04 February 2004 11:35
TRADE: EU ANTI-DUMPING AND ANTI-SUBSIDY MEASURES FALL IN 2003
Officials say that the numbers involved do not reflect a more protective trade policy as the Commission is obliged to
investigate when the EU industry complains. They say only 0.5% of the EU's total import trade is affected by
anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. But by the end of December 2003, some 156 anti-dumping and 17 countervailing
measures were in force.
Asian economies remained the major target of the inquiries: China accounted for three investigations, India two, and
Pakistan and Singapore one each. But the fall in measures reflects wider trade trends: the Asian financial crisis which
erupted six years ago, and the subsequent currency freefall in Russian have less of an impact on trade now than they did
even last year.
Breakdown of cases.
The 84-page report outlines each of the Commission's new investigations and reviews, as well as the complaints
at the European Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance.
Over the five-year period from the start of 1999 to the end of 2003, 181 anti-dumping or anti-subsidy investigations
were launched, covering imports from 41 countries, the main ones being India (23), China (24 cases), Taiwan (13) and
South Korea (13). Over the same period, the inquiries have been led by the chemical sector (58), followed by the iron
and steel industry (53 cases), electronics (22) and the textiles industry (20). Most of the EU's definitive
measures took the form of duties. However, in a significant number of cases, in particular those relating to Central and
Eastern European countries, price undertakings were accepted.
Of the 36 investigations launched last year, only eight were new investigations (three of them anti-subsidy). On top
of the new inquiries launched, the Commission also opened a number of reviews. These are re-investigations, required
under EU law as the five-year period draws to a close, or if the Commission is alerted to a change in the market (either
expiry reviews, which have to be initiated when a request is made to the EU; interim reviews, where the continued
imposition of measures is examined; or if a new exporter has emerged). In 2003, 28 reviews were launched (five expiry,
nine interim, seven new exporter, one anti-absorption, four anti-circumvention, and two safeguard investigations), and
61 were actually completed. The apparent sluggishness in the reviews is due to the longer deadlines, in comparison to
new investigations. As for the EU actions themselves, while five definitive measures were set, three of them were
anti-dumping (Chinese para-cresol and furfuryl alcohol, Russian silicon metal) while two were anti-subsidy (Indian
Recordable compact disks (CD-Rs) and South Korean dynamic random access memory chips).
To obtain more details: www.eis.be => Search => Reference = EURE;2725;508
-- Anti-dumping procedures are the most frequently used of the EU's trade defence instruments. Products are
considered to be sold at dumped prices if manufacturers from a non-EU country sell goods in the European Union below the
sales price in their domestic market (called "price discrimination"), or sell the goods below their cost of
production. Manufacturers do this in an attempt to undercut other suppliers. They may be willing to sustain initial
losses to boost their market share, and can then push their production costs down further as they increase sales volume.
Subsidies are another problem, as governments sometimes help their manufacturers cut the prices of their exports
unfairly. Again, this can increase the manufacturers' market share in other countries and cause injury to
competitors.
The European Commission undertakes the investigations if an EU industry officially complains that dumped or
subsidised imports are causing it 'material injury'. The industry must show:
- dumping or subsidisation: that the sales price of the product in the Union's market is lower than the normal
price of the goods on the producer's home market, or that a specific subsidy has been paid in the country of
origin;
- evidence that the dumping or subsidisation has caused or threatens material injury to a major proportion of
producers within the EU, depressing their sales, market share or productivity, or threatening the establishment of a new
industry;
- that the complainant is representative of a major proportion of the industry concerned in the EU.
--
[European Report] |
RUSSIA IN FACTS
