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  COM(2020) 164 final  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 {SWD(2020) 71 final}  
 
 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This  38th  Report  gives  key  information  on  the  EU’s  anti-dumping  (AD),  anti-subsidy  (AS) 
and safeguard activities, as well as the trade defence activity of third countries against the EU 
in 2019.  

Casework was particularly important in 2019 with the initiation of 16 cases (compared to 10 
in  2018),  the  imposition  of  measures  in  12  new  cases  (compared  to  6  in  2018),  the  non-
imposition  of  measures  in  5  new  cases,  and  with  an  equally  intensive  activity  in  reviewing 
existing measures, with notably the conclusion of 18 expiry reviews (compared to 7 in 2018). 
The  Commission  also  continued  to  firmly  act  against  third  country  measures  targeting  EU 
exports. Such measures stood again at a high level (175), a trend expected to be maintained in 
the future, due to numerous foreign cases initiated in 2019. 

The Commission has also increased its efforts to enforce measures, notably by initiating four 
anti-circumvention cases, among which the most resource-intensive investigation of such kind 
to date on tableware and kitchenware from China, concluded with an extension of duty to 30 
companies.  In  relation  to  strengthened  enforcement  of  modernised  trade  defence  rules, 
specific provisions have also been laid down in 2019 to extend the possibility of application 
of trade defence measures to the EU continental shelf. 

Since firmer enforcement goes on par with more effectiveness, this report also contains key 
figures illustrating the effects of the measures imposed recently.1 The figures demonstrate the 
effectiveness  of  trade  defence  measures  in  restoring  a  level  playing  field  in  the  EU  market. 
Indeed,  on  average,  the  imposition  of  AD  and  AS  duties  brought  unfair  injurious  imports 
down  by  80%  (within  a  range  of  57%  –  99%).  At  the  same  time,  AD  and  AS  duties  also 
contributed to broaden the sources of supply that EU importers and users need, in the form of 
increased fair imports from other countries, in addition to the EU’s own production. Finally, it 
has to  be noted that measures imposed in  2019  contributed to  an increase of the number of 
jobs  benefitting  from  TDI measures by 23,000,  bringing the total  number of direct  EU jobs 
protected by TDI to 343,000. 

1  

Concerns the imposition of new measures in 2017 and 2018. Reliable data for 2019 were not available 
at the time of finalisation of this Report. 

1 

 
 
 
                                                 
I. 

TRADE DEFENCE INSTRUMENTS (TDI) APPLICATION IN 20192 

I.1 

Investigative activity  

I.1.1  General overview 

At  the  end  of  2019,  the  EU  had  140  trade  defence  measures  in  force:  94  definitive  AD 
measures  (which  were  extended  in  27  cases),  15  countervailing  measures  (extended  in  one 
case) and 3 safeguard measures.3 This constitutes an increase of 7 measures as compared to 
2018. 

Investigative  work  further  increased  compared  to  the  already  significant  workload  of  2018. 
The work consisted of many new investigations under the new sets of TDI rules, as well as of 
an even larger number of review investigations handled. At the end of 2019, 43 investigations 
were  ongoing, as well as  2  refund investigations, covering 66 individual  refund  requests by 
importers.  

This  Report  is  accompanied  by  a  Commission  Staff  Working  Document  (SWD),  providing 
more detailed information and statistics on the annual  activity.4 The SWD includes annexes 
relevant for certain sections below, as indicated. 

I.1.2  AD and AS investigations (see Annexes A through I) 

In  2019,  the  Commission  initiated  as  many  as  16  new  investigations  (of  which  11  anti-
dumping, and 5 anti-subsidy proceedings). At the same time, it imposed provisional duties in 
5  proceedings,  while  7  cases  were  concluded  with  the  imposition  of  definitive  duties  (of 
which  3  constituted  countervailing  measures).  Five  investigations  were  concluded  without 
measures.5   

Review investigations continued to represent a considerable part of the casework. In 2019, the 
Commission initiated 8 expiry reviews. In terms of re-imposition of measures, as many as 16 
expiry reviews were concluded with a confirmation of the duty, whereas 2 such reviews were 

2  

3 

4  

5  

This part of the Report has been prepared pursuant to the updated provisions of Article 23 of the Basic 
Anti-Dumping  Regulation  (OJ  L  176,  30.6.2016,  p.21),  of  Article  34  of  the  Basic  Anti-Subsidy 
Regulation (OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p.55) and of Article 23 of the Basic Safeguards Regulation (OJ L 83, 
27.3.2015, p.16). 
The  measures  are  counted  per  product  and  country  concerned.  Measures  have  been  extended  in  the 
framework of the Commission’s enforcement activities, as a result of anti-circumvention investigations. 
All documents are available at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/issues/respectrules/anti_dumping/legis/index_en.htm  
Numbers of initiations and conclusions will not add up because a case initiated in any given year is not 
necessarily concluded in the same year. 

