.R. China 

AS 

P.R. China 

AD 

P.R. China 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast 
iron 

interim 

AS 

India 

Tungsten electrodes 

circumvention 

AD 

P.R. China 

18.12.2019, p.9 
L 80; 
22.03.2019, 
p.18 
L 304; 
26.11.2019, 
p.10 
C 414; 
10.12.2019, 
p.14 
C 424; 
17.12.2019, p.5 
C 123; 
02.04.2019, p.9 
C 123; 
02.04.2019, p.9 
C 454; 
17.12.2018, p.7 
L 246; 
26.09.2019, 
p.19 
C 111; 
25.03.2019, 
p.47 
C 176; 
22.05.2019, 
p.24 
C 165; 
14.05.2019, p.6 
C 165; 
14.05.2019, 
p.22 
C 425; 
18.12.2019, 
p.39 
C 437; 
04.12.2018, 
p.32 
L 329; 
19.12.2019, 
p.86 

C. Ranked by country (new and review investigations) (alphabetical) 

Country 

Bahrain 

Egypt 

Egypt 

Egypt 

Egypt 

Case 
Continuous filament glass fibre 
products 
Continuous filament glass fibre 
products 

Continuous filament glass fibre 
products 

Glass fibre fabrics 
Woven and/or stitched glass fibre 
fabrics 

Type 

new 

new 

new 

AD/AS  NoI 

AD 

AD 

AS 

new 

AS 

C 151; 
03.05.2019, p.4 
C 151; 
03.05.2019, p.4 
C 192; 
07.06.2019, 
p.30 
AD 
C 167; 
16.05.2019, 

102 

 
 
 
 
India 

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) 

interim 

India 

Tubes and pipes of ductile cast iron 

interim 

Indonesia 

Certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets 
and coils 

Indonesia 

Korea (Rep. 
of) 

P.R. China 

certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets 
and coils 

Heavyweight thermal paper 

Certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets 
and coils 

P.R. China 

Certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets 
and coils 

P.R. China 

Certain polyvinyl alcohols 

P.R. China 

Glass fibre fabrics 

P.R. China 

Pins and staples 

P.R. China 

Steel road wheels 

P.R. China 

Woven and/or stitched glass fibre 
fabrics 

new 

new 

new 

new 

new 

new 

new 

new 

P.R. China 

Bicycles 

new exporter / 
accelerated 

AS 

AS 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

new 

AD 

AD 

AS 

AD 

P.R. China 

Cast iron articles 

absorption 

AD 

P.R. China 

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware 

circumvention 

AD 

P.R. China 

Certain corrosion resistant steels 

circumvention 

AD 

P.R. China 

Citrus fruits 

P.R. China 

Continuous filament glass fibre 
products 

P.R. China 

Ferro-silicon 

P.R. China 

Peroxosulphates  

expiry 

expiry 

expiry 

expiry 

AD 

AS 

AD 

AD 

P.R. China 

Peroxosulphates  

circumvention 

AD 

P.R. China 

Solar glass 

expiry 

AD 

103 

p.11 
C 111; 
25.03.2019, 
p.47 
C 437; 
04.12.2018, 
p.32 
C 342; 
10.10.2019, 
p.18 
C 269I; 
12.08.2019, p. 1 
C 342; 
10.10.2019, p.8 
C 342; 
10.10.2019, 
p.18 
C 269I; 
12.08.2019, p. 1 
C 256; 
30.07.2019, p. 4 
AD 
C 425; 
18.12.2019, 
p.21 
C 60; 
15.02.2019, 
p.19 
C 167; 
16.05.2019, 
p.11 
L 325; 
16.12.2019, 
p.159 
C 425; 
18.12.2019, p.9 
L 80; 
22.03.2019, 
p.18 
L 304; 
26.11.2019, 
p.10 
C 414; 
10.12.2019, 
p.14 
C 424; 
17.12.2019, p.5 
C 123; 
02.04.2019, p.9 
C 454; 
17.12.2018, p.7 
L 246; 
26.09.2019, 
p.19 
C 165; 
14.05.2019, p.6 

 
 
 
P.R. China 

Solar glass 

P.R. China 

Sulphanilic acid 

expiry 

expiry 

AS 

AD 

P.R. China 

Tungsten electrodes 

circumvention 

AD 

Russia 

Ammonium nitrate 

Russia 

Ferro-silicon 

expiry 

expiry 

Taiwan 

Certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets 
and coils 

new 

AD 

AD 

AD 

C 165; 
14.05.2019, 
p.22 
C 425; 
18.12.2019, 
p.39 
L 329; 
19.12.2019, 
p.86 
C 318; 
23.09.2019, p.6 
C 123; 
02.04.2019, p.9 
C 269I; 
12.08.2019, p. 1 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX S 

Court cases  

A. 

