Case T‑379/23

Çolakoğlu Metalurji AŞ

European Commission

Judgment of the General Court (Eighth Chamber, sitting with five Judges) of 4 March 2026

(Dumping – Imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye – Extension to those imports of the definitive anti-dumping duty imposed on certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia – Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 – Circumvention – Concept of ‘assembly operation’ – Concept of ‘completion operation’ – Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 – Error of law)

Common commercial policy – Protection against dumping – Circumvention – Assembly operation – Concept – Completion operation – Included – Processing of a single input into a finished product which does not involve assembly – Processing which does not constitute a completion operation

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 13(1)(d), and (2)(b))

(see paragraphs 33, 43-58, 60, 62, 67, 72, 80-82, 89, 95, 96)
EU law – Interpretation – Methods – Literal, systematic, historical and teleological interpretation

(see paragraph 39)
EU law – Interpretation – Texts in several languages – Uniform interpretation – Differences between the various language versions – Account to be taken of the overall scheme and purpose of the legislation in question

(European Parliament and Council Regulation 2016/1036, Art. 13(2)(b))

(see paragraphs 42, 59)

Résumé

The General Court annuls Implementing Regulation 2023/825 of the European Commission extending the anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (‘SSHR’), originating in Indonesia, to imports of SSHR consigned from Türkiye. ( 1 ) At the same time, the Court rules on the question whether a processing operation of a single input into a finished product may constitute an ‘assembly or completion operation’ and accordingly a ‘practice, process or work’ by which the anti-dumping measures in force are circumvented, within the meaning of Article 13(1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation. ( 2 )

In 2020, the Commission adopted Implementing Regulation 2020/1408 ( 3 ) imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain SSHR originating in Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan.

In 2022, following a complaint lodged by Eurofer, European Steel Association, AISBL, the Commission initiated an investigation into the possible circumvention of those anti-dumping measures by imports of SSHR originating in Indonesia consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not. Following its investigation, the Commission adopted the contested implementing regulation.

By its action, the applicant, Çolakoğlu Metalurji AŞ, a Turkish exporting producer of SSHR, seeks the annulment of the contested regulation in so far as it concerns the applicant. It disputes, in essence, the classification of ‘assembly operation’ attributed to the manufacturing process of SSHR in Türkiye.

Findings of the Court

The Court states that, in order to determine the existence of circumvention, the third subparagraph of Article 13(1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation requires, (i) a change in the pattern of trade between a third country and the European Union or between individual companies in the country subject to measures and the European Union, (ii) that that change stems from a practice, process or work for which there is insufficient due cause or economic justification other than the imposition of the duty, (iii) evidence of harm to EU industry or that the remedial effects of the anti-dumping duty are being undermined in terms of the prices and/or quantities of the like product and, (iv) evidence of dumping in relation to the normal values previously established for the like product. Under the fourth subparagraph of that provision, the assembly operations in the European Union or in a third country are one of the practices, processes or works capable of constituting circumvention.

In the contested regulation, the Commission considered that all the conditions laid down in the third subparagraph of Article 13(1) were satisfied. As regards the second condition, the Commission considered that the processing of stainless steel slabs into SSHR carried out in Türkiye constituted a ‘completion operation’ which falls within the concept of ‘assembly operations’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic anti-dumping regulation. That provision specifies the conditions under which an assembly operation is to be regarded as circumventing the measures in force and refers, in point (b) of that provision, to ‘completion operations’.

In that context, the Court determines whether that classification is consistent with Article 13 of the basic anti-dumping regulation.

At the outset, the Court notes that the ordinary meaning of ‘assembly’ consists in the action of assembling several parts to form an object. The manufacturing of SSHR is carried out in only one production stage, consisting in heating and then hot rolling the stainless steel slabs. Accordingly, the process of processing the stainless steel slabs into SSHR does not constitute assembly for the purposes of the definition set out above.

However, in so far as the Commission classified that processing as a ‘completion operation’, falling within the concept of ‘assembly operation’ within the meaning of Article 13(2) of the basic anti-dumping regulation, the Court carries out a literal, contextual, teleological and historical analysis of that provision, in order to determine whether the concept of ‘completion operation’ must include, as the Commission contends, processing operations of a single input into a finished product which do not involve any assembly, such as the processing of stainless steel slabs into SSHR in the present case, or, as the applicant suggests, only operations which involve a form of assembly of several parts.

In that regard, the Court finds that the basic anti-dumping regulation does not define that concept.

As regards the context, the Court has already held that the ‘completion operations’ are included in the ‘assembly operations’ and form a type of assembly operation. ( 4 ) Accordingly, the ‘completion operations’ cannot include processing operations of a single input into a finished product which do not involve any assembly, because such operations cannot have a scope which goes beyond that of the assembly operations to which they belong.

That finding is supported by the remainder of the wording of Article 13(2), by the teleological interpretation of that article and by its historical interpretation.

First, under Article 13(2)(b), in order for an assembly operation to be regarded as circumventing the anti-dumping measures in force, first, the ‘parts’ from the country subject to measures must constitute 60% or more of the total value of the ‘parts of the assembled product’ and, second, in essence, the value added to the ‘parts brought in’ during the assembly or completion operation must be less than 25% of the manufacturing cost. The use of the word ‘parts’ in the plural, in conjunction with the words ‘assembled product’, in the singular, supports the interpretation that that provision refers to operations in the course of which several parts are assembled to form a single object.

In addition, the 60% value of parts test loses its effectiveness as regards the processing of a single input, since the lack of assembly of several parts makes it unnecessary to calculate the proportion of parts from the country subject to measures in relation to the total value of the parts of the product concerned.

Second, the need to ensure the effectiveness of the anti-dumping measures in force cannot justify a broad interpretation of the concept of ‘completion operation’. Even assuming that the provisions on circumvention were to prove insufficient in order to review certain operations capable of having a significant impact on the effectiveness of the anti-dumping measures, the clear wording of Article 13 of the basic anti-dumping regulation, within the meaning of which assembly operations consist in assembling several parts to form an object, cannot, in principle, be called into question by a teleological interpretation of the concept of ‘completion operation’, which falls within the concept of ‘assembly operation’, at the risk of expanding the scope of that concept, which it is for the EU legislature alone to decide. Such a teleological interpretation cannot be contra legem.

In addition, the broad discretion left to the EU institutions in order to define circumvention allows the Commission to examine to what extent the processing in a third country of a single input from a country concerned by the anti-dumping measures in force, in order to form a product identical or similar to that subject to those measures, may constitute circumvention, even though such a practice does not correspond to ‘completion operations’, provided that the other conditions required by the third subparagraph of Article 13(1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation are satisfied.

Third, by examining, in a historical interpretation, the various amendments made to Article 13 of the basic anti-dumping regulation, the Court finds that it is not apparent from the legislative history of that provision that ‘completion operations’, which fall within the concept of ‘assembly operation’, can cover processing operations of a single input into a finished product which do not involve assembly.

In the light of those considerations, the Court concludes that the Commission’s argument that the abovementioned ‘completion operations’ can cover such processing operations is not supported by a literal, contextual, teleological or historical interpretation of Article 13(2) of the basic anti-dumping regulation.

Thus, the processing of stainless steel slabs into SSHR, corresponding to the processing of a single input into a finished product which did not involve any assembly, does not constitute a ‘completion operation’ which falls within the concept of ‘assembly operation’ within the meaning of that provision.

It follows that the second condition required by the third subparagraph of Article 13(1) of the basic anti-dumping regulation for a finding of circumvention of the anti-dumping measures in force is not satisfied. Therefore, the Court annuls the contested regulation in so far as it concerns the applicant.

( 1 ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed by Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye, whether declared as originating in Türkiye or not (OJ 2023 L 103, p. 12; ‘the contested regulation’).

( 2 ) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2016 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Union (OJ 2016 L 176, p. 21; ‘the basic anti-dumping regulation’).

( 3 ) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 of 6 October 2020 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China and Taiwan (OJ 2020 L 325, p. 26).

( 4 ) Judgment of 4 December 2024, PGTEX Morocco v Commission, T‑245/22, EU:T:2024:879; and judgment of 4 December 2024, PGTEX Morocco v Commission, T‑246/22, EU:T:2024:880.