EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 28.7.2025

SWD(2025) 231 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

Accompanying the document

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

43rd Annual Report from the Commission to European Parliament and the Council 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 2024

{COM(2025) 428 final}

Table of Contents

1.    Overview of the legislation    

1.1.    Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy    

1.1.1.    The international framework    

1.1.2.    The EU legislation    

1.2.    Safeguards    

1.2.1.    The international framework    

1.2.2.    The EU legislation    

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

2.1.    Measures in place    

2.2.    New investigations    

2.3.    Review investigations    

3.    Overview of activities in 2024    

3.1.    New investigations    

3.1.1.    Initiations    

3.1.2.    Provisional measures    

3.1.3.    Definitive measures    

3.1.5.    New investigations terminated without measures    

3.2.    Review investigations    

3.2.1.    Expiry reviews    

3.2.2.    Interim reviews    

3.2.3.    New exporter reviews    

3.2.4.    Anti-absorption investigations    

3.2.5.    Anti-circumvention investigations    

3.3.    Safeguard investigations    

4.    Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures    

4.1.    Follow-up of measures    

4.2.    Monitoring of undertakings    

5.    Refunds    

6.    Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts    

7.    Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice and the General Court    

7.1.    Overview of the judicial reviews in 2024    

7.2.    Cases pending    

7.3.    New cases    

7.4.    Selection of court decisions    

8.    Activities by third countries targeting the EU    

9.    Activities in the framework of the WTO    

9.1    Dispute settlement in the field of trade defence    

9.2    Meetings of the WTO Anti-dumping, ASCM and Safeguards Committees.    

1.Overview of the legislation

1.1.Anti-dumping and anti-subsidy

1.1.1.    The international framework

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 act against these practices if they caused material injury to the domestic industry of a GATT member. Today's globalised trade environment is characterised 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 as 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 has been 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. In this sense, the EU applies its anti-dumping (AD) and anti-subsidy (AS) legislation in a rigorous and consistent manner. Unfortunately, many WTO Members lack this type of restraint, thereby affecting negatively also EU operators. The role that the EU plays as a prudent but determined user has therefore also an exemplary function at WTO level. Against this backdrop, the EU 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 Version 1 ,

–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 last modified by Regulation (EU) 2017/2321 of 12 December 2017 3 , Regulation (EU) 2018/825 of 30 May 2018 4 and Regulation (EU) 2020/1173 of 4 June 2020 5 . 

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 used to require that the measures imposed by the EU be always lower than the dumping or subsidy margin, if a lower duty rate was sufficient to remove the injury suffered by the EU industry. Such a “no-injury” rate is usually determined by comparing import prices under investigation with the cost of production of the EU industry and a reasonable profit margin. Since the 2018 amendments to the basic Regulations, the lesser duty rule does not apply, in principle, in anti-subsidy investigations, which means anti-subsidy measures will fully offset the subsidies that an exporter has received. Also, since 2018, in anti-dumping investigations, the application of the lesser duty rule may be modulated under certain conditions relating to evidence of significant raw material distortions in the exporting country.

This practice reflects the increased attention of the EU to tackle unfair and injurious subsidisation and artificial distortions by third countries. 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. The Commission presented a review and evaluation of the modulation of the lesser duty rule to the Council and the European Parliament in 2023 6 .

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 must 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 must 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 (PRC), 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.

Moreover, FTAs concluded by the Union with third countries often include a ‘bilateral safeguard clause’, i.e., a provision that allows for the temporary suspension of tariff concessions made under the FTA.

1.2.2.The EU legislation

The above-mentioned WTO principles are reflected in the relevant EU regulations, except for the “unforeseen development requirement” (which is not found explicitly in the EU legislation nor in the WTO Agreement on Safeguards but has been confirmed as a self-standing condition by WTO jurisprudence, as per Article XIX of GATT 1994). Additionally, the adoption of measures in the EU requires an analysis of all interests concerned, i.e., the impact of the measures on producers, users and consumers. In other words, safeguard action can only be taken when it is in the EU’s interest to do so. The current EU safeguard instruments are covered by the following regulations:

- Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (codification); 7  

- 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); 8

- Regulation (EU) 2019/287 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 February 2019 implementing bilateral safeguard clauses and other mechanisms allowing for the temporary withdrawal of preferences in certain trade agreements concluded between the European Union and third countries; 9

- 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). 10

The first two regulations are referred to as the “basic safeguard Regulation(s)”.

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

The number of new investigations initiated in 2024 was significantly higher than the previous year, with 33 initiations compared to 12 in 2023.

The number of measures imposed in 2024 was more than the previous year. The Commission imposed 7 new definitive measures and 10 provisional measures giving a total of 17, compared to 11 in 2023. 11 At the same time, 1 investigation was terminated without the imposition of measures. 

As to the reviews initiated during 2024, the total was slightly lower than in 2023, with 30 initiations compared to 31 in 2023. These included 21 expiry reviews, 4 interim reviews, 3 anti-circumvention investigations and 2 safeguard reviews. The Commission concluded 20 reviews in 2024 and terminated 6 reviews. Below are details on new investigations and review investigations.

2.1.Measures in place

At the end of 2024, the EU had 124 definitive anti-dumping measures (which were extended 12 in 38 cases) and 22 definitive countervailing measures (extended in 7 cases) 13 and 1 safeguard measure force. The anti-dumping measures cover 99 products from 28 countries (see Annex O). The countervailing measures cover 15 products from 11 countries (see Annex P). 

Regarding the anti-dumping measures in force at the end of 2024, the countries and territories concerned were the PRC (74 measures), Russia (11 measures), Indonesia and Türkiye (8 measures), India, Taiwan and Korea (7 measures each), Malaysia and Thailand (6 measures each), US (4 measures), Morocco (3 measures), Belarus, Brazil, Sri Lanka, Philippines and Vietnam (2 measures each), and Cambodia, Canada, Egypt, Iran, Japan, Kazakhstan, Laos, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Trinidad & Tobago and Tunisia (1 measure each).

Regarding the anti-subsidy measures in place, the countries concerned were PRC (11 measures), India (4 measures), Türkiye (4 measures), Egypt and Indonesia (2 measures each), and Argentina, Canada, Morocco, Taiwan, US and Vietnam (1 measure each).

2.2.New investigations 

In the 5-year period between 2020 and 2024, the Commission initiated 79 new investigations on imports from 15 countries including one erga omnes safeguard investigation.

The main sectors concerned were iron and steel with 24 investigations and chemicals with 21 investigations. A breakdown of the sectors concerned is in Annex B (A).

The countries concerned by initiations are the PRC – 44; India – 7; Türkiye – 5; Indonesia - 4; Korea – 3; Egypt, Morocco, Russia, Taiwan, USA - 2 each; Brazil, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Vietnam - 1 each and the safeguard investigation being erga omnes. 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 2020-2024.

TABLE 1

Evolution of new anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard investigations

during the period 1 January 2020 - 31 December 2024

2.3.Review investigations 

Anti-dumping measures, including price undertakings, may be subject, under the basic AD Regulation, to five different types of reviews: expiry reviews (Article 11(2)), interim reviews (Article 11(3)), newcomer investigations (Article 11(4)), absorption investigations (Article 12) and anti-circumvention investigations (Article 13). The Commission also carries out “other” reviews consisting in re-opening of investigations to implement court rulings.

Anti-subsidy measures may also 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 2020 to 2024, the Commission initiated 161 review investigations. These reviews represented 67% of all anti-dumping and anti-subsidy investigations initiated in that period.

In 2024, the Commission initiated 30 reviews. These comprised 21 expiry reviews (compared to 10 in 2023), 4 interim reviews, 3 anti-circumvention investigations (counted per product and country of alleged circumvention practice) and 2 safeguard reviews. At the same time, the Commission concluded 26 reviews – 11 of which were expiry reviews.

An overview of the review investigations in 2024 can be found in Annexes F to K. Table 2 below provides statistical information for the years 2020 – 2024.

TABLE 2

Reviews of anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguard investigations

during the period 1 January 2020 - 31 December 2024 15

3.Overview of activities in 2024

3.1.New investigations

3.1.1.Initiations

In 2024, the Commission initiated 29 new anti-dumping, 3 new anti-subsidy and 1 new safeguard investigation. Most of the new investigations concerned the chemicals sector, 3 initiations concerned the plastics and rubber sector, while 3 concerned other sectors. The investigations concerned 9 different countries, with 20 of the investigations concerning imports from the PRC. Details of the investigations are given in Annexes A and B.

The list of cases initiated in 2024 can be found below, together with the names of the complainants. More information can be obtained from the Official Journals - publications reference in Annex A.

3.1.2.Provisional measures

In 2024, provisional duties were imposed in 9 anti-dumping and 1 anti-subsidy investigations. 17  

The list of cases where provisional measures were imposed during 2024 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.

3.1.3.Definitive measures

During 2024, definitive duties were imposed in 6 anti-dumping and 1 anti-subsidy investigations. The list of cases where definitive measures were imposed can be found below, together with the range of the duties imposed. More information can be obtained from the Official Journals referred to in Annex D.

3.1.4 Details of individual cases with application of new measures

Battery electric vehicles (BEV) originating in the People’s Republic of China

On 4 October 2023 the Commission initiated, on an ex-officio basis, an anti-subsidy investigation on new battery electric vehicles (‘BEVs’) for passengers originating in China.

The investigation of subsidisation and injury covered the period from 1 October 2022 to 30 September 2023. The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2020 to the end of the investigation period.