2 

 
 
 
                                                 
concluded by the termination of measures. One anti-dumping measure expired automatically 
after five years.  

In  2019,  the  Commission  initiated  2  interim  reviews,  both  on  countervailing  measures  and 
terminated 1 such review without amending the measures. 

reinvestigations 

Finally,  7 
the 
implementation of court rulings, were initiated in 2019. Overall, the Commission  concluded 
22 reviews in 2019. 

re-openings),  which  usually  concern 

(called  also 

I.1.3 

Safeguard investigations (see Annex L) 

On 2 February 2019, the EU imposed an erga omnes definitive safeguard duty on certain steel 
products6  and  carried  out  a  review  of  the  latter,  which  resulted  in  the  modification  of  the 
measures on 1 October 2019.7 

The Commission also  concluded two bilateral  safeguard investigations on imports of  Indica 
rice from Cambodia and Myanmar, under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP): on 
16  January  2019,  the  Commission  re-established  the  Common  Customs  Tariff  rate  of  175 
EUR/tonne, with a progressive liberalisation to 125 EUR/tonne over three years.8  

No new safeguard investigation was initiated in 2019. 

I.1.4  Verification activities  

In the course of its 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 carried out  137 such visits, which amounted to 
1948 man-days of verification work.  

I.2 

Enforcement of measures (see Annexes J, K, M, Q) 

It is paramount to ensure the effective enforcement of trade defence measures in force, so that 
economic  operators  do  not  evade  measures  through  duty  absorption  or  circumvention.  In 
2019, the Commission initiated 4 anti-circumvention reviews, which were still all ongoing at 
the end of the year. In addition, 1 anti-absorption investigation was initiated (still ongoing at 
the end of 2019) and another was terminated without increase of duty. 

Monitoring  of  undertakings  forms  part  of  the  enforcement  activities.  At  the  beginning  of 
2019,  there  were  3  undertakings  in  force.  The  Commission  accepted  8  new  undertakings, 
which brought the number of undertakings in force at the end of 2019 to 11. 

6  
7  
8  

OJ L 31, 1.2.2019, p.27 
OJ L 248, 27.9.2019, p.28 
OJ L 15, 17.1.2019, p.5 

3 

 
 
                                                 
I.3 

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) 

During 2019, in the spirit of the recent modernisation of TDI, the Commission maintained its 
focus on supporting SMEs, by providing assistance and guidance to SMEs who were involved 
in  TDI  investigations.  Notably,  the  Commission  supported  SMEs  by  facilitating  their 
cooperation  in  investigations:  it  limited  information  requirements  as  far  as  possible  through 
less burdensome questionnaires and aligned investigation periods with the SME financial year 
where  feasible.  The  Commission  also  initiated  an  investigation  where  the  EU  industry 
consists  mainly  in  SMEs:  the  AD  investigation  on  imports  of  Pins  and  staples  from  the 
People’s Republic of China (hereinafter China).  

The  Commission  also  acted  vigorously  against  certain  practices  by  Chinese  exporters  to 
circumvent  the  EU  measures  on  Ceramic  tableware  and  kitchenware  (see  Section  II).  This 
ensured  the  continued  effectiveness  of  these  measures  for  the  benefit  of  EU  ceramics 
producers and their employees – many of this sector’s firms are SMEs. 

Finally,  the  Commission  provided  specific  technical  assistance  to  SMEs  in  a  number  of 
Member States, including Austria and Spain, to increase their awareness of TDI. 

I.4 

 Social and environmental standards 

When  the  Commission  applies  the  new  methodology  of  normal  value  calculation,  it  must 
choose  an  appropriate  representative  country  to  construct  a  non-distorted  normal  value  of  a 
product.  The  Commission  uses  price  data  from  such  a  country,  combined  with  input 
consumption data in the exporting country. According to Article 2(6a)(a) first indent in fine, 
when there is more than one such country with suitable and available data, the Commission 
should  base  its  choice  on  an  assessment  of  the  adequate  level  of  social  and  environmental 
protection in the countries at stake.9 

In  2019,  such  analysis  was  required  in  the  expiry  review  of  measures  concerning  Organic 
coated  steel  products  originating  in  China.  In  that  proceeding,  the  Commission  found  two 
suitable  countries,  which  could  be  considered  as  representative  in  order  to  construct  the 
normal value: Malaysia and Mexico. The Commission therefore assessed their level of social 
and  environmental  protection  to  choose  the  preferable  one.  The  Commission  found  that 
Malaysia had not ratified three out of the eight fundamental International Labour Organisation 
(ILO) conventions.10 Furthermore, the Commission found that Malaysia had not ratified one 
of  the  major  environmental  agreements  -  the  Stockholm  Convention  on  Persistent  Organic 
Pollutants. With regard to Mexico, the Commission established that the country had ratified 
almost all fundamental ILO conventions, except for one. In addition, Mexico had ratified all 
major  environmental  agreements.  Consequently,  the  Commission  chose  Mexico  as  an 
appropriate representative country in the said expiry review. 