Judgments, orders or other decisions rendered in 2019 

Court of Justice 

C-465/16 P 

C-466/16 P 

C-144/18 P 

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

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

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

C-602/16 P DEP 

Unitec Bio and Others v Council 

C-603/16 P DEP 

PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council 

C-604/16 P DEP 

PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council 

C-605/16 P DEP 

PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council 

C-61/16 P DEP 

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

C-236/17 P 

C-237/17 P 

C-226/18 

C-612/16 

C-251/18 

C-644/17 

C-345/18 P 

C-436/18 P 

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

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

Krohn & Schröder (preliminary ruling) 

C&J Clark International (preliminary ruling) 

Trace Sport (preliminary ruling) 

Eurobolt (preliminary ruling)  

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

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

C-709/17 P 

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

T-300/16 

T-301/16 

T-310/16 

T-749/16 

T-631/16 

T-741/16 

T-500/17 

General Court 

Jindal v Commission 

Jindal v Commission 

Foshan Lihua Ceramic Co. Ltd v Commission 

Stemcor v Commission 

Remag Metallhandel GmbH and Werner Jaschinsky v Commission 

Changmao Biochemical Engineering Co. Ltd 

Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube v Commission 

105 

 
 
 
 
 
 
T-586/14 RENV 

Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) v Commission 

T-228/17 

T-650/17 

T-607/15 

T-426/18 

Zhejiang Jndia Pipeline Industry v Commission 

Jinan Meide v Commission 

Yieh United Steel (Yusco) v Commission 

Bizbike and Hartmobile v Commission 

T-425/13 DEP  

Giant (China) v Council 

T-276/13 RENV 

Growth Energy 

B. 

Court cases pending before the Court of Justice and the General Court on 31 
December 2019 (including cases on safeguards and expenses) 

C-461/18P 

C-56/19P 

C-l 17/19 

C-104/19 

C-324/19  

C-543/19 

Court of Justice 

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

RFA International v Commission (appeal against T-113/15) 

Linas Agro (preliminary ruling) 

Donex Shipping and Forwarding BV (preliminary ruling) 

Eurocylinder systems (preliminary ruling) 

Jebsen & Jessen (GmbH & Co.) KG (preliminary ruling) 

C-632/19, C-633/19  Federale Overheidsdienst Financiën and Openbaar Ministerie (preliminary ruling) 

C-666/19 P 

Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission (appeal against T-741/16) 

C-708/19 

Von Aschenbach & Voss (preliminary ruling) 

C-884/19 P  

Commission v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) (appeal against T-586/14 RENV) 

C-888/19 P  

GMB Glasmanufaktur Brandenburg v Xinyi PV Products (Anhui) (appeal against 
T-586/14 RENV) 

C-891/19 P 

Commission v Hubei Xinyegang Special Tube (appeal against T-500/17) 

General Court 

T-111/14 DEP  

Unitec Bio v Council 

T-112/14 DEP  

Molinos Río de la Plata v Council 

T-117/14 DEP  

Cargill v Council 

T-118/14 DEP  

LDC Argentina v Council 

T-120/14 DEP  

PT Ciliandra Perkasa v Council 

106 

 
 
 
 
 
T-121/14 DEP  

PT Pelita Agung Agrindustri v Council 

T-139/14 DEP 

PT Wilmar Bioenergi Indonesia and PT Wilmar Nabati Indonesia v Council 

T-752/16 

T-753/16 

T-781/16 

T-782/16 

NLMK v Commission 

Severstal v Commission 

Puma v Commission 

Timberland v Commission 

T-861/16  

C&J Clark International Ltd v Commission 

T-790/16 

T-154/17 

T-155/17 

T-110/17 

T-347/17 

T-351/17 

T_360/17 

T-383/17 

T-781/17 

T-782/17 

T-835/17  

T-254/18 

T-307/18 

T-24/18 

T-124/18  

T-126/18 

T-127/18  

T-130/18  

T-131/18  

T-132/18 

T-141/18  

T-142/18  

T-157/18 

T-541/18 

T-30/19 

C&J Clark International Ltd v Commission 

Deichmann v Commission 

Van Haren Schoenen v Commission 

Jiangsu Seraphim Solar System v Commission 

FLA Europe v Commission 

Nike European Operations Netherlands and Others v Commission 

Jana shoes and Others v Commission 

Hansol paper v Commission 

Kraftpojkarna v Commission 

Wuxi Saijing Solar v Commission 

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 

Adidas International Trading and Others v Commission 

Wendel and Others v Commission 

Van Haren Schoenen v Commission 

Cortina and FLA Europe v Commission 

Adidas International Trading and Others v Commission 

Deichmann v Commission 

Roland v Commission 

Deichmann-Shoes UK v Commission 

Buffalo - Boots v Commission 

Caprice Schuhproduktion v Commission 

Changmao Biochemical Engineering v Commission 

CRIA and CCCMC v Commission 

107 

 
 