The product subject to this investigation was BEVs, principally designed for the transport of nine or less persons, including the driver, propelled solely by one or more electric motors. Motorcycles were excluded from the investigation.

Sampling

In total 21 groups of exporting producers cooperated with the investigation. Out of the 21 groups, the Commission sampled 3 groups of exporting producers that were requested to provide questionnaire replies. The 3 sampled groups - BYD, Geely and SAIC - provided questionnaire replies. Tesla (Shanghai) requested individual examination and also provided a questionnaire reply.

Several Union producers provided information and agreed to be included in the sample. The selection of the sample was based on the largest representative volume of sales and production in the Union of the like product during the investigation period. The Commission also considered the geographical spread of Union producers within the Union as well as ensured the inclusion of a wide range of BEVs models. The sample consisted of four Union producers accounting for 38% of sales and 34% of total production volume of the Union industry in the investigation period. No unrelated importers cooperated and therefore sampling was not necessary.

Subsidies

The Commission verified the questionnaire reply of over 100 companies within the sampled groups, spending over 250 mission days to obtain and verify the information necessary to come to accurate subsidy findings. The Government of China provided a questionnaire reply as did one financial institution. No input supplier provided a questionnaire reply.

The investigation revealed that the entire BEV value chain is heavily subsidised in China causing economic injury to the competing EU producers of electric vehicles. Furthermore, China provides subsidies to upstream sectors such as mining, production of raw materials and batteries but also downstream sectors such as consumer rebates for acquisition of BEVs and shipbuilding. The countervailable subsidies can be split in two categories:

·Traditional schemes that were investigated in past investigations such as standard grants, preferential financing and tax exemptions.

·Case specific schemes to BEVs such as the national subsidy, the provision of batteries and their components for less than adequate remuneration and the use of green bonds.

-National subsidy is a scheme whereby producers of BEVs get a certain amount per car sold, limited to electric cars.

-National policy to subsidise the production of battery cells & packs, as well as their raw materials and components, which allows BEV producers to purchase this essential component -which represents around 40% of the cost of a vehicle - at artificially low prices.

-Green bonds or asset-backed-securities are a special type of bonds specific to the green industry and BEVs whereby BEV producers can raise funds at preferential rates since banks are encouraged to purchase such bonds.

The Commission followed its consistent tested practice in examining these schemes and calculating the corresponding subsidy margins in line with WTO law. In the absence of sufficient cooperation by the Government of China, financial institutions, input suppliers and, in some cases, of the sampled producers, certain findings were based on facts available, in line with the Commission’s consistent practice.

The definitive countervailing margins calculated as a result ranged from 17% for the BYD, 18,8% for the Geely group to 35,3% for the SAIC group. It amounted to 7,8% for Tesla, 20,7% for the cooperating non-sampled groups and 35.3% for all other companies.

Injury

Concerning injury, there were around 10 groups of manufacturers of BEVs in the Union. Most of these companies are originally manufacturers of internal combustion engine (or ICE) vehicles that are transitioning to the production of BEVs.

Consumption, production capacity and sales of the EU industry increased between January 2020 and September 2023. However, the market share of the Union industry was decreasing from 68,9% in 2020 to 59,9% in the investigation period (October 2022-September 2023).

At the same time, the market share of BEV imports from China increased significantly from 3,9% in 2020 to 25,0% in the investigation period.

The development of sales prices and unit production costs in the EU throughout the period considered showed evidence of significant price suppression (meaning that Chinese imports prevented price increases which otherwise would have occurred). The Union industry was unable to raise its prices to cover its costs. This meant that the Union industry made losses on sales of BEVs throughout the period considered.

The development of the Union industry’s injury indicators showed that the transitioning from ICE to BEV started to be impeded in the investigation period.

Threat of injury and causation

The Commission examined whether the likely future developments of subsidised imports from China would jeopardise the successful transitioning from ICE vehicles to BEVs. The Commission analysed various factors, such as the nature of the subsidies, the rate of imports’ increase , the spare capacity in China, and the attractiveness of the EU market. The EU market is not only the main export destination of Chinese BEVs, as well as the largest market for BEVs as compared to all other export destinations, but it is also the most open, compared to the US, which is shielded by a total duty of 102.5%, and to other big economies such as Türkiye, India and Brazil.

Therefore, the Commission concluded that there is a threat of material injury for the Union industry which is clearly foreseeable and imminent and is caused by the subsidised imports of Chinese BEVs.

Union interest

The Commission finally analysed all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, users, consumers, importers and suppliers.

-EU producers

The automotive industry plays an important role in the EU economy, providing direct and indirect jobs to 12,9 million people, representing 7% of total EU employment. BEVs are a key product for the EU to reach its climate goals as defined in the European Green Deal.

This transition goes far beyond the mere conversion of thermal to electric engines and covers the entire lifecycle of the electric vehicles. It involves the entire value chain of the automotive industry from mining, chemicals, to electric engines, battery pack manufacturing, energy, battery waste collection and recycling. Amongst these, electric batteries have a strategic importance for the development of BEVs. In the transition to electrification, it is highly risky for the EU car producers to lose profitability and market share to subsidised imports from China. This would mean that they would not be able to carry out the necessary investments in new battery technologies and other innovations that will increase driving range, reduce charging time, cut costs and improve safety, and thus to successfully achieve such transition. The Commission found that the transition from production of ICE vehicles to BEVs has been jeopardised by the exponential increase of subsidised imports. Without measures, there was a high likelihood that the EU industry would lose sales volume and market share resulting in a rapid decrease of profitability, leading to substantial losses and therefore also loss of investments and jobs in the auto sector. The Commission concluded that this would inevitably lead to closure of production sites in the Union and massive loss of employment. The imposition of measures was therefore in the interest of the Union industry.

-Consumers

As regards consumers, the Commission noted that even with the imposition of the countervailing duties, imports will continue to flow as the duties will only compensate the distorting subsidisation.

The potential price increase for consumers in the Union has to be balanced with the negative effect of the low-priced imports on the EU industry that, once the market has fully transitioned from ICE vehicles to BEVs, will provide millions of jobs in the EU. The disappearance of the EU car industry would have an enormous negative impact on the EU market, having spillover effects to the supplier industry with the potential loss of millions of jobs in the Union. So, the potential price increases will very likely not have a disproportionate effect on consumers. And it is expected that at least part of the price increase will be absorbed by the importers.

Finally, the Commission considered that the EU’s efforts to reach its climate goals cannot be built upon unfair competition by low-priced subsidised BEVs. For a sustainable green transition, the EU needs to maintain an industrial base for clean tech products, in this case BEVs.

The Commission therefore concluded that there were no reasons of Union interest that would speak against the imposition of measures.

Definitive countervailing duties

The definitive countervailing duty imposed in October 2024 on BEVs originating in the PRC ranged from 17% for the BYD, 18,8% for the Geely group to 35,3% for the SAIC group. It amounted to 7,8% for Tesla, 20,7% for the cooperating non-sampled groups and 35.3% for all other companies.

Steel bulb flats originating in the People’s Republic of China and Türkiye

On 14 November 2022, the European Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation regarding imports of steel bulb flats originating in the People’s Republic of China and Türkiye on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation, following a complaint lodged by Laminados Losal S.A.U., one of the two producers of the product in the European Union.

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 October 2021 to 30 September 2022. The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the investigation period.

The product under investigation was non-alloy steel bulb flats in the range up to 204 mm width (‘steel bulb flats’). Steel bulb flats are mainly used in the shipbuilding industry for the construction of the steel framework of passengers’ cruises, ferries, military vessels, and merchant vessels.

Sampling

Due to the limited number of interested parties in this investigation (two Union producers, one exporting producer in China, one exporting producer in Türkiye and one unrelated importer that came forward) it was decided that sampling was not necessary.

Dumping

China

Regarding imports from China, the investigation was initiated in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in view of the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation pointing to the existence of significant distortions. The investigation confirmed the existence of significant distortions in the steel shipbuilding and steel bulb flats sector in particular, and the steel sector in general such as substantial government intervention in the PRC resulting in a distortion of the effective allocation of resources in line with market principles, a substantial degree of ownership and presence by the GOC in firms, the State’s presence and intervention in the financial markets, as well as distortions in the provision of raw materials, inputs as well as distortions in wage costs. In addition, the system of plans applicable in the steel sector generated distortions in the sector. As a result, the normal value was constructed based on undistorted prices and costs in a representative country, which in this case was Türkiye.

The Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis in accordance with Article 2(6a)(a) of the basic Regulation. First, the Commission established the undistorted manufacturing costs. Then, the Commission applied the undistorted unit costs to the actual consumption of the individual factors of production of the cooperating exporting producer. The Commission multiplied the usage factors by the undistorted costs per unit observed in the representative country or by other undistorted costs. To the costs of manufacturing, the Commission added manufacturing overheads, expressed as a percentage of the costs actually incurred for the cooperating exporting producer to establish an undistorted cost of manufacturing. Finally, readily available SG&A and profit from one producer in Türkiye were applied to the undistorted manufacturing cost.

The cooperating exporting producer exported to the Union directly to independent customers. The export price was therefore the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

The Commission then compared the normal value and the export price of the cooperating exporting producer on an ex-works basis per product type. Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and/or the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made for transport, insurance, handling, loading costs, customs duty, credit costs and bank charges.

The Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. The exports of the cooperating exporting producer constituted all the imports from China during the IP, leading to conclusion that the level of cooperation from China was high. On this basis, the weighted average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, was 23%.