9  
10  

This rule applies in new investigations and expiry reviews initiated after 20 December 2017. 
See Annex Ia of the basic AD Regulation. 

4 

 
 
                                                 
In  the  remaining  investigations  that  were  concluded  in  2019,  the  Commission    each  time 
chose a representative country without the need to further resort to an analysis of the level of 
social and environmental protection, as suitable data was available for only one country.11 

Multilateral  environmental  agreements  (and  their  protocols),  as  well  as  the  core  ILO 
conventions also play a role when establishing the injury margin. Since the entry into force 
of  modernized  TDI  rules,  pursuant  to  Article  7(2d)  of  the  basic  AD  regulation,  when  the 
Commission calculates the non-injurious target price of a product, it also reflects the actual or 
future costs of production of EU companies, which result or would result from the application 
of such agreements and conventions.12 

Among  the  cases  concluded  in  2019,  the  Commission  proceeded  to  calculating  the  said 
additional  costs  in  the  investigation  concerning  Urea  and  Ammonium  Nitrate  (UAN) 
originating  in  Russia,  Trinidad  and  Tobago  and  the  United  States  (US).  The  Commission 
decided  to  increase  the  target  price  of  UAN  by  3.7%  in  order  to  reflect  additional  costs 
resulting from the future compliance of EU producers with the EU Emissions Trading System 
(ETS).  The  ETS  constitutes  one  of  the  instruments  by  which  the  EU  aims  at  achieving  the 
goals of the Paris Agreement - a relevant Multilateral Environmental Agreement to which the 
EU is party. The UAN production chain, which is emissions-intensive, is subject to the ETS 
in the EU. The 3.7% figure was based on the cost of average estimated ETS allowances to be 
procured by producers during the life of the measures. 

In  the  remaining  cases  concluded  in  2019,  the  interested  parties  did  not  make  any  claims 
concerning current  or future costs pursuant  to  Article 7(2d). Therefore, the Commission did 
not investigate whether such additional costs should be added to the target price. 

I.5 

Judicial review by EU Courts (Annex S) 

In  2019,  the  General  Court  (GC)  and  the  Court  of  Justice  (CJ)  rendered  31  judgments  and 
orders in the TDI area: the GC handed down 14 rulings and the CJ decided on 8 appeals,  5 
cases on taxation of costs and rendered 4 preliminary rulings. The most interesting judgments 
are described in the SWD. 

Twenty-four new cases were lodged in 2019 in relation to TDI.  

I.6 

Third country activities targeting the EU 

11  

12  

A  single  representative  country  was  chosen  each  time  because:  it  represented  a  level  of  economic 
development similar to China; the product under review/investigation was produced in that country; and 
relevant public data on costs of production and sale was available in that country. 
This  comes  on  top  of  the  usual  elements  of  the  target  price,  i.e.  actual  full  cost  of  production  and  a 
reasonable profit. 

5 

 
 
                                                 
The Commission not only protects EU industry against unfair injurious imports, but also acts 
vigorously  against  TDI  measures  taken  by  our  trading  partners,  whenever  it  considers 
that such measures do not meet the exacting legal requirements. Such action is essential today 
as  some  of  the  major  trading  nations  put  frequently  the  WTO  legal  order  into  question. 
Unwarranted  protective  actions  restrict  market  access  and  hence  opportunities  for  creating 
jobs  and  growth  for  EU  exporters.  Therefore,  avoiding  unjustified  foreign  trade  defence 
measures becomes even more important. 

Trade defence activity around the globe remained intense in 2019. The Commission services 
continued  to  intervene  regularly  in  the  vast  majority  of  foreign  investigations  targeting  EU 
exports.  These  interventions  consisted  inter  alia  in  written  submissions  and  participation  in 
hearings  at  technical  level.  Where  necessary,  the  Commission  also  intervened  with  third 
country authorities at higher political level. 

While  the  Commission  intervenes  in  most  cases  that  target  the  EU,  it  especially  focuses  on 
systemic issues and cases which would considerably affect the EU industry. With its actions, 
the Commission aims at ensuring a correct application of WTO rules, thereby preventing the 
abusive use of foreign TDI. Such persistent interventions, focusing on WTO inconsistencies 
and systemic flaws, prevented many unwarranted measures. 

For  example,  the  Commission  persuasively  intervened  in  the  third  AD  expiry  review 
conducted  by  Brazil  on  imports  of  milk  powder  from  the  EU.  These  actions  led  to  the 
discontinuation of measures, opening a market  foreclosed for EU exporters since 2001. The 
export value before imposition of measures amounted to € 45 million. 

The Commission, together with the industry and Member States, also successfully intervened 
to remove remaining AD duties on Italian exports of canned tomatoes to Australia, some of 
them in place since 2014, and affecting EU yearly exports of € 22 million. Since the initiation 
of the first investigation, the Commission devoted considerable efforts to remove these duties, 
notably  because  of  the  questionable  methodology  applied  by  the  Australian  authorities  and 
their  systemic  risk  for  imports  of  EU  processed  agricultural  goods.  Ultimately,  Australia 
decided to terminate these duties. 

More examples of successful Commission interventions are described in the annexed SWD. 

Despite  its  interventions,  the  Commission  did  not  always  prevail  and  some  unwarranted 
measures  were  nevertheless  imposed.  In  cases  with  an  important  economic  and/or  systemic 
interest, the Commission resorted to WTO dispute settlement procedures in order to obtain 
the removal of unjustified measures. Such was the case for AD duties imposed by Colombia 
on frozen fries from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands, as well as the AS and AD duties 
imposed by the  US  on imports of Spanish  ripe  olives (see the  SWD for details). These two 
procedures are still ongoing. 

Where necessary, the Commission may also have recourse to the bilateral dispute settlement 
provided  for  in  trade  agreements,  in  cases  where  partners  do  not  respect  their  obligations 
under  such  agreements.  In  this  context,  in  2019,  the  Commission  continued  to  hold 

6 

 
 
consultations  with  South  Africa  regarding  the  bilateral  safeguards  in  force  on  imports  of 
frozen  chicken  from  the  EU,  which  the  Commission  considers  as  illegal.  As  no  mutually 
acceptable  solution  was  found,  the  Commission  intends  to  pursue  the  bilateral  dispute 
settlement procedure.  

Foreign TDI activity in numbers 

Total TDI measures in force affecting EU exports amounted to 175 at the end of 2019 (174 in 
2018). The overall high number of measures against the EU is expected to be maintained over 
the next  years, also  given the high number of new investigations in 2019 (37  – as in 2018), 
which may again lead to the imposition of many measures in 2020.  

The number of foreign safeguard measures remained high in 2019 with 37 measures in place 
at  the  end  of  2019  (two  more  than  in  2018),  while  AD  remains  the  most  used  instrument 
globally, with 132 measures in force out of the 175.13 

The  US  again  accounted  for  the  largest  part  of  measures  against  EU  exports,  with  36 
measures in force (33 in 2018). Compared to 2016, this represents an increase of 71%, which 
is mainly due to many new measures imposed, in particular in the steel sector. US actions also 
fuelled the global increase of measures since also countries such as Canada, Egypt, Morocco 
or the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) imposed or prolonged existing measures on certain 
steel products, most probably as a response to the US Section 232 measures on steel. 

China  is  the  second  biggest  user  of  TDI  targeting  the  EU  with  20  measures  in  force  (18  in 
2018), followed by India (18 measures, against 21 in 2018).  

In terms  of new investigations in  2019,  India initiated 7,  Indonesia and  Madagascar 4 each, 
Ukraine  3,  and  the  EAEU,  Morocco  and  Philippines  2  new  investigations  each.  Next  to 
regular users of TDI, such as India, the appearance of new users is one of the factors that has 
contributed to the overall high level of new investigations. 

As to the 25 new measures imposed in 2019, the US leads with 4 new measures, followed by 
Australia  and  Morocco  (3  new  measures),  and  the  Gulf  Cooperation  Council  (2  new 
measures). China imposed 1 new measure in 2019 against the EU.  

When looking at sectors, steel products were subject to the highest share of measures in force 
targeting the EU in 2019 (72 out of 175). Chemical products too continued to be affected by a 
high  number  of  measures  (42).  Regarding  new  investigations  initiated,  steel  was  again  the 
sector most targeted, with 9 initiations out of 37, followed by chemicals (8 new cases) and the 
agricultural sector (7 cases). 

I.7 

Activities in the framework of the WTO 

13  

It  should  be  recalled  that  unlike  AS  and  AD  measures,  safeguards  are  generally  applied  on  a  non-
selective (i.e. “most-favoured-nation”) basis. 