T-45/19 

T-72/19 

T-242/19 

T-243/19 

T-245/19 

T-246/19 

T-716/19 

T-733/19  

T-744/19 

T-790-19   

T-865/19  

Acron and Others v Commission 

CRIA and CCCMC v Commission 

Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission 

Giant Electric Vehicle Kunshan v Commission 

Uzina Metalurgica Moldoveneasca v Commission 

Cambodge and CRF v Commission 

Interpipe Niko Tube and Interpipe Nizhnedneprovsky Tube Rolling Plant v 
Commission 

Zhejiang Sunflower Light Energy Science & Technology LTD and Sunowe Solar 
GmbH c/ Commission  

Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission 

Novolipetsk Steel v Commission 

Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK "Azot" v Commission  

108 

 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX  T 

Safeguard measures in force on 31 December 2019 

Product 

List of safeguard measures in force 
Country of 
origin 

Regulation / 
Decision NO 

Indica rice 

Cambodia 

Indica rice 

Myanmar 

Steel products 

Erga Omnes 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/67 of 
16.01.2019 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/67 of 
16.01.2019 

Commission 
Implementing 
Regulation (EU) 
2019/159 of 
31.01.2019 

OJ Reference 

L 15; 
17.01.2019, 
p.5 

L 15; 
17.01.2019, 
p.5 

L 31; 
01.02.2019, 
p.27 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX U 

Third countries’ measures targeting the EU 

A. New investigations initiated by third countries in 2019 

Country 

Product 

Instrument 

Initiation 
Date 

Exporting 
MS 

China 

Meta-Cresol 

AD 

27-09-2019 

Colombia 

Cardboard and PE sheets 

SFG 

11-04-2019 

Costa Rica 

White sugar 

SFG 

30-06-2019 

Ecuador 

Flat ceramics 

SFG 

26-11-2019 

Egypt 

Steel products 

SFG 

31-03-2019 

Eurasian Economic 
Union 

Eurasian Economic 
Union 

Guatemala 

Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

Indonesia 

Indonesia 

Indonesia 

Microwaves 

SFG 

01-03-2019 

Welded pipes 

SFG 

04-03-2019 

Flat-rolled products of other alloy 
steels of a width of 600MM or more 

SFG 

27-08-2019 

Certain Steel Products 

SFG 

23-10-2019 

Coated/plated tin mill flat rolled steel 
products 

AD 

28-06-2019 

Single Mode Optical Fibre 

SFG 

23-09-2019 

Phenol 

INA & 2-PH 

SFG 

23-08-2019 

AD 

09-07-2019 

Flat rolled products of stainless steel 
(HR+CR) 

AD 

03-07-2019 

Isopropyl alcohol 

SFG 

04-11-2019 

Acrylic fibre 

AD 

24-09-2019 

Yarn (other than sewing thread) of 
synthetic and artificial staple fibres) 

SFG 

18-09-2019 

Curtains (Including Drapes), Interior 
Blinds, Bed Valances, and Other 
Furnishing Articles 

Cotton; Man-Made Filaments; Man-
Made Staple Fibres; Special Woven 
Fabrics; Knitted or Crocheted Fabrics 

SFG 

12-09-2019 

SFG 

18-09-2019 

110 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Indonesia 

Evaporators 

SFG 

12-06-2019 

Jordan 

Potato Chips and Potato prepared or 
preserved 

SFG 

01-09-2019 

Korea/South 

Glassine paper 

AD 

27-03-2019 

Lebanon 

White refined sugar 

SFG 

28-03-2019 

Madagascar 

Soap 

SFG 

14-08-2019 

Madagascar 

Lubricating oils 

SFG 

14-08-2019 

Madagascar 

Edible vegetable oils and margarines 

SFG 

14-08-2019 

Madagascar 

Pasta 2 

SFG 

18-07-2019 

Morocco 

Tôles d'acier laminées à chaud 
enroulées ou non enroulées 

SFG 

29-05-2019 

Morocco 

Tubes et tuyaux en fer ou en acier 

SFG 

07-10-2019 

Panama 

Pig meat 

SFG 

03-05-2019 

Philippines 

Float glass 

SFG 

19-02-2019 

Philippines 

Rice 

SFG 

01-10-2019 

South Africa 

Threaded fasteners, bolds and screws 

SFG 

01-03-2019 

Ukraine 

Disposable syringes, of polymeric 
materials with or without needles 

SFG 

07-12-2019 

Ukraine 

Certain fertilisers 

SFG 

28-08-2019 

Ukraine 

Mineral fertilizers containing nitrogen, 
phosphorus and potassium regardless 
of country of origin and export 

SFG 

28-08-2019 

United States 

Acetone 

AD 

12-03-2019 

Germany, 
Lithuania, 
Poland 

Lithuania, 
Poland, 
Bulgaria 

Belgium, 
Spain 

111 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
B. New investigations initiated by third countries in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 

Country 

AD 

CVD 

SG 

TOTAL 

2016  2017  2018  2019  2016  2017  2018  2019  2016  2017  2018  2019  2016  2017  2018  2019 

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 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

12 

0 

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 

0 

2 

1 

2 

1 

0 

7 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

3 

4 

0 

1 

0 

1 

4 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

6 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

0 

3 

0 

3 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

4 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

1 

10 

1 

0 

3 

3 

0 

1 

2 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

4 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

3 

1 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

7 

4 

0 

1 

1 

1 

4 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

1 

0 

0 

15 

30 

30 

31 

37 

37 

Argentina 

Australia 

Belarus 

Brazil 

Canada 

Chile 

China 

Colombia 

Costa Rica 

Ecuador 

Egypt 
Eurasian 
Economic Union 
Guatemala 
Gulf Cooperation 
Council 
India 

Indonesia 

Israel 

Jordan 

Korea 

Lebanon 

Madagascar 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Morocco 

Pakistan 

Panama 

Philippines 

South Africa 

Thailand 

Tunisia 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

USA 

Vietnam 

Zambia 

TOTAL 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

3 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

3 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

6 

0 

0 

3 

3 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

4 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

3 

0 

0 

18 

22 

22 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

7 

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 

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 

112 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
C. Measures imposed by third countries in 2019 

Country 

Product 

Instru
ment 

Type Of 
Measure 

Date Of 
Imposition 

Exporting MS 

Argentina 

Radiators 

AD 

Definitive 

22-11-2019  Spain, Italy 

Australia 

Australia 

Australia 

Brazil 

China 

Egypt 

Eurasian Economic 
Union 

Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

India 

Israel 

Lebanon 

Mexico 

Morocco 

Morocco 

Morocco 

Pakistan 

Ammonium nitrate 

Railway wheels 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

29-05-2019  Sweden 

Definitive 

12-07-2019  France 

A4 Copy paper 

AD 

Definitive 

02-04-2019 

Austria, Slovakia, 
Finland 

Silicon electrical steel 

AD 

Definitive 

12-07-2019  Germany 

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

AD 

Provisional 

23-03-2019 

Steel products 

SFG 

Definitive 

12-10-2019 

Certain hot rolled steel 

SFG 

Definitive 

08-08-2019 

Belgium, Germany, 
Poland 

Uncoated paper or paperboard 
in rolls or sheets (other than 
containerboard) 
Chemical plasticizer (prepared 
additives for cement, mortars or 
concretes 
High Speed Steel of Non-
Cobalt Grade 

AD 

Definitive 

01-05-2019 

SFG 

Definitive 

21-06-2019 

AD 

Definitive 

25-09-2019 

Portland Cement 

AD 

Definitive 

07-04-2019  Greece 

Corn flakes, rice and roasted 
wheat 

AD 

Definitive 

26-09-2019 

Steel plate 

AD 

Definitive 

01-05-2019  Italy 

Tubes et tuyaux en fer ou en 
acier 
Panneaux de bois revetus 
(PBR) 
Tôles d'acier laminées à chaud 
enroulées ou non enroulées 
Tinplate of a width of 600 mm 
or more and of a thickness of 
less than 0.5 mm 

SFG 

Provisional 

13-12-2019 

SFG 

Definitive 

20-09-2019 

SFG 

Provisional 

22-10-2019 

AD 

Provisional 

30-01-2019 

Philippines 

Cement 

SFG 

Provisional 

10-02-2019 

South Africa 

Turkey 

Screws made of steel with 
hexagon heads 
Yarn of polyamides and other 
nylon 

SFG 

Definitive 

03-02-2019 

SFG 

Definitive 

21-11-2019 

Germany, Italy, 
Poland, Slovakia 

United States 

Large Diameter Welded Pipes 

AD 

Definitive 

15-04-2019  Greece 

United States 

Acetone 

AD 

Provisional 

29-07-2019  Belgium, Spain 

United States 

Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs 

AD 

Provisional 

29-05-2019  Germany 

United States 

Strontium Chromate 

AD 

Provisional 

14-05-2019  France, Austria 

113 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
D. Measures imposed by third countries in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 

Country 

AD 

CVD 

SG 

TOTAL 

2016  2017  2018  2019  2016  2017  2018  2019  2016  2017  2018  2019  2016  2017  2018  2019 

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 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

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 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

2 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

5 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

2 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

6 

2 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

6 

2 

0 

0 

4 

1 

2 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

3 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

3 

1 

10 

0 

0 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

3 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 

0 

4 

0 

0 

10 

10 

30 

26 

32 

25 

Argentina 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

Chile 

China 

Colombia 

Costa Rica 

Dominican 
republic 

Ecuador 

Egypt 

Eurasian 
Economic Union 
Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

India 

Indonesia 

Israel 

Jordan 

Korea 

Lebanon 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Morocco 

Pakistan 

Philippines 

South Africa 

Thailand 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

United States 

Vietnam 

Zambia 

TOTAL 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

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 

0 

0 

1 

0 

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 

0 

2 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

6 

0 

0 

1 

3 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4 

0 

0 

19 

15 

20 

15 

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 

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 

2 

0 

0 

2 

114 

 
 
 
  
 
 
E. Third countries’ measures in force at the end of 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 

Country 

AD 

CVD 

SG 

TOTAL 

2016  2017  2018  2019  2016  2017  2018  2019  2016  2017  2018  2019  2016  2017  2018  2019 

Argentina 

Australia 

Brazil 

Canada 

Chile 

China 

Colombia 

Costa Rica 

Dominican Republic 

Ecuador 

Egypt 
Eurasian Economic 
Union 
GCC 

India 

Indonesia 

Israel 

Japan 

Jordan 

Korea 

Lebanon 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Morocco 

New Zealand 

Pakistan 

Philippines 

South Africa 

Thailand 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

USA 

Vietnam 

Zambia 

TOTAL 

5 

6 

5 

7 

15 

16 

4 

0 

6 

0 

5 

10 

16 

7 

0 

4 

7 

15 

6 

0 

17 

17 

16 

18 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

19 

19 

19 

17 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

5 

4 

2 

2 

0 

3 

1 

8 

1 

19 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

2 

0 

0 

7 

4 

1 

2 

0 

3 

1 

10 

0 

22 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

3 

0 

0 

6 

4 

1 

2 

0 

3 

1 

10 

0 

27 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

0 

4 

1 

0 

7 

2 

1 

2 

0 

3 

1 

11 

0 

30 

0 

0 

108 

116 

133 

132 

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 

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 

0 

4 

0 

0 

5 

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 

0 

4 

0 

0 

6 

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 

0 

4 

0 

0 

6 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

5 

7 

0 

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 

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 

0 

1 

0 

1 

2 

0 

3 

0 

0 

2 

3 

3 

4 

2 

2 

4 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

6 

1 

0 

2 

3 

1 

4 

2 

2 

4 

0 

5 

6 

5 

7 

15 

16 

5 

0 

7 

0 

5 

10 

16 

9 

0 

4 

7 

15 

8 

0 

19 

20 

18 

20 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

3 

24 

21 

21 

18 

7 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

3 

5 

6 

2 

2 

3 

4 

4 

10 

3 

21 

3 

0 

4 

0 

1 

1 

2 

1 

3 

7 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

4 

12 

1 

26 

4 

0 

2 

0 

1 

1 

3 

1 

2 

6 

7 

1 

2 

2 

6 

4 

14 

2 

33 

4 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

4 

2 

2 

7 

8 

2 

2 

2 

6 

2 

15 

2 

36 

4 

0 

38 

35 

35 

37 

156 

156 

174 

175 

115 

 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
F. Detail of third countries’ measures in force at the end of 2019 

Country 

Product 

Instrument 

Argentina 
Argentina 
Argentina 
Argentina 

Australia 

Australia 
Australia 
Australia 
Australia 
Australia 
Australia 

Brazil 

Brazil 
Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 
Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 

Brazil 
Brazil 

Canada 

Canada 
Canada 

Canada 

Canada 

Coated paper 
Electrical terminals 
Radiators 
Straight handsaw blades 

A4 Copy paper 

Ammonium nitrate 
Chrome bars 
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 
Laminated steel 

Lightweight paper 

Monobutyl ethers of ethylene 
glycol  
Nitrile Rubber 

Offset printing plates 

Phenol 

Plastic Tubes for Blood 
Collection 
Seamless steel pipes  
Silicon electrical steel 
Certain fabricated industrial steel 
components 
Certain steel products 
Copper tubes 
Hot-rolled carbon steel plate and 
high-strength low-alloy steel plate 
Rebars 

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 

SFG 
AD 

AD 

AD 

Type Of 
Measure 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

Definitive 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

02-04-2019 

Exporting MS 

Date Of 
Imposition 
14-06-2012  Austria, Finland 
02-04-2009  Germany 
22-11-2019 
21-02-2008 

Spain, Italy 
Sweden 
Austria, Slovakia, 
Finland 
29-05-2019 
Sweden 
06-09-2016  Romania 
05-11-2014 
12-07-2019 
19-11-2015 
06-03-2018  Greece, Spain 

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 

Belgium, 
Germany, France, 
Netherlands 
Sweden 

Definitive 

17-02-2017 

Definitive 
Definitive 

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

Definitive 

23-04-2012 

Belgium, 
Germany, Finland, 
Sweden 

Definitive 

22-04-2016  Germany 

Definitive 

13-08-2018 

Definitive 

05-03-2015 

Definitive 

16-10-2002 

Definitive 

30-04-2015 

France 
Belgium, 
Germany, United 
Kingdom 
Belgium, 
Germany 
Germany, United 
Kingdom 

Definitive 
Definitive 

07-10-2005 
12-07-2019  Germany 

Definitive 

25-05-2017 

Spain, United 
Kingdom 

Provisional 
Definitive 

25-10-2018 
02-01-2014  Greece 

Definitive 

09-01-2004 

Provisional 

03-01-2017 

Czech Republic, 
Bulgaria, Romania 
Spain, Portugal 
Denmark, 
Germany, 
Netherlands, 
United Kingdom 
European Union 
of 15 

Canada 

Refined sugar 

AD 

Definitive 

06-11-1995 

Canada 

Refined sugar 

CVD 

Definitive 

06-11-1995 

116 

 
 
 
  
  
Canada 

Steel plate 

China 

Adipic acid 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

04-06-2014  Denmark, Italy 

Definitive 

02-11-2009 

China 

Alloy Seamless Tubes 

AD 

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 

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 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

23-07-2016 

Definitive 

20-08-2018 

Optical fibre 

AD 

Definitive 

22-04-2011 

Perchlorethylene 

Phenol 

Photographic paper 

AD 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

06-09-2019 

Definitive 

23-03-2012 

Definitive 

30-05-2014  Germany, France 

China 

Polyamide-6 (PA6) 

AD 

Definitive 

22-04-2010 

Polyamide-6,6 

AD 

Definitive 

12-10-2009 

Potato Starch 

Potato Starch 

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

Sugar 

Toluidine 

Unbleached sack paper 

CVD 

Definitive 

17-09-2011 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

06-02-2007 

Provisional 

23-03-2019 

SFG 

Definitive 

22-05-2017 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

13-03-2013  Germany 

Definitive 

09-04-2016 

Colombia 

Frozen fries 

AD 

Definitive 

09-11-2018 

Egypt 

Steel products 

Eurasian 
Economic Union 

Certain hot rolled steel 

Definitive 

12-10-2019 

Definitive 

08-08-2019 

SFG 

SFG 

117 

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 
of 15 
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 

Austria, Finland, 
Sweden, Bulgaria 
Belgium, 
Germany, 
Netherlands 

Belgium, 
Germany, Poland 

 
 
  
  
  
  
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 

Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

Gulf Cooperation 
Council 

Chemical plasticizer (prepared 
additives for cement, mortars or 
concretes 
Flat rolled products of iron or 
non-alloy steel 
Uncoated paper or paperboard in 
rolls or sheets (other than 
Containerboard) 

SFG 

Definitive 

21-06-2019 

SFG 

Definitive 

15-05-2018 

Belgium, 
Germany, Italy 

AD 

Definitive 

01-05-2019 

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 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

India 

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 

High Speed Steel of Non-Cobalt 
Grade 

Methylene Chloride 

Morpholine 
Normal Butanol or N-Butyl 
Alcohol 

Phenol 

PVC paste resin 
SBR - Styrene Butadiene Rubber 
of 1500 series and 1700 series 

Sodium Chlorate 
Solar Cells whether or not 
assembled in modules or panels 

Synthetic Filament Yarn of Nylon 

AD 

Definitive 

17-10-2017 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 

SG 

AD 

Definitive 

07-04-2015 

Definitive 

25-09-2019 

Definitive 

21-05-2014 

Definitive 

24-01-2012 

Definitive 

19-02-2016  Germany 

Definitive 

08-03-2016 

Definitive 

07-10-2004 

Belgium, Spain, 
Netherlands 
Spain, Italy 

Definitive 

30-08-2017 

Definitive 

02-11-2017 

Definitive 

30-07-2018  Germany, France 

Definitive 

06-10-2018 

India 

Wooden flooring 

AD 

Definitive 

27-03-2018 

Denmark, 
Germany, Spain, 
Italy, Lithuania, 
Poland 

Indonesia 

Indonesia 

Israel 
Korea/South 
Korea/South 
Korea/South 

Ceramic tiles and mosaic 
H and I sections of other alloy 
steel 
Portland Cement 
Butyl Glycol Ether 
Coated printing paper 
Stainless steel bar 

Definitive 

12-10-2018 

Definitive 

21-01-2015 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

07-04-2019  Greece 
06-12-2016 
22-07-2018 
30-07-2004 

Finland 
Spain 

SFG 

SFG 

AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

118 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
Korea/South 

Lebanon 

Lebanon 

Stainless steel bar 
Corn flakes, rice and roasted 
wheat 
Sunflower and Soya Oil 

AD 

AD 

Provisional 

16-11-2018 

Italy 

Definitive 

26-09-2019 

SFG 

Definitive 

16-05-2016 

Malaysia 

Steel concrete reinforcing bar 

SFG 

Definitive 

14-04-2017 

France, Hungary 
Germany, Austria, 
Finland, United 
Kingdom 

Malaysia 

Mexico 

Mexico 

Mexico 

Mexico 
Mexico 
Mexico 
Mexico 
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 
Steel plate produced in Romania 
Stranded wire ropes & cables 
Bars and wire rods 
Cold rolled steel sheets and plated 
or coated sheets 
Wooden panels 

SFG 

Definitive 

15-04-2017 

Spain 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
SFG 

SFG 

SFG 

Definitive 

21-04-2016 

Spain 

Definitive 

06-01-2010  United Kingdom 

Definitive 

23-12-2015  Germany, France 

Spain 
Italy 

Spain, Portugal 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

04-04-2018 
01-05-2019 
22-09-2005 
27-02-2016 
27-03-2014 

Definitive 

07-09-2015 

Definitive 

20-09-2019 

Morocco 

Paper reels and reams 

SFG 

Definitive 

01-01-2017 

Morocco 

PVC 

AD 

Definitive 

29-12-2016 

Germany, 
Portugal, Finland, 
Sweden 
Belgium, 
Germany, Spain, 
France, Portugal 

Morocco 

Morocco 
Morocco 
New Zealand 
New Zealand 
Pakistan 
Pakistan 

Pakistan 

Philippines 

Hot rolled sheets of steel in or not 
in coils  
Iron or steel pipes and tubes 
Insulin 
Canned peaches 
Preserved peaches 
Hydrogen Peroxide 
Phthalic Anhydride 
Tinplate of a width of 600 mm or 
more and of a thickness of less 
than 0.5 mm 
Cement 

Philippines 

Testliner board 

South Africa 

Certain flat rolled iron/steel 
products 

SFG 

SFG 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

Provisional 

22-10-2019 

Provisional 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Provisional 

13-12-2019 
28-10-2014 
09-03-1998  Greece 
04-08-2011 
15-07-2011  Belgium 
07-02-2013 

Italy 

AD 

Definitive 

31-05-2019 

SFG 

SFG 

Provisional 

10-02-2019 

Definitive 

16-09-2010 

SFG 

Definitive 

11-08-2017 

South Africa 

Frozen chicken 

AD 

Definitive 

27-02-2015 

South Africa 

Frozen chicken BSG 

SFG 

Definitive 

28-09-2018 

South Africa 

Potato chips 

AD 

Definitive 

21-10-2016 

119 

Belgium, 
Germany 
Belgium, 
Germany, Sweden 

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

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
South Africa 

Thailand 

Thailand 

Turkey 

Turkey 

Turkey 

Turkey 
Turkey 

Turkey 

Turkey 

Turkey 

Turkey 

South Africa 

Ropes & cables of iron or steel 

Screws made of steel with 
hexagon heads 
Hot-rolled flat in coils and not in 
coils 

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

Electrical water heaters 

Fittings 

Hinges 

Laminated flooring 
Plywood 

AD 

SG 

AD 

Definitive 

28-08-2002 

Germany, United 
Kingdom 

Definitive 

03-02-2019 

Definitive 

27-05-2003 

Slovakia 

SFG 

Definitive 

23-12-2014 

Belgium, 
Germany, Spain, 
Sweden 

AD 

AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 

Definitive 

19-09-2013 

Italy 

Definitive 

07-09-2006 

Definitive 

20-10-2017 

Greece, Spain, 
Italy 

Definitive 
Definitive 

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

Polyethylene terephthalate 

SFG 

Definitive 

07-11-2011 

Germany, Greece, 
Spain, Italy 
Belgium, 
Germany, Greece, 
Italy, Hungary, 
Netherlands, 
Finland, Romania 
02-03-2018  Germany, Sweden 

06-02-2003 

03-02-2018 

Germany, 
Netherlands, 
Sweden 
17-10-2017  Greece 

Turkey 

Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) 

AD 

Definitive 

Turkey 

Sodium Percarbonate 

AD 

Definitive 

Toothbrushes 

SFG 

Definitive 

Tubes and pipes of refined copper 

Unbleached kraft liner paper 

AD 

AD 

Definitive 

Definitive 

19-04-2018 

Poland, Finland 

Turkey 

Wall paper 

SFG 

Definitive 

06-08-2015 

Belgium, 
Germany, Italy, 
United Kingdom 

Turkey 

Turkey 

Turkey 

Ukraine 

Ukraine 
United States 
United States 
United States 
United States 

United States 

United States 

United States 

United States 

Woven fabrics of synthetic 
filament yarn 

Woven fabrics of synthetic and 
artificial staple fibres 

Yarn of polyamides and other 
nylon 
Flexible porous plates, blocks and 
sheets of polyurethane foam 
Sulphuric acid and oleum 
Acetone 
Brass sheet & strip 
Brass sheet & strip 
Brass sheet & strip 

Carbon & alloy steel cut to length 
plate 

Certain carbon and alloy steel 
wire rod 
Certain carbon and alloy steel 
wire rod 
Certain Cold-Drawn Mechanical 
Tubing of Carbon and Alloy Steel 

AD 

Definitive 

22-08-2015  Bulgaria 

AD 

Definitive 

22-08-2015 

Poland, Bulgaria 

SFG 

Definitive 

21-11-2019 

Definitive 

07-07-2016 

Germany, Italy, 
Poland, Slovakia 
Hungary, Poland, 
Romania 

SFG 

SFG 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

Definitive 
Provisional 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

AD 

Definitive 

Italy 
France 

01-09-2018 
29-07-2019  Belgium, Spain 
06-03-1987 
06-03-1987 
06-03-1987  Germany 
Belgium, 
Germany, France, 
Italy, Austria 

05-05-2017 

CVD 

Definitive 

19-03-2018 

Italy 

Definitive 

20-03-2018 

Spain, Italy, 
United Kingdom 

Definitive 

10-04-2018  Germany, Italy 

AD 

AD 

120 

 
 
  
  
  
United States 

Chlorinated isocyanurates 

AD 

Definitive 

24-06-2005 

Spain 

United States 

Citric acid, sodium citrate, and 
potassium citrate (also in blends 
under HS code 3824 99) 

United States 

Cold rolled steel flat products 

United States 
United States 

United States 

United States 

United States 
United States 

Corrosion-resistant steel 
Corrosion-resistant steel 
Crystalline silicon photovoltaic 
(CSPV) cells 
Emulsion styrene-butadiene 
rubber (ESB rubber) 
Finished Carbon Steel Flanges 
Forged steel fittings 

United States 

Hot rolled steel 

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 
United States 

United States 

United States 
United States 

Viet Nam 

Large Diameter Welded Pipes 
Large residential washers (LRWs) 
and certain parts thereof 
Low enriched uranium 
Non-oriented electrical steel 
Pasta 
Pasta 
Pressure sensitive plastic tape 
x673 
Refillable Stainless Steel Kegs 
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 
Strontium Chromate 
Uncoated paper 
Certain mineral or chemical 
fertilizers 

AD 

Definitive 

25-07-2018  Belgium 

AD 

AD 
CVD 

SFG 

AD 

AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 

SFG 

AD 
AD 
AD 
CVD 

AD 

AD 
CVD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 
AD 
AD 

AD 

AD 
AD 

Definitive 

10-09-2016 

Definitive 
Definitive 

15-07-2016 
15-09-2016 

Netherlands, 
United Kingdom 
Italy 
Italy 

Definitive 

07-02-2018  Germany, Italy 

Definitive 

12-09-2017 

Poland 

Provisional 
Definitive 

26-01-2017 
26-11-2018 

Definitive 

12-09-2016 

Spain, Italy 
Italy 
Netherlands, 
United Kingdom 

Definitive 

15-04-2019  Greece 

Definitive 

07-02-2018 

Germany, Spain, 
Italy, Sweden 
France 

13-02-2002 
18-11-2014  Germany, Sweden 
Italy 
24-07-1996 
Italy 
24-07-1996 

Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

Definitive 

21-10-1977 

Italy 

Provisional 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 
Definitive 

Spain 
Spain 

29-05-2019  Germany 
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  Belgium 
15-09-1998 
15-09-1998 
07-09-2001  Latvia 

Spain, Italy 
Italy 

Definitive 

07-09-2001 

Poland 

Provisional 
Definitive 

14-05-2019 
20-01-2016 

France, Austria 
Portugal 

SFG 

Definitive 

07-03-2018 

121