Türkiye

In order to establish the normal value, the Commission analysed the domestic sales of the sole cooperating exporting producer from Türkiye. The analysis of domestic sales showed that [50-70] % of all domestic sales were profitable and that the weighted average sales price was higher than the cost of production. For the product types for which sales were overall profitable, the normal value was calculated either as a weighted average of the prices of all domestic sales during the IP or as a weighted average of the profitable sales only depending on the volume of profitable sales. For the product types for which sales were overall not profitable or there were no or insufficient sales on the domestic market and where there was no specific information about market prices for those product types not sold by the sole exporting producer on the domestic market, the Commission constructed the normal value in accordance with Article 2(3) and (6) of the basic Regulation.

Normal value was constructed by adding to the average cost of production of the like product of the cooperating exporting producer during the investigation period the weighted average SG&A expenses incurred and the weighted average profit realised by the cooperating exporting producer on domestic sales of the like product, in the ordinary course of trade, during the investigation period.

For the product types not sold in representative quantities on the domestic market, the average SG&A expenses and profit of transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market for those types were added. For the product types not sold at all on the domestic market, the weighted average SG&A expenses and profit of all transactions made in the ordinary course of trade on the domestic market were added.

The exporting producer exported to the Union directly to independent customers. The export price was therefore the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

The Commission compared the normal value and the export price of the exporting producer on an ex-works basis. Where justified by the need to ensure a fair comparison, the Commission adjusted the normal value and/or the export price for differences affecting prices and price comparability, in accordance with Article 2(10) of the basic Regulation. Adjustments were made for transport, insurance, handling and loading, packing expenses, credits costs and bank charges, commissions, rebates and other allowances.

The Commission identified currency conversion issues during the investigation period. Article 2(10)(j) of the basic Regulation provides that the date of sale should be the date of invoice, and that the date of contract, purchase order or order confirmation might be used if these more appropriately establish the material terms of sale. Firstly, the Commission considered the exchange rate fluctuation of the Turkish Lira (and overall significant fall against the Euro). Secondly, the Commission considered the price setting practices of the Turkish exporting producer, by which the material terms of sale were settled at the time of the purchase order rather than at the date of invoice, both for domestic and export sales. The Commission therefore used the exchange rate on the date of the purchase order to convert the normal value and the export price into Turkish Lira.

For the sole cooperating exporting producer, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation. The exports of the cooperating exporting producer constituted all the imports from Türkiye during the IP, leading to conclusion that the level of cooperation from Türkiye was high. On this basis, the weighted average dumping margin expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, was 13,6%.

Injury and causation

Imports from China and Türkiye were examined cumulatively for the purposes of the injury determination as all the criteria set out in Article 3(4) of the basic Regulation were met. Almost all injury indicators showed an overall negative trend throughout the period considered. Production, production capacity and capacity utilisation all deteriorated, in line with decreased sales volumes and market share of the Union industry. The consistently lossmaking situation of the Union industry throughout that period coincided with significant volumes of imports from the countries concerned at prices below the Union industry’s costs of production. The Union industry’s prices were significantly undercut and supressed by the imports from China and Türkiye. Although injury indicators showed improvement since 2020, during the investigation period they were all still far below the pre-2020 levels. Due to the continued large volumes and market shares of dumped imports, the Union industry was not able to achieve a stable and profitable financial situation. It was therefore concluded that the Union industry suffered material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic.

The Commission further examined whether the dumped imports from the countries concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. In accordance with Article 3(7) of the basic Regulation, the Commission also examined whether other known factors could at the same time have injured the Union industry. The analysis showed that the effect of imports from other third countries, the export performance of the Union industry, the Covid-19 pandemic affecting Union consumption, the increase in energy prices and an alleged lack of product diversification on the Union industry’s negative developments in terms of production volumes, sales prices and profitability was only limited. On the basis, the Commission concluded that the dumped imports from the countries concerned caused material injury to the Union industry and that the other factors, either individually or collectively, were not sufficient to attenuate the causal link between the dumped imports and the material injury.

Union interest and definitive measures

The Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons to state that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of steel bulb flats originating in China and Türkiye. In particular, the Commission that concluded that the imposition measures would be in the interest of the Union industry as it would allow the Union industry to maintain its market share, increase production and capacity utilisation, increase prices to cover the costs of production and achieve a level of profitability which would be expected under normal conditions of competitions. There was no indication that importers or users will not be able to absorb the price increase that would result from the imposition of anti-dumping measures. The verified data and statements of the cooperating user Fincantieri clearly showed that an increased cost of steel bulb flats would not be to the detriment of users as any impact of the increased cost of steel bulb flats on Fincantieri’s sizeable profit margin was expected to be very limited.

On 11 January 2024, the Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of bulb flat from China at the level of 23% and from Türkiye at the level of 13,6%, for a period of five years.

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) originating in the People’s Republic of China

In March 2023, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation on imports of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in the People’s Republic of China (‘China’), following a complaint lodged by PET Europe.

The product concerned was defined as polyethylene terephthalate (‘PET’), having a viscosity of 78 ml/g or higher, according to ISO Standard 1628-5, at the time falling under CN code 3907 61 00, originating in China.

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January to 31 December 2022 (the investigation period (‘IP’)), while the examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the IP (‘period considered’).

On 31 May 2023, the complainant submitted a request for registration of imports of PET originating in the PRC pursuant to Article 14(5) of the basic Regulation. However, as no increase in imports took place, the Commission concluded that the registration of imports was not warranted.

Sampling

Given the large number of Union, as well as Chinese exporting producers involved in the investigation, the Commission applied sampling to all groups of producers.

For the Union industry, the Commission selected the sample on the basis of largest representative volume of sales and of production of the like product in the Union in the investigation period, which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The sample consisted of three Union producers, located in three different Member States, which accounted for 35 % of the estimated total production in the Union.

On the exporters side, nine Chinese exporting producers came forward in the sampling exercise. the Commission selected a sample of three company groups on the basis of the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. One of the initially sampled exporting producers, Hainan Yisheng Petrochemical Co Ltd, withdrew its cooperation. Therefore, the Commission decided to replace that company. The final sample of exporting producers consisted of the Wankai New Materials Group (‘Wankai Group’), the Sanfame Group and China Resources Chemical Innovative Materials Group (‘CRCIM Group’), which together represented around 65% of the exports reported by cooperating exporting producers from the PRC to the Union during the investigation period.

In the case of unrelated importers, given that only one unrelated importer provided a reply to the sampling form, the Commission decided that sampling was not necessary.

Dumping

The investigation was initiated in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in view of the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation pointing to the existence of significant distortions.

The distortions found in the PET sector included substantial government intervention in the PRC, with enterprises operating under the ownership, control and/or policy supervision or guidance by the State represent an essential part of the economy. In the PET sector in particular the degree of state ownership remains significant, with a number of PET producers being fully or partially state-owned. That results in a distortion of the effective allocation of resources in line with market principles including a substantial degree of ownership and presence by the GOC in firms, the State’s presence and intervention in the financial markets, as well as in the provision of raw materials, inputs as well as distortions in wage costs.

Having concluded on the existence of those distortions, the Commission constructed the normal value based on undistorted prices and costs in a representative country, which in this case was Malaysia.

The Commission first established the undistorted cost and prices for each of the factors of production in Malaysia. These undistorted unit costs were then applied to the actual consumption of the individual factors of production of the cooperating exporting producers. To the costs of manufacturing, the Commission added manufacturing overheads, expressed as a percentage of the costs actually incurred for each exporting producer to establish an undistorted cost of manufacturing. Finally, the SG&A and profit from the Malaysian producer MPI Polyester Industries were applied to the undistorted manufacturing cost.

All the sampled exporting producers exported directly to independent customers in the Union. Therefore, the export price was established at the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

The Commission then compared the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers on an ex-works basis. Adjustments were made for transport, insurance, handling and loading, discounts, commission, credit costs and bank charges as well as for the differences in sales channels.

For the sampled exporting producers, the dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, ranged from 16% to 22,6%. The weighted average dumping margin calculated for the non-sampled cooperating exporting producers was 19,2% and the dumping margin for all other companies was set at 24,2%.

Injury and causation

The Union industry performed well during the period considered, with the injury indicators and trends largely stable or positive, in particular at microeconomic level. However, towards the end of the investigation period, a number of injury indicators (in particular, market share and profitability) showed a sharp deterioration of the situation on the market for the Union industry, beyond what could be expected as a return to normal market conditions as seen in 2019 and 2020.

While imports from the PRC were affected by the high transport shipping costs and economic conditions during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, when compared to the first year of the period considered an overall increase of 58% was visible. The dumped imports showed an increasing trend also after the effects of the pandemic eased. In view of the low prices of the Chinese imports supressing the Union industry’s prices, Union producers could not sell above their cost of production, incurring losses also in Q1 2023 (-11%).

Considering all those circumstances, the Commission concluded that the Union industry was negatively affected by imports from the PRC, especially at the end of the investigation period, but had not suffered material injury.

However, while the Union industry was doing well until the third quarter of 2022, almost all injury indicators started to fall dramatically during the last quarter of 2022, situation which continued during 2023. More specifically, the sales prices as well as the cost of production of the sampled Union producers for the said period show that, consistent with the end of the IP and Q1 2023, the dumped Chinese imports kept exercising price suppression on the Union sales prices in Q2-Q3 2023. The sales prices of Union producers remained below cost and, as a result, the Union industry was loss-making (-11% and -13% in the second and third quarter of 2023, respectively).

Therefore, the Commission concluded that there was a foreseeable and imminent threat of material injury to the Union industry.

The Commission further examined whether the dumped imports from the countries concerned caused material injury to the Union industry. Import volume of PET from the PRC increased significantly over the period considered and showed an increasing trend over the IP and the first quarter after the IP, with the exception of the last quarter of the IP, while Chinese dumped imports undercut the Union industry’s prices. The Commission also established that the Chinese dumped imports suppressed the Union industry’s prices, in particular at the end of the investigation period. The Commission therefore concluded that the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry coincided with a significant presence of Chinese imports at very low prices.

Finally, the Commission distinguished and separated the effects of all known factors (imports of Chinese dumped PET by the Union industry, increased use of recycled PET by PET users, imports from third countries, export performance of the Union industry, cost increases in raw material and energy prices, increase in investment costs and customer purchasing preferences) from the injurious effects of the dumped imports on the Union industry. The Commission concluded that the effect of those other factors on the material injury suffered by the Union industry was limited, if any.

The Commission established the injury margin for the sampled companies, which ranged between 6,6% and 21,2%. The weighted average injury margin calculated for the non-sampled cooperating exporting producers was 11,1% and the injury margin for all other companies was set at 24,2%.

Union interest and measures

The Commission analysed whether it was in the Union interest to adopt anti-dumping measures. The Commission analysed the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, users and consumers. It also analysed issues related to environmental concerns, in particular the impact of measures on the transition to recycled PET, and concerns over market dominance. On that basis, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons to state that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of PET from China.

On 2 April 2024, in accordance with the lesser duty rule, the Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of PET from China, ranging from 6,6% and 24,2%, for a period of five years.

Electrolytic manganese dioxides (EMD) originating in the People’s Republic of China

On 16 February 2023, the European Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation regarding imports of certain electrolytic manganese dioxides (EMD) originating in the People’s Republic of China on the basis of Article 5 of the basic Regulation, following a complaint lodged by the AUTLAN EMD SL, one of the two producers of the product in the European Union.

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022. The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the investigation period.

The product subject to the investigation was EMD, namely manganese dioxides produced through an electrolytic process, not heat-treated after the electrolytic process. The product under investigation comprised two main types: carbon-zinc grade EMD and alkaline grade EMD. They both are generally used as intermediate products in the production of dry cell consumer batteries. EMD may also be used in limited quantities in the other industries such as chemical, pharmaceutical and ceramics.

Sampling

The Commission selected two exporting producers, representing the largest volume of exports. As regards Union producers, the Commission did not have to resort to sampling because of the limited number of Union producers of EMD in the Union. No unrelated importer came forward during the investigation, and therefore no sampling on unrelated importers was necessary.

Dumping

The investigation was initiated in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in view of the sufficient evidence available at the initiation of the investigation pointing to the existence of significant distortions. The distortions found in the EMD sector in particular, and the chemical sector in general, included substantial government intervention in the PRC resulting in a distortion of the effective allocation of resources in line with market principles including a substantial degree of ownership and presence by the GOC in firms, the State’s presence and intervention in the financial markets, as well as in the provision of raw materials, inputs as well as distortions in wage costs. In addition, the system of plans applicable in the chemical sector generated distortions in the sector. As a result of the existence of these distortions, the normal value was constructed based on undistorted prices and costs in a representative country, which in this case was Colombia.

The Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis, by first establishing the undistorted cost and prices for each of the factors of production in the representative country Colombia. These undistorted unit costs were then applied to the actual consumption of the individual factors of production of the cooperating exporting producers. To the costs of manufacturing, the Commission added manufacturing overheads, expressed as a percentage of the costs actually incurred for each exporting producer to establish an undistorted cost of manufacturing. Finally, publicly available SG&A and profit from one Colombian producer were applied to the undistorted manufacturing cost.

None of the sampled exporting producers sold via related importers in the Union. Consequently, for all sampled exporting producers, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation.

The Commission then compared the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers on an ex-works basis. Adjustments were made for transport, insurance, handling, loading costs, customs duty, credit costs and bank charges.

For the sampled cooperating exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned, in accordance with Article 2(11) and (12) of the basic Regulation. The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, ranged from 18,3% to 100,9%.

Injury and causation

The main injury indicators showed a negative trend. The EU industry was subject to strong pricing pressure from the Chinese dumped imports, which forced it to sell at very low prices below cost of production.

As a result, already decreased sales volumes at the suppressed prices resulted in an erosion of the profitability, return on investments and cash flow. Thus, deteriorated financial performance indicators, together with decreased production, increased closing stocks and lagging investments to maintain this production, made the Union industry inviable.

The Commission therefore concluded that the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry coincided with a significant presence of Chinese imports at very low prices. In a context of shrinking market and increasing cost of production, the Chinese prices consistently undercut the Union industry prices and suppressed EU market price levels, establishing a genuine and substantial causal nexus between the two.

Level of measures

On 7 September 2023, the complainant made a request in accordance with Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation to include the examination of alleged raw material distortions in the country concerned regarding the product under investigation to assess whether, if relevant, a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove injury. The complainant provided sufficient evidence that there is no value added tax (‘VAT’) refunds on exports of manganese ore in the country concerned. VAT refund reduction or withdrawal is explicitly mentioned in Article 7(2a), second subparagraph, as a distortion on raw materials.

To examine the raw material distortions and to assess whether a duty lower than the margin of dumping would have been sufficient to remove injury at the definitive stage, the Commission amended the Notice of Initiation of 16 February 2023 to examine the raw material distortions and to assess whether, a duty lower than the margin of dumping would have been sufficient to remove injury.

The investigation confirmed that there were no VAT refunds on exports of manganese ore in the country concerned. This was verified during the verification visits in China and cross-checked against the official government tax list. The investigation also established that the manganese ore accounted for more than 17 % of the cost of production of the product under investigation in the country concerned as required by Article 7(2a), fifth subparagraph of the basic Regulation, both on the country level and for each individual sampled company. The Commission concluded that manganese ore was subject to a significant distortion within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation.

After the Commission concluded that there were raw material distortions in China, as defined by Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether it was in the Union interest to determine the amount of definitive duties in accordance with Article 7(2b) of the basic Regulation. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all pertinent information to this investigation, including the spare capacities in China competition for raw materials and the effect on supply chains for Union companies in accordance with Article 7(2b) of the basic Regulation.

The Commission did carefully weigh all the elements and could not conclude that it is in the Union’s interest to determine the amount of duties in accordance with Article 7(2a), namely it was not in the interest of the Union to set the level of the measures at the level of dumping in view of the disproportionally negative effect this is likely to have on supply chains for Union companies. The Commission therefore confirmed that the measures should be set in accordance with Article 7(2) of the basic Regulation, on the basis of underselling margins.

Union interest and definitive measures

The Commission examined if it was not against the Union interest to impose anti-dumping measures by examining the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, and users. The Commission concluded that measures would improve market conditions for the Union producers allowing them to recover lost sales volume and market share while being able to increase its prices to reach a sustainable profitability. In the absence of any information from importers, the Commission concluded that it is unlikely that the importers would be affected by the measures. As for the users, in addition to the assessment made for applying the lesser duty rule, the Commission estimated that if the definitive anti-dumping measures remained at the level of injury margin, the users would still maintain positive profitability even when taking into account the level of anti-dumping duties and assuming that the increased cost would not be passed on to their customers.

In March 2024, the Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of electrolytic manganese dioxides originating in China. The duties imposed range from 17,1% to 35%.

Alkyl phosphate esters (APE) originating in the People’s Republic of China

On 11 August 2023, the Commission initiated an anti-dumping investigation with regard to imports of certain alkyl phosphate esters (APE) originating in China (or ‘the country concerned’). This initiation followed a complaint lodged on 30 June 2023 by ICL Europe U.A., Lanxess Deutschland GmbH and PCC Rokita S.A. (‘the complainants’).

On 21 December 2023, the Commission initiated a separate anti-subsidy investigation regarding imports of APE originating in China. On 15 April 2024, the complainant withdrew the anti-subsidy complaint. The investigation had not brought to light any considerations demonstrating that such termination would not be in the Union interest. The Commission therefore terminated the proceeding on 12 July 2024.

The product subject to the anti-dumping investigation is APE, which covers two product types, tris (2-chloro-1-methylethyl) phosphate (‘TCPP’) and triethyl phosphate (‘TEP’). They are commonly used as flame retardants in rigid and flexible foams.

The investigation of dumping and injury covered the period from 1 July 2022 to 30 June 2023 (‘the investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the investigation period (‘the period considered’).

Sampling

The Commission selected a sample of three exporting producers based on the largest representative volume of exports to the Union which could reasonably be investigated within the time available. The Commission investigated all three known Union producers (which were complainants) and no sample was necessary. Two unrelated importers cooperated with the investigation and no sample was necessary.

Two requests for individual examination were received, but the Commission rejected both of them as this would have been unduly burdensome in this investigation and would prevent completion of the investigation in good time.

Dumping

The investigation was initiated in accordance with Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation as there was evidence of the existence of significant distortions in China for the production of alkyl phosphate esters.

The distortions found in the APE sector included strong presence and influence of the government as the sector is being served to a significant extend by enterprises operating under the ownership, control or policy supervision or guidance of state authorities. China’s intervention in its economy in general as well as in the sector of the product concerned showed that prices and costs of the product concerned, including the costs of raw materials, energy and labour, are not the result of free market forces because they are affected by substantial government intervention within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation. It was found that TCPP and TEP products are subject to preferential treatment in terms of access to financing and land. The lack, discriminatory application or inadequate enforcement of bankruptcy, corporate or property laws also exists in the APE sector in China. In addition, the system of plans applicable in the chemical sector generated distortions in the sector.