7 

 
 
                                                 
The Commission multiplied efforts in pushing the subsidies-related agenda in the WTO. The 
aim  is  to  adapt  the  multilateral  subsidy  disciplines  so  that  they  are  better  suited  for  the 
challenges of the current trading environment. In the course of 2019, intensive negotiations on 
fisheries  subsidies  continued  in  Geneva.  The  EU  continued  to  position  itself  as  a  leading 
proponent in these negotiations by submitting concrete textual proposals in both main areas of 
the talks: a prohibition of subsidies to illegal, unreported and unregulated (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 Commission actively participated in the work of the WTO 
committees  on  Subsidies  and  Countervailing  Measures  (SCM),  on  Anti-dumping  and  on 
Safeguards,  as  well  as  the  Informal  Group  on  Anti-Circumvention  and  the  Anti-dumping 
Working Group on Implementation (WGI). 

In the AD Committee, the EU continued to defend the changes to the EU’s TDI legislation of 
2017  and  2018.  The  Commission  also  raised  certain  cases  by  third  countries,  which  it 
considers not in compliance with the third countries’ WTO obligations and which negatively 
affect  EU  exporters  (e.g.  Colombia’s  investigation  concerning  frozen  fries).  The  EU  also 
responded to questions and provided clarifications about some of its investigations. 

In the WGI, the EU engaged in discussions on a number of technical issues, for example in 
relation to the determination of the causal link or to the analysis of threat of injury. 

In  the  regular  meetings  of  the  SCM  Committee,  discussions  continued  on  how  subsidies 
contributed to excess capacity in various sectors. In this context, in April, the US and EU co-
hosted a presentation of the OECD Report on distortions in the aluminium value chain.14 At 
the November meeting, the Committee further discussed the issue of overcapacity 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 abiding by the subsidy notification obligations of the WTO. 

Reviews  of  the  2017  subsidies  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 
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  subsidies  notifications  commenced  at  the  November 
special meeting of the SCM Committee and will continue into 2020.      

In  the  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 

14  

OECD  (2019),  Measuring  distortions  in  international  markets:  the  aluminium  value  chain,  OECD 
Trade Policy Papers, No. 218, OECD Publishing, Paris 

8 

 
 
                                                 
EU  also  responded  to  questions  by  other  Members  concerning  the  safeguard  measures  on 
certain steel products, notably the results of the recent review of these measures. 

I.8 

  Activities of the Hearing Officer 

Since  2018,  as  a  result  of  the  TDI  legislative  reforms,  the  Hearing  Officer’s  role  is  firmly 
embedded in the basic AD and AS Regulations. The Hearing Officer was asked to contribute 
to  the  procedures  to  be  applied  in  the  modernisation  implementation,  in  order  to  increase 
transparency  and  guarantee  the  procedural  rights  of  the  parties  under  the  new  rules.  As  a 
follow-up,  the  Terms  of  Reference  (TOR)  of  the  Hearing  Officer  were  modernised  and 
adopted by the President of the Commission in 2019. They provide for clearer explanations to 
interested parties on the role and powers of the Hearing Officer, in light of the new realities. 
The Hearing Officer was further called upon to intervene in other areas beyond the “classical” 
domains  of  AD  and  AS  investigations,  domains  that  are  also  covered  by  the  TOR.  This 
concerned a safeguard investigation, and proceedings related to the application of the GSP. 

In  2019,  the  Hearing  Officer  received  19  intervention  requests  and  held  eight  hearings.  On 
one occasion, she extended the deadline for comments. In a number of cases, the request for 
an intervention was submitted by parties simultaneously with a request for a hearing with the 
Commission  services  responsible  for  the  investigation.  The  Hearing  Officer  maintained  that 
the interested parties should first address their concerns to the Commission services and only 
when  a  solution  could  not  be  reached,  the  Hearing  Officer  would  intervene.  This  approach 
enabled the interested parties to find a solution directly with the investigation teams in most of 
the cases. 

In  2019,  the  number  of  investigations  that  led  to  intervention  requests  was  relatively  low, 
similarly  to  2018.  The  interested  parties  mostly  challenged  the  determinations,  facts  and 
conclusions  of  the  investigations.  In  all  cases,  where  warranted,  an  agreement  with  the 
services to provide clarifications or additional disclosures was reached. 

9 

 
 
 
II. 

FIRMER ENFORCEMENT OF MEASURES 

II.1 

Anti-circumvention activities 

Circumvention  takes  place  when  exporting  producers  in  third  countries  engage  in  specific 
activities for the sole purpose of avoiding paying anti-dumping or countervailing duties. Such 
practices include, e.g. shipping the product through a country not subject to duties to mask its 
real  origin  (transhipment),  slightly  modifying  the  product  so  that  it  does  not  attract  duties 
(slight modification), or exporting through an exporting producer with lower individual rates 
of anti-dumping or countervailing duties (company channelling).  

The  circumvention  of  AD  and  AS  measures  is  not  acceptable.  It  undermines  the  Union 
industry’s right to get relief from unfair trading practices and thus endangers jobs and growth 
in the Union. 

The proper enforcement of AD and AS measures has always been high on the Commission’s 
agenda. The Commission has a proven accomplishment record in forceful action against the 
circumvention of measures. Indeed, out of the 140 measures in force on 31 December 2019, 
28 were anti-circumvention measures. 

In 2019, the Commission took its fight against circumvention to higher levels by stepping up 
ex  officio  anti-circumvention  investigations  and  by  strengthening  the  operative  parts  of 
regulations imposing TDI measures, in order to reduce the risk of abuse.   

Ex officio anti-circumvention investigations 

Whenever the Commission had sufficient information at its disposal that circumvention was 
taking  place,  it  opened  on  its  own  initiative  (and  without  having  received  an  industry 
complaint)  an  investigation  into  the  matter  (ex  officio  investigation).  The  Commission  was 
able  to  collect  enough  evidence  to  open  the  cases  on  its  own  initiative  because  of  its 
monitoring activities. 

In  2019,  the  Commission  opened  four  ex  officio  anti-circumvention  investigations.  This  is 
unprecedented. The four cases concern: 

  company  channelling  practices  concerning  the  imports  of  ceramic  tableware  and 

kitchenware from China (“tableware case”); 

  company channelling practices concerning the imports of peroxosulphates from China 

(currently ongoing); 

  slight  modification practices concerning the imports of corrosion resistant  steel  from 

China (currently ongoing); 

 

transhipment  practices  via  Laos,  India  and  Thailand  concerning  the  imports  of 
tungsten electrodes from China (currently ongoing). 

10 

 
 
 
These  cases  are  important.  First,  two  out  of  four,  i.e.  the  steel  case  and  the  tableware  case 
concern  industry  sectors  with  important  employment  in  Europe.  By  way  of  illustration,  the 
tableware sector provides close to 27,000 direct jobs. 

Second, the four cases show the broad range of circumvention activities and the determination 
employed  by  Chinese  exporting  producers.  The  tableware  anti-circumvention  investigation 
was  the  Commission’s  largest  anti-circumvention  proceeding  to  date  in  terms  of  resources: 
the Commission investigated 50 Chinese producers, and 20 Commission investigators carried 
out  on-spot  verifications  at  about  40  Chinese  companies  within  the  mandatory  9  months 
deadline.  The  Commission  found  that  many  exporters  having  a  lower  duty  rate  (mainly 
17.9%) exported under their own name merchandise from producers having a higher duty rate 
(36.1%), thus deliberately wrongly benefitting from a lower duty.  

As a result, in many instances, customs authorities could not collect the right amount of anti-
dumping duty on tableware imports. The Commission’s investigation identified more than 30 
Chinese  exporters  that  engaged  in  this  type  of  unlawful  behaviour.  As  these  companies 
misused their individual and advantageous duty rate, the Commission made them subject  to 
the higher duty rate applicable (36.1%).  

Better regulation 

The  findings  of  the  tableware  investigation  demonstrated  the  risk  of  channelling  of  exports 
under the wrong identity. In order to reduce this risk, the Commission has developed higher 
monitoring and enforcement standards. 

For  instance,  the  Commission  has  strengthened  the  conditions  for  the  application  of  the 
individual  and  advantageous  duty  rate.  Importers  that  want  to  benefit  from  individual  duty 
rates must submit a series of additional documents.  

Moreover,  in  future  implementing  regulations  imposing  measures,  the  Commission  will 
reiterate  that  the  Member  States’  customs  authorities  have  to  make  the  necessary  checks 
beyond the simple examination of these documents. 

OLAF 

With regard to the implementation of measures, the Commission works in close cooperation 
with the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF), with the aim of preventing and detecting fraud. 
More details can be found in the annexed SWD. 

II.2 

Application of TDI to deliveries into the EU continental shelf/EEZ 

Before  the  full  implementation  of  TDI  modernisation,15  there  was  a  significant  gap  in  the 
territorial  application  of  AD  and  AS  duties.  These  duties  had  the  same  territorial  scope  as 
customs duties, i.e. they could only be applied in relation to the customs territory of the EU. 

15  

OJ L 143, 7.6.2018, p.1 

11 

 
 
                                                 
However,  the  latter  does  comprise  neither  the  continental  shelf  nor  the  exclusive  economic 
zone  (EEZ)  of  Member  States.  Yet,  the  economic  activity  in  the  continental  shelf/EZZ 
includes the use of merchandise that is typically subject to TDI measures, notably pipes and 
tubes, as well as products used in wind power generation.  

In  order  to  close  this  important  gap  in  the  enforcement  of  its  TDI  rules,  the  EU  followed  a 
two-step  approach.  First,  in  the  context  of  the  modernisation  of  TDI,  the  co-legislators 
decided  that  AD  and  AS  measures  could  in  principle  also  apply  for  deliveries  into  the  EU 
continental  shelf/EEZ.  Second,  as  customs  law  only  applies  to  the  customs  territory,  the 
Commission  created  an  ad-hoc  legislative  customs  tool  that  ensured  that  the  EU’s  customs 
legislation could apply mutatis mutandis for the collection of AD and AS duties for deliveries 
into the continental shelf/EEZ. The legislative process  was  completed on 3 July 201916  and 
the Customs Tool became operational and fully applicable as of 4 November 2019.17 The new 
tool also  provides for the possibility to  register imports into the continental shelf/EEZ. This 
allows obtaining the necessary statistical data. It also enables the Commission to apply trade 
defence measures with retroactive effect, if necessary.   

16  
17  

OJ L 179, 3.7.2019, p.12 
OJ C 366, 30.10.2019, p.61 

12 

 
 
 
                                                 
III. 

EFFECTIVENESS OF APPLICATION OF RECENT MEASURES 

The  very  purpose  of  the  application  of  TDI  is  to  restore  fair  conditions  of  trade  between 
imports  and  goods  produced  in  the  EU.  If  a  third  country  exports  artificially  low  priced 
products  (as  a  result  of  dumping  or  subsidisation),  this  will  often  cause  injury  to  EU 
companies,  and  a  distortion  of  trade  flows  from  other  origins  (i.e.  fair  imports  from  third 
countries  which  are  not  dumped  or  subsidised).  The  purpose  of  EU  TDI  measures  is  to 
remedy  the  injurious  effect  caused  by  the  unfairly  traded  imports.  The  remedy  consists 
usually in  adding an anti-dumping or a countervailing duty to the import price. As  a result, 
such imports normally decrease, as they are no longer competitive - not benefitting on the EU 
market from dumping and/or subsidisation. 

III.1 

Injurious imports decrease 

Once  an  investigation  begins,  the  first  action  that  the  Commission  can  take  is  to  register 
imports,  with  a  view  to  collecting  duties  retroactively  at  the  time  of  the  imposition  of 
definitive measures.  In many cases, such registration has  already a certain remedial effect  – 
importers anticipate the risk of having to pay, in the near future, the duties that could result 
from the conclusions of the investigation.  

However,  it  is  after  the  very  imposition  of  measures,  that  dumped  or  subsidised  imports 
decrease the most. The ratio by which imports decrease following the imposition of measures 
can  constitute  a  good  indicator  of  the  efficiency  of  such  measures.  It  shows  the  extent  to 
which  the  unfairly  priced  imports  are  removed  from  the  EU  market.  The  evolution  of  this 
ratio allows, in many cases, to draw conclusions on whether EU measures are effective and 
properly enforced. Indeed, a small reduction of imports following the imposition of AD or AS 
duties can signal attempts to absorb or circumvent the latter. As mentioned earlier, the proper 
enforcement of measures is paramount to their efficiency.  

The table below shows the effect of EU measures adopted in years 2017-2018 on the import 
flows of the products concerned:18  

Product under measure (country of origin) 

Cast iron articles from China 

Corrosion resistant steels from China 

Electric bicycles from China 

% of imports 
decrease 

-57% 

-100% 

-83% 

18  

Comparison  between  imports  before  (i.e.  in  the  Investigation  Period  (IP))  and  after  measures  (in  the 
period of October 2018 - September 2019, for which the most recent complete data was available at the 
time of finalisation of this Report) 

13 

 
 
 
                                                 
Heavy plates from China 

Hot rolled flat products from Brazil, China, Iran, Russia and Ukraine 

New and retreaded tyres for buses or lorries from China 

Rebars from Belarus 

Seamless pipes of iron or steel from China 

Stainless steel tube and pipe butt-welding fittings from China and Taiwan 

Thermal paper from the Rep. of Korea (Korea) 

Average decrease 

-99% 

-71% 

-74% 

-86% 

-98% 

-81% 

-90% 

-80% 

Source:  Own  calculations  based  on  Comext  statistics  (in  kg),  except  for  Electric  bicycles  and 
Tyres, for which Member States’ customs data on units imported was used 

As shown in the table above, in the case of cast iron articles, imports have decreased by 57% 
following  the  imposition  of  measures  in  February  2019.  This  is  below  the  average  ratio  of 
decrease seen in recent cases. With respect to that product, the Commission initiated an anti-
absorption investigation on 18 December 2019. The initiation was based on evidence showing 
that,  after  the  original  investigation  period,  and  following  the  imposition  of  the  provisional 
anti-dumping duties, Chinese export prices of the product had decreased. That decrease could 
have reduced the remedial  effects  of the measures in  force. The evidence made available to 
the Commission indicated that the drop in export prices could not be explained by a decrease 
of the price of the major raw material or a change in product mix. Evidence also showed that 
imports  of  cast  iron  articles  continued  to  enter  the  Union  in  significant  volumes,  as  also 
corroborated by the above figures on imports. The results of this anti-absorption investigation 
will be available in 2020. 

III.2  More diversified sources of supply 

A  well-functioning  EU  economy  not  only  depends  on  exports  but  also  on  imports.  In  that 
respect,  EU  TDI  measures  only  affect  those  imports,  which  are  unfair  and  injurious.  The 
effect  of  TDI  measures  is  that  such  unfair  and  injurious  imports  are  normally  replaced  by 
either EU production or imports from other countries, for which there is no evidence of unfair 
pricing  (and  which  therefore  are  not  subject  to  any  measures).  Thus,  AD  and  AS  duties 
restore  the  level  playing  field  both  for  the  EU  producing  industry  and  other  third 
country suppliers, allowing EU users to continue enjoying diversified sources of supply. The 
table below shows how the share of EU-produced goods and non-injurious imports in the EU 
total consumption changed after the imposition of measures:19 

19  

Data based on recent expiry reviews. All cases selected represent measures that were subject to a first 
expiry review which was concluded in 2019 with a prolongation. 

14 

 
 
                                                 
Before 
measures20 

After  
measures21 

EU market share of EU-produced goods: 

Aluminium radiators from China 
Tube and pipe fittings from Korea, Malaysia, Russia and Turkey22 
Organic coated steel products from China 
Aluminium foil in small rolls from China 
Ceramic tableware and kitchenware from China  
Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron from 
China and Thailand 

EU market share of unfair injurious imports:23 

Aluminium radiators from China 
Tube and pipe fittings from Korea, Malaysia, Russia and Turkey 
Organic coated steel products from China 
Aluminium foil in small rolls from China 
Ceramic tableware and kitchenware from China24  
Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron from 
China and Thailand 

EU market share of fair imports:25 

Aluminium radiators from China 
Tube and pipe fittings from Korea, Malaysia, Russia and Turkey 
Organic coated steel products from China 
Aluminium foil in small rolls from China 
Ceramic tableware and kitchenware from China  
Threaded tube or pipe cast fittings of malleable cast iron from 
China and Thailand 
Source: EU regulations 

76% 
72% 
76% 
85% 
21% 

39% 

24% 
22% 
14% 
13% 
67% 

52% 

0% 
6% 
10% 
1% 
12% 

8% 

95% 
59% 
85% 
92% 
31% 

63% 

3% 
21% 
0% 
2% 
56% 

26% 

2% 
20% 
15% 
6% 
13% 

10% 

III.3  EU jobs protected by trade defence measures  

As mentioned above, dumped or subsidised imports cause or threaten to cause injury to EU 
companies,  putting at  risk the viability of EU businesses, and hence  also  of EU jobs.  Trade 
defence measures, by restoring non-injurious conditions of trade, contribute to protecting jobs 

20  
21  
22  

23  
24  

25  

Data relative to the IP of the original investigation. 
Data relative to the Review IP in the latest expiry review. 
While measures on this product are in place since 2002, measures on Russia were now reviewed for the 
first time (and prolonged). 
Imports subject to EU measures. 
With regard to Ceramic tableware and kitchenware, the figures do not take yet into account the effect 
of the recent anti-circumvention measures (see Section II.I). 
Imports from all third countries not subject to EU measures. 

15 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                 
in  EU  companies.  In  each  investigation,  the  Commission  calculates  the  number  of  EU  jobs 
that are directly affected to the production of the product concerned in the companies injured 
by the dumped or subsidised imports. This number gives an idea about how EU trade defence 
measures contribute, by protecting industrial jobs, to maintain a thriving EU economy. At the 
end of 2019, the EU’s 137 antidumping and anti-subsidy measures were shielding from unfair 
competition  circa  343,000  direct  EU  jobs.  Measures  imposed  in  2019  contributed  to  an 
increase of the number of jobs benefitting from TDI measures by 23,000. 

III.4  A new system to monitor the effectiveness of measures 

The  Commission  is  currently  developing  a  new  internal  system  that  will  improve  the 
monitoring of the effectiveness of measures in force.  

The system will integrate into one storage place information on trade flows and employment 
figures  related  to  investigations  and  measures.  The  Commission  will  regularly  update  the 
data. 

This  will  allow  comparing  figures  on  imports  of  products  subject  to  measures  with  import 
reported for periods prior to the imposition of measures.  It will permit a swift evaluation of 
the efficiency and impact of measures. In addition, the system will also store information on 
profitability,  employment  and  investment  from  subsequent  expiry  reviews  which  will  allow 
following the evolution of the Union industry’s economic condition. 

16