As a result of the existence of these distortions, the normal value was constructed based on undistorted prices and costs in a representative country, which in this case was Brazil.

The Commission constructed the normal value per product type on an ex-works basis, by first establishing the undistorted cost and prices for each of the factors of production in the representative country. These undistorted unit costs were then applied to the actual consumption of the individual factors of production of the cooperating exporting producers. To the costs of manufacturing, the Commission added manufacturing overheads, expressed as a percentage of the costs actually incurred for each exporting producer to establish an undistorted cost of manufacturing. Finally, readily available SG&A and profit from one Brazilian producer were applied to the undistorted manufacturing cost.

The sampled exporting producers exported to the Union either directly to independent customers or through related companies. For those exports of the product concerned directly to independent customers in the Union, the export price was the price actually paid or payable for the product concerned when sold for export to the Union, in accordance with Article 2(8) of the basic Regulation. For one sampled exporting producer, a small quantity of exports to the Union were made via a related trader in a third country. In this case the export price was the price at which the product was first resold to an independent buyer in the Union.

The Commission then compared the normal value and the export price of the sampled exporting producers on an ex-works basis. Adjustments were made for transport, insurance, handling, loading costs, customs duty, credit costs and bank charges. For one exporting producer, an adjustment under Article 2(10)(i) was made for commission paid to a related trading company based in Singapore to ensure price comparability.

For the sampled exporting producers, the Commission compared the weighted average normal value of each type of the like product with the weighted average export price of the corresponding type of the product concerned. The dumping margins expressed as a percentage of the cost, insurance and freight (CIF) Union frontier price, duty unpaid, ranged from 53,1% to 68,4%.

Injury and causation

All main injury indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. The Union industry was subject to strong pricing pressure. The main macro-indicators showed a negative trend during the period considered. The production and sales volumes of the Union industry decreased by respectively 56% and 58%. This decrease significantly surpassed the 21% decrease in consumption during the period considered and translated into a significant decrease of market share. Micro-indicators showed a similar trend of deterioration. During the investigation period, the Union industry was selling at prices which no longer covered its costs and consequently became loss making.

Imports from China were substantial throughout the period considered at prices which were lower than the Union industry prices except temporarily in 2020 and 2021, while the Union market consumption contracted. The Chinese imports gained considerably in market share. During the investigation period, the import prices of the cooperating exporting producers undercut Union industry prices by 34,6 % on average.

Moreover, the price pressure from the dumped Chinese imports supressed the prices of the Union industry which was unable to raise its prices to match the increase of cost of production, during the IP, where the dumped imports increased their market share and the Union industry incurred losses.

The Commission therefore concluded that the deterioration of the economic situation of the Union industry coincided with a significant presence of Chinese imports at prices below the sampled Union producers’ sales prices and cost of production in the second part of the period considered. In a context of shrinking market and increasing cost of production, the Chinese prices consistently undercut the Union industry prices and suppressed EU market price levels, establishing a genuine and substantial causal link between the two.

Level of measures

The complainants provided sufficient evidence that there may be raw material distortions in the country concerned regarding the product under investigation within the meaning of Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation. Therefore, in accordance with Article 7(2a) of the basic Regulation, this investigation examined the alleged distortions to assess whether, if relevant, a duty lower than the margin of dumping would be sufficient to remove injury.

However, as the margins adequate to remove injury were higher than the dumping margins, this question became moot as the duties had to be capped at the level of the dumping margins.

As imports were not registered, following the provisions of article 9(4) of the basic Regulation the Commission examined and found that a further substantial rise in imports occurred during the period of pre-disclosure. Therefore, the Commission adjusted the injury elimination level to reflect the additional injury.

Union interest and definitive measures

The Commission examined if it was in the Union interest to impose anti-dumping measures by examining the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers, and users. It was concluded that the imposition of measures would stop the surge of Chinese imports at very low prices and therefore imposing measures would be in the interest of the Union industry. From the information available, it was clear that the imposition of measures would have only a limited impact on importers, and such impact would be clearly outweighed by the benefits that the measures could bring to the Union industry. The Commission concluded that the measures will likely increase the production costs of the users. However, on medium/long term the improved supply security is likely to benefit also the users. The Commission concluded that the impact on the users will be limited and does not outweigh the positive effect on the Union industry. Commission also concluded that the measures would not have any significant impact on the Union’s objectives for insulation and reduction of carbon emissions. This is due to the relatively limited cost that APE represents in the production of insulation materials.

On this basis the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons to state that it was not in the Union interest to impose measures on imports of APE originating in China.

In September 2024, the Commission imposed definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of APE originating in China for a period of five years. The duties imposed range from 53,1% to 68,4%.

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 2024, one new anti-subsidy investigation was terminated without measures as the complaint was withdrawn – see table below.

More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex E.

3.2.Review investigations

3.2.1.    Expiry reviews

Articles 11(2) and 18 of the basic Regulations provide for the expiry of measures after 5 years, unless an expiry review demonstrates that if measures were to lapse, it would likely lead to a continuation or recurrence of dumping or subsidisation and related injury. In 2024, 2 anti-dumping measures expired automatically. The reference for the measures is available in Annex N.

Since the expiry provision of the basic Regulations came into force in 1985, a total of 522 measures have expired automatically.

3.2.1.1.    Initiations

In 2024, the Commission initiated 16 AD expiry reviews and 5 AS expiry reviews. The list of expiry reviews initiated in 2024 are in the table below.

In 2024, none of the expiry reviews were carried out in parallel with interim reviews. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal to which reference is available in Annex F.

3.2.1.2.    Expiry reviews concluded with confirmation of duties

In 2024, the Commission concluded 11 expiry reviews (all anti-dumping measures) with a confirmation of the duties for a further period of 5 years.

The list of measures, which were renewed during 2024, 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.

3.2.1.3 Details of some individual cases concluded by confirmation of duty

Corrosion resistant steel (CRS) originating in the People’s Republic of China

Definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of corrosion resistant steel hot-rolled flat products from China were originally imposed in February 2018 for five years. On 8 February 2023 the Commission initiated an expiry review following a request lodged by the European Steel Association (Eurofer) on behalf of the Union industry.

The product under review is the same as in the original investigation, namely flat-rolled products of iron or alloy steel or non-alloy steel; aluminium killed; plated or coated by hot dip galvanisation with zinc and/or with aluminium, and no other metal; chemically passivated; containing by weight: 0,015% or more but not more than 0,170% of carbon, 0,015% or more but not more than 0,100% of aluminium, not more than 0,045% of niobium, not more than 0,010% of titanium and not more than 0,010% of vanadium; presented in coils, cut-to length sheets and narrow strips. The following products are excluded: — of stainless steel, of silicon-electrical steel, and of high-speed steel, — not further worked than hot-rolled or cold-rolled (cold-reduced).

The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022 (‘review investigation period’ or ‘RIP’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

Sampling

The final sample of three Union producers accounted for 29% of the total volume of production of the like product in the Union and 33 % of the total volume of sales of the like product in the free market in the Union. There was no cooperation from the Chinese producers. Therefore, the findings with regard to the imports from China are made on the basis of the facts available.

Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping

During the review investigation period, imports of certain corrosion resistant steels (CRS) from the PRC virtually disappeared from the Union market. Owing to a lack of cooperation by the China producers, the findings were based on facts available. The Commission conducted the investigation in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation as the request contained sufficient evidence of the existence of significant distortions in the steel sector in China, to which CRS belong. The Commission concluded that it was not possible to use domestic prices and costs to establish normal value. Therefore, normal value was calculated on the basis of undistorted prices or benchmarks from the representative country selected in the case, i.e. Mexico. To construct normal value, the Commission used the information provided by the Union industry on the consumption of each factor of production multiplied by the undistorted costs per unit established in Mexico per product type. To this, the Commission added an appropriate percentage amount for manufacturing overheads and finally applied the SG&A and profit one company in Mexico which amounted to 9,2% and 21,4% respectively.

In the absence of cooperation by exporting producers from China, the export price for all CRS imports into the Union was determined based on CIF data from Eurostat adjusted to ex-works level by deducting sea freight, insurance and domestic transport costs. The Commission compared the average export price from Eurostat on an ex-works basis as established above to the normal value for all fittings. On this basis, the weighted average dumping margin, expressed as a percentage of the CIF Union frontier price, duty unpaid, resulted in an average 51,1%. However, the volume of imports into the Union in the review investigation period was negligible, corresponding to less than 0,01% market share in the Union market and thus this quantity was considered unrepresentative. For this reason, the Commission concluded that these low volumes do not provide a sufficient basis for a continuation of dumping analysis. Therefore, the Commission examined the likelihood of recurrence of dumping.

The Commission concluded that the Chinese exporting producers have significant spare capacities. In terms of attractiveness of the Union market the Commission established that the average Chinese export price to the Union to the nine main third country markets for CRF from China in the RIP were between 70 and 130% lower than the normal value. Also, the average price of these exports was 15% lower than the price prevailing on the Union market during the review investigation period. On this basis, the Commission concluded that if the measures were to expire and the prices at which the Chinese exporting producers would export the product concerned to the Union were in line with the export price to third countries observed during the review, the level of dumping would be significant. Furthermore, the Commission established that the Union market is attractive also in view of its openness and growing consumption. The Commission therefore concluded that there is a strong likelihood that the expiry of the anti-dumping measures would result in the recurrence of dumping.

Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury

The evolution of the micro and macro indicators during the period considered showed that the financial situation for the Union industry was good in 2021 and the review investigation period, with profitability in both years exceeding target profits for the industry previously established. Overall, the trends of the main economic indicators worsened over the period considered. Certain volume-based indicators as well as employment deteriorated, but that could for a good part or completely be attributed to particular difficulties encountered by one large Union producer that virtually stopped production during 2021. All other Union producers together would show a picture of a Union industry that is hardly, if at all, affected by the significant drop in consumption in the review investigation period and strong increase of imports over the period considered. The Commission therefore concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period.

The Commission then examined the likelihood of recurrence of injury. The Commission noted that the production capacity in the PRC substantially exceeded the production volumes and demand on the Chinese domestic market. It also found that the Union market, in terms of prices, remains very attractive for Chinese producers. As a consequence, the expiry of the anti-dumping measures would very likely result in an increase of Chinese exports to the Union. In view of the decreasing domestic demand in China, the fact that producers of CRS can easily switch from the production of other HDG products to CRS and the higher prices on the Union market, such increase could be even larger than the current Chinese spare capacity which would already represent 80% of Union consumption. Furthermore, the Commission compared the prices of imports with Union industry prices on the basis of current export prices of Chinese exporting producers to third countries. The comparison showed that prices of Chinese exports to third countries undercut Union industry’s average sales prices, properly adjusted to ex-works level, by 6,8%.

In view of the above, the Commission concluded that the expiry of the measures would, in all likelihood, result in a significant increase of dumped imports from the PRC at lower prices than the ones of the Union industry. As the market for the product under review is very price competitive such likely arrival into the Union of imports from the country concerned at low prices would force the Union industry to reduce its production and lower its prices. Union producers would be confronted with insufficient time to recover from the past injurious situation, further invest and fulfil their commitments, including social and environmental ones. Profit levels are likely to become unsustainable for such a capital-intensive industry. Heavy losses within the Union industry will undermine its ability to raise capital, endanger its viability and possibly trigger the closure of production facilities, dismissals and create disruptions in supply chains.

Union interest and imposition of measures

The Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as whole and examined the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users. As regards the Union producers, while the Union industry was no longer suffering from material injury, the Commission concluded that repealing the measures would result of a renewed influx of dumped imports from China which would quickly result in a recurrence of injury and therefore the continuation of the measures was in the interest of the Union industry. The lack of cooperation of importers did not allow the Commission to analyse whether importers were performing badly or unable to pass on price increases, if any. However, the Commission concluded that importers could avail themselves from imports from numerous suppliers and countries. No users cooperated with the investigation. The Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons in the Union interest against the continuation of existing measures on imports of certain corrosion resistant steels originating in China.

On 11 March 2024, the Commission extended the measures in place on imports of certain CRS from the PRC for another five-year period.

Seamless pipes and tubes of iron or steel (certain) (SSSPT) originating in the People’s Republic of China

On 3 March 2023 the Commission initiated an expiry review with regard to imports into the Union of seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel (‘product under review’ or ‘SSSPT’) originating in the People’s Republic of China, following a request lodged by the European Steel Tube Association (‘ESTA’) on behalf of the Union industry.

The product under review was the same as in the original investigation, namely seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel (excluding such pipes and tubes with attached fittings suitable for conducting gases or liquids for use in civil aircraft), currently falling under CN codes 7304 11 00, 7304 22 00, 7304 24 00, ex 7304 41 00, ex 7304 49 83, ex 7304 49 85, ex 7304 49 89, and ex 7304 90 00 (TARIC codes 7304410090, 7304498390, 7304498590, 7304498990 and 7304900091).

The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 January 2022 to 31 December 2022 (“RIP”). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping

During the review investigation period, imports of certain seamless pipes and tubes of stainless steel from China continued albeit at lower levels than in the investigation period of the original investigation3. None of the exporters/producers from China cooperated in the investigation. Consequently, in accordance with Article 18 (non-cooperation) of the basic regulation, the findings related to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping were based on facts available. The Commission conducted the investigation in accordance with the provisions of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation as the request contained sufficient evidence of the existence of significant distortions in the steel sector. As a result, the Commission concluded that it was not possible to use domestic prices and costs to establish normal value in this case. Therefore, normal value was calculated based on undistorted prices or benchmarks from the representative country selected in the case, i.e., Mexico. To construct the normal value, the Commission used the information provided by the Union industry on the consumption of each factor of production multiplied by the undistorted costs per unit established in Mexico per product type. To this, the Commission added an appropriate percentage amount for manufacturing overheads (13,52%) and finally applied the SG&A and profit in Mexico which amount to 23% and 42% respectively.

In the absence of cooperation from Chinese exporting producers, the export price was determined on the basis of facts available - statistical information. The comparison of the export price and the normal value resulted in significant dumping margin. Even in case no profit would be added to the normal value as established above, the dumping margin would have been significant.

The Commission further analysed whether there was a likelihood of continuation of dumping should the measures lapse. In doing so, the following elements were analysed: Chinese production capacity and spare capacity and the attractiveness of the Union market. The Commission found that the Chinese seamless tube industry is the biggest in the world. Specifically, regarding stainless steel seamless pipes and tubes, the 7 biggest Chinese producers, in the review investigation period had close to 100 000 tonnes of spare capacities, approximately the size of the Union market. The Commission concluded that it is likely that Chinese producers will have ample spare capacities that they can direct to the Union market in large quantities at dumped prices should the measures lapse. The Commission also found that the Union market remains very attractive for imports of SSSPT with its high average price level and high-level consumption. In addition, China faces a 25 % anti-dumping duty in the USA, and since September 2022, new anti-dumping measures in India, its top two export destinations. The Commission concluded that there was a likelihood of continuation of dumping should the measures be allowed to lapse.

Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury

The measures in force ensured protection to the Union industry, allowing it to increase their market share, increase prices in line with the increased costs and to reach a profitable level and a positive return on investment. However, the Union industry remained vulnerable, which was demonstrated by the decrease in production, production capacity and a decreasing capacity utilisation. Furthermore, despite the measures in force, the Chinese exporters continued to export the product concerned in increasing volumes, by 24 %, at dumped prices during the period considered and to expand their market share. Prices of these imports increased but remained far below the level of the prices of other imports and even further below the level of the prices of the Union industry, thus undercutting the latter by 51 %. Commission concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period. Therefore, the Commission assessed whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury caused by the dumped imports from China if the measures lapse. The investigation demonstrated that the Chinese exporting producers were able to export at prices far below those of the Union industry, and below the import prices from the main third countries exporters to the Union. The Commission concluded that, should measures lapse, the Chinese exporters would be able to exercise significant price pressure on the Union industry. As already explained above, under the section Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping, China has significant spare capacity, and the Union market remained very attractive for SSSPT imports as shown by the large volume of imports accounting for nearly 50% market share. In addition, the trade measures imposed globally against China, increased the risk of exports from China being diverted to the Union market. The Commission concluded that it is highly likely that the recurrence of low-priced dumped imports from China in significant volumes that undercut Union prices would have a significant adverse effect on the Union industry’s performance, notably on production, sales volumes and prices, profitability and investment needs, resulting in material injury recurring.

Union interest

The Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as whole, by examining the various interests involved. The Commission found that the effect of anti-dumping measures would be positive for the Union producers as without these measures the influx of substantial volumes of dumped imports from China would cause among others, loss of Union market share, decrease in Union sales prices, decrease in Union capacity utilisation and in general a serious deterioration of the Union industry’s financial situation.

The Commission contacted all known users and unrelated importers. No users or unrelated importers came forward and cooperated in this investigation by submitting a questionnaire reply. Given the lack of interest shown by users and unrelated importers, and in the absence of any indications that the conclusions reached in previous investigations had changed, the continuation of the measures was not considered being against the interest of users and importers.

The Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of Union interest against the continuation of the existing measures on imports of SSSPT from China and on 1 June 2024, the Commission extended the measures in place on imports of SSSPT from China for another five-year period.

Ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China

On 18 January 2022, the Commission initiated an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures imposed on imports of f ceramic tiles originating in the People’s Republic of China (China) following a request lodged by the European Ceramic Tile Manufacturers’ Association (CET) on behalf of the European ceramic tiles industry.

The product under review was glazed and unglazed ceramic flags and paving, hearth or wall tiles; glazed and unglazed ceramic mosaic cubes and the like, whether or not on a backing.

The investigation of continuation or recurrence of dumping covered the period from 1 July 2021 to 30 June 2022 (‘review investigation period’). The examination of trends relevant for the assessment of the likelihood of a continuation or recurrence of injury covered the period from 1 January 2019 to the end of the review investigation period (‘the period considered’).

Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of dumping

During the review investigation period, imports of ceramic tiles from China dropped to very low levels, that is 0,3% of the Union market in the review investigation period. In absolute terms the imports from the PRC to the Union amounted to 2,34 million m2 compared to 15,0 million m2 during the previous expiry review and 66,0 million m2 during the original investigation.

Five exporters/producers from China made themselves known and submitted a sampling reply. However, as they accounted for a low percentage of imports/production of ceramic tiles in China, the Commission concluded they could not be considered representative of the situation of China. Therefore, the Commission decided to apply facts available concerning the findings in that regard.

The Commission investigated the likelihood of recurrence of dumping if measures were allowed to lapse. The Commission concluded that, in particular because of the significant spare capacity of Chinese exporters, the attractiveness of the Union market and the low absorption capacity of third country markets due to trade defence measures in place, dumped imports from the PRC were likely to recur if the measures in force were allowed to lapse.

Likelihood of continuation or recurrence of injury

The ceramic tiles industry in the Union is highly fragmented and ceramic tiles was manufactured by over 300 producers in the Union during the period considered. They were divided into three categories of producers based on their annual production volume: small, medium-sized and large. Large producers represented approximately half of the total Union production, which was established at around 1 250 000 000 m2.

The Commission selected six Union producers for the sample, from all three category of producers, representing around 7% of the total Union production and 10 % of sales in the Union market. Considering the fragmentation of the Union, for the analysis of injury, certain micro-economic indicators in each of the producers’ categories were weighted using their share on the total Union production.

Imports on the Union market over the period considered were dominated by those from Türkiye and India, rather than those from China, which represented less than 1% of consumption during the review investigation period (while Türkiye and India accounted for 9,7% of market share).

The macro indicators of the Union industry were largely stable over the period considered and benefitted slightly from the 5% increase in consumption. Production and capacity utilisation increased by 4 %, sales volume on the Union market increased by 3%, employment decreased by 1 % and productivity increased by 5%. However, there was no increase in market share, which would have been expected given the market situation during that period. Thus, the modest improvements of most macro indicators were not signs of growth as compared to the size of the market but highlight the inability of the Union industry to benefit from the favourable market situation because of dumped imports. While the industry benefitted from a (temporary) period of improved market conditions, aided by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, price rises on the market from 2019-2021 were limited by low import prices from Türkiye and India. Thus, the Commission concluded that the Union industry had suffered material injury, but that the injury had not been caused by imports from China (but from India and Türkiye).

As a result, the Commission assessed whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of injury should the measures against China be allowed to lapse. Thus, the Commission analysed the following elements: the production capacity and spare capacities in China, the attractiveness of the Union market, including the existence of anti-dumping or countervailing measures on ceramic tiles in other third countries, the behaviour of Chinese exporting producers in third country markets, and the effect on the Union situation. The analysis also considered the increase in consumption in the Union and the profitability of the Union industry during the period considered.

China is the largest producer of ceramic tiles in the world. It accounts for nearly half of the world's overall production and Chinese spare capacity was over 3 times greater than the Union consumption in the review investigation period. The Commission found that prices for ceramic tiles in the European market were higher than the average price of Chinese exports to third countries, which made the EU an attractive market for Chinese exporting producers. In addition, the Commission also find that there are antidumping measures in place in many third countries, which would make it more difficult for Chinese producers to export to those markets. Consequently, given the high spare capacities in the PRC and the attractiveness of the Union market, it was likely that significant volumes of low-priced ceramic tiles would be available for sale/re-direction to the Union already in the short term. The expected large volume of dumped Chinese imports would put substantial pressure on prices in the Union market, resulting in loss of market share and profitability of the Union industry. Thus, the Commission concluded that the repeal of the measures would in all likelihood result in a recurrence of injury to the Union industry.

Union interest

The Commission analysed whether it was in the Union interest to maintain the existing anti-dumping measures in place. The Commission analysed the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, users and consumers.

In weighing and balancing the competing interests, the Commission gave special consideration to the need to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious dumping and to restore effective competition. The Commission concluded that, while the continuation of measures would protect an important Union industry, including many small and medium enterprises, against a likely recurrence of injury, the lack of cooperation of the importers and users suggested that the continuation of measures would not have a disproportionate negative impact on them.

In February 2024, the Commission extended the anti-dumping measures on imports of ceramic tiles from China for another five-year period.

3.2.1.4.    Expiry reviews concluded by termination

In 2024, the Commission concluded no expiry reviews by termination.

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, the Commission examines, inter alia, whether the circumstances regarding 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 2024, the Commission initiated 4 interim reviews (included 1 anti-subsidy measure). There were two interim reviews terminated without amendment of the duties. More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex G.

3.2.2.1 Details of individual cases concluded with amendment of duty.

In 2024, the European Commission initiated three interim review investigations concerning anti-dumping measures applicable to imports from the People’s Republic of China based on significantly increased production, production capacity and spare production capacity of the product under review in the People’s Republic of China. In each of these investigations, the applicants claimed that such increased production (capacity) and resulting overcapacity led to decreasing export prices from the People’s Republic of China.

Trichloroisocyanuric acid (TCCA) originating in the People’s Republic of China

On 6 August 2024, the European Commission initiated a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of TCCA originating in the People’s Republic of China. The investigation was initiated following a request by ERCROS S.A. and Electroquímica de Hernani S.A. on behalf of the Union industry of TCCA. The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/2757. The level of the duty is between 8,1% and 42,6%.

The investigation was initiated based on sufficient evidence, as far as dumping is concerned, provided by the applicants that the circumstances based on which the existing measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. These changes comprise of a significant change in the structure of the Chinese TCCA industry, the increase of production, product capacity and spare production capacity of the product under review in the People’s Republic of China, and the resulting massive overcapacity and downward pressure on export prices from the People’s Republic of China. In light of the above, the applicants claimed the existing measures would no longer be sufficient to counteract the dumping. The investigation is ongoing and should be finalised by 5 August 2025.

Continuous filament glass fibre (GFR) originating in the People’s Republic of China

On 30 August 2024, the European Commission initiated an interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of GFR originating in the People’s Republic of China. The investigation was initiated following a request by Glass Fibre Europe on behalf of the Union GFR industry. The measures currently in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/1452. The level of the duty is between 0% and 19,9%.

The investigation was initiated based on sufficient evidence provided by the applicants that the circumstances based on which the existing measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. These changes relate to a significant change in the structure of the Chinese GFR industry, the increase of production, production capacity and spare production capacity of the product under review in the People’s Republic of China, and the resulting massive overcapacity and downward pressure on export prices from the People’s Republic of China. The applicants provided sufficient evidence that there has been a significant growth in the Chinese GFR industry in terms of the existing production capacities of the product under review, which in turn have led to decreasing prices GFR prices.

Additionally, the applicants also claimed that there were changes of a lasting nature affecting the Union industry, namely that two Union producers were forced out of the market due to the increasing aggressive pressure of Chinese imports. In light of the above, the applicants claimed the existing measures would no longer be sufficient to counteract the dumping nor to offset the effects of injurious dumping. The investigation is ongoing and should be finalised by 29 August 2025.

Ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China

On 19 December 2024, the European Commission initiated a partial interim review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of ceramic tableware and kitchenware originating in the People’s Republic of China. The investigation was initiated following a request by Cerame-Unie / The European Federation of Ceramic Table and Ornamentalware (FEPF). The measures in force are a definitive anti-dumping duty imposed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1198. The level of the duty is between 13,1% and 36,1%.

The investigation was initiated based on sufficient evidence, as far as dumping is concerned, provided by the applicants that the circumstances based on which the existing measures were imposed have changed and that these changes are of a lasting nature. These changes relate to a significant increase of production capacities coupled with the substantial reshaping of the Chinese ceramic kitchenware and tableware industry. The applicants provided evidence that the Chinese authorities have, since the original investigation, adopted a cluster-based industry development strategy with a view to foster a major consolidation of the ceramic industry around several key large enterprises. Furthermore, the applicants claimed that the production capacity increase combined with the significant reorganisation of the Chinese ceramic kitchenware and tableware industry led to a decrease in export prices of the Chinese exporting producers to the EU since 2019. In light of the above, the applicants claimed the existing measures would no longer be sufficient to counteract the dumping. The investigation is ongoing and should be finalised by 18 December 2025.

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 "newcomer" review to be carried out in order to determine individual margins of dumping for new exporters located in the exporting country in question, which did not export the product during the investigation period (“IP”).

Parties must show that they are genuine new exporters, i.e., that they are not related to any of the exporters or producers in the exporting country, which are subject to the anti-dumping measures, and that they have actually started to export to the EU following the 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 for that exporter. However, its imports become subject to registration under Article 14(5) of the basic AD Regulation to ensure that, should the review result in a determination of dumping for that 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 to promptly establish an individual countervailing duty rate. 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 2024, the Commission initiated no newcomer reviews (Annex I). In 2024, one such review was completed.

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. This examines whether the measure had an effect on the export prices. The duty may be increased to take account of such lower export prices. The provisions regarding absorption reviews are included in Articles 12 and 19(3) of the basic AD and AS Regulations respectively.

In 2024, there were no anti-absorption investigations initiated or completed (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 is covered in Articles 13 and 23 of the basic AD and AS Regulations respectively.

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 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 the measures.

In 2024, the Commission initiated two anti-circumvention investigations which both concerned anti-dumping measures. Three anti-circumvention investigations were concluded with an extension of duty to other exporting countries. 

More information can be obtained from the Official Journal publications to which reference is given in Annex K.

3.2.5.1 Details of some individual cases concluded by extension of duty.

Stainless steel cold-rolled flat products from Indonesia – Measures extended to Türkiye, Taiwan and Vietnam

Anti-dumping duties on imports of stainless-steel cold-rolled flat products (SSCR) originating in Indonesia were imposed in November 2021, followed in March 2022 by countervailing duties. On 14 August 2023, the European Commission initiated an anti-circumvention investigation following a complaint by the Union industry that the duties on imports of SSCR were being circumvented through assembly and completion operations in Taiwan, Türkiye and Vietnam.

Change in the pattern of trade

The investigation period for the analysis of trade patterns covered from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2023. During this period, there was an increase of SSCR imports into the Union from Taiwan (by 49%), Türkiye (by 42%) and Vietnam (by 174%), while these three countries also saw a significant increase in their imports of raw materials necessary to produce SSCR from Indonesia. The total volume of imports of SSCR from Indonesia to the Union decreased by almost 93 %.

Practice to avoid the duties

The practise that was investigated consisted of importing semi-finished products such as stainless-steel hot-rolled coils (‘SSHR’) and slabs from Indonesia and further processing them into finished goods like SSCR. This transformation is considered an assembly or completion operation. These operations began or were substantially increased following the imposition of the original anti-dumping duties on Indonesian imports. The assembly operations used more than 60% Indonesian parts but yielded less than a 25% added value during the assembly process, thereby suggesting a limited economic contribution. The European Commission's inquiry found these operations were primarily pursued to sidestep the imposed duties, as there was insufficient economic justification for such a change in trade patterns outside of avoiding the duties imposed on Indonesia.

However, the analysis of the available information showed that for all six Taiwanese and one Turkish producer, the assembly operation started well before the initiation of the original investigation and did not increase since then. Hence, these companies were exempted from the extended duties. For Vietnam, there were two producers for which there was no evidence of dumping. In addition, one of these Vietnamese companies used less than 60% of Indonesian inputs in their operations. This means that the legal criteria were met to grant an exemption for these companies. All other companies were denied the exemption.

One Vietnamese producer, which was denied an exemption from the extended duties, initiated an action for annulment of the measures before the General Court of the European Union. A subsequent review of the data by the European Commission revealed that an incomplete dataset had been used to determine the price difference for SSHR imports. Since no other evidence suggested that this Vietnamese company benefited from the subsidies identified in the original investigation, the European Commission concluded that the company qualified for an exemption. Consequently, the Commission amended the Regulation imposing the measures.

Undermining the remedial effect of the measures and evidence of dumping / subsidization

The imports of SSCR from the three countries into the Union increased, representing around 4,7% (Taiwan), 2,6% (Türkiye) and 2,4% (Vietnam) of the Union consumption during the reporting period. In terms of prices, the investigation found that the imports from Taiwan undersold the Union prices by more than 19%. For Taiwan and Vietnam, but not for Türkiye, evidence of dumping was established. In addition, for all three countries there was evidence of continued subsidization of the input materials from Indonesia and undermining of the remedial effect of the original duties. The data therefore confirmed the existence of circumvention on a country level for Taiwan and Vietnam in both cases, and for Türkiye in the anti-subsidy case.

Extension of the measures

The European Commission extended the anti-dumping duties on imports of SSCR to include those consigned from Taiwan and Vietnam due to the identified circumvention practices. It imposed a residual duty rate of 19.3% on SSCR imports, being the same level as the country-wide duty level as established in the original investigation for direct imports from Indonesia, while exempting six Taiwanese and two Vietnamese companies. For Türkiye the investigation was terminated as no dumping was found.

In the anti-subsidy investigation, the European Commission extended the measures currently in force on SSCR imports from Indonesia to all three countries at the level of 20,5%, while exempting six Taiwanese, one Vietnamese and one Turkish company.

The exemptions were made conditional upon presentation to the customs authorities of the Member States of a valid commercial invoice and, to minimise the risks of circumvention, especially for sales of SSCR via traders or service centres, a valid mill certificate. In light of the seriousness of the circumvention practices in this case, the Commission considered that an additional measure was necessary to monitor the proportion of Indonesian-based SSCR imported into the Union. Hence, a declaration has to be added to the mill certificate to state whether the location where the stainless steel to produce the SSCR was originally melted and poured, was Indonesia or not.

Birch plywood from Russia – Measures extended to Kazakhstan and Türkiye.

The European Commission imposed an anti-dumping duty on imports of birch plywood originating in Russia in November 2021. This was followed by the initiation of an anti-circumvention investigation in August 2023, after receiving a complaint from the Union industry indicating that measures on imports were being circumvented through transshipment and other practices in Kazakhstan and Türkiye.

Change in the pattern of trade

During the investigation period from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2023, imports of birch plywood from Kazakhstan into the European Union experienced substantial growth, starting in 2022 and amounting to over 97,000 m3. This period also saw a significant increase in the import of raw material, notably birch logs and veneer, from Russia to Kazakhstan and Türkiye, while direct imports from Russia to the European Union declined significantly.

Practice to avoid the duties

Producers in Kazakhstan and Türkiye were found to be engaged in circumvention practices including mere transshipment of Russian birch plywood to the European Union. Additionally, some producers engaged in assembly operations using Russian materials, like logs and veneer, constituting over 60% of their value input, yet failing to add more than 25% to the production costs. Accordingly, they were also found to be engaged in circumvention practises under Article 13(2) of the basic anti-dumping Regulation.

The investigation found that the primary economic rationale behind these operations was not to add genuine value or enhance production capabilities, but rather to avoid the anti-dumping duties imposed on imports from Russia, thereby undermining the effectiveness of these anti-dumping measures.

Undermining the remedial effect of the measures and evidence of dumping

Throughout the investigation period, the quantities of birch plywood entering the Union market from Kazakhstan and Türkiye increased substantially, holding a combined market share of almost 7%. This volume influx at dumped prices clearly undermined the remedial effects of the previously imposed duties.

Extension of the measures

The Commission decided to extend the duties on imports of birch plywood to goods consigned from Kazakhstan and Türkiye to ensure the effectiveness of the original anti-dumping measures. The duty rate of the extension was set at 15.8%, being the same level as the country-wide duty on imports from Russia.

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

These investigations focus on the implementation of court rulings. In 2024, the Commission initiated no such reviews and terminated one. This review concerned the case of tartaric acid from China. However, there were no measures in force any longer on imports of tartaric acid originating in the People’s Republic of China since 30 June 2023 when they expired as no request for an expiry review had been received. Therefore, as there were no measures on which the Court judgments could be implemented, the Commission decided therefore to terminate the investigation. – Annex H.

3.3.    Safeguard investigations

The Commission applies safeguard measures rarely. They are only used where it is clear that 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. Unlike  anti-dumping  and  anti-subsidy  measures, safeguards do not focus on whether trade is fair or not, so the conditions for imposing them are more stringent.

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 bilateral safeguards or the safeguard investigations under the Generalised Scheme of Preferences (GSP).

Two safeguard (SFG) investigations were initiated in 2024. One was a functioning review of the steel safeguard measure and a new investigation was opened concerning imports of manganese and silicon-based alloying elements. A review of the bilateral safeguard measures on Indica rice from Cambodia and Myanmar/Burma was concluded in 2024.

3.3.1.     Details on steel safeguard reviews

Two safeguard investigations were initiated in 2024, with one being concluded.

After a substantiated request by 14 Member States, the Commission carried out a review 21 of the SFG measure which the EU imposed on imports of certain steel products in 2019 with the view to examine whether the existing SFG measure should be prolonged. The Commission established that the industry was still in a fragile situation. Consumption reached its lowest levels since 2013, while the share of imports increased and global overcapacity in the sector remained at very high levels. Because the industry showed to be adjusting, and because it would not be against the overall Union interest, the Commission concluded to prolong the measure beyond 30 June 2024 until 30 June 2026. By then the measure will have been in place for 8 years, which is the maximum duration under WTO rules. On the basis of import data from the previous year, the Commission also introduced caps in the residual quota (the quota accessible to all countries that do not have a country specific quota) of category 1 and 16, and updated the list of developing countries subject to, and excluded from, the measure.

On 29 November 2024, the Commission received a substantiated request by 13 Member States to initiate a functioning review. The request contained evidence of a change of circumstances since the last review of the measure. In particular, the Union industry was under significant and increasing import pressure due to a combination of factors, such as, high and structural levels of global overcapacity, increasing barriers in several key markets, including new US 232 duties and many trade defence measures all over the globe. Moreover, due to the continuous liberalisation of the measure, the quota volumes available are around 25% higher than in 2019, when the measure was imposed. At the same time EU consumption decreased by 14%. This led to the measure no longer being effective in certain categories and called for a reassessment of the allocation and management of the tariff-rate quotas. Thus, a functioning review was initiated on 17 December 2024. The Commission will conclude this functioning review investigation by 31 March 2025.

3.4.    Verification activities

Based on Articles 16 and 26 of the basic AD and AS Regulations respectively, in the course of investigations, the Commission normally carries out visits to examine the records of companies or associations with the aim of verifying the information provided during the proceedings.

In 2024 the Commission verified data from 346 companies, 148 within the EU and 191 outside. With the exception of 7 companies, all verification visits took place on-site. The remaining 7 companies’ data was verified through remote cross checking (RCC).

4.Enforcement of anti-dumping/countervailing measures 

During 2024, the Commission continued to ensure that measures imposed were effective and not undermined by practices by economic operators designed to evade duties. In this context, there was continued cooperation between the TDI services, other Commission services (DG TAXUD), relevant EU agencies (OLAF) and enforcement-oriented national authorities (customs authorities in Member States), as well as regular exchanges with the Union industry.

More information on the Commission’s monitoring and enforcement activities can be found in the main body of the Report.

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.

Regular exchanges take place with DG TAXUD regarding the classification of goods subject to trade defence instruments (TDI). In addition, as soon as the relevant legislation is published in the Official Journal, DG TAXUD promptly incorporates the corresponding measures into TARIC (the integrated Tariff of the European Union). This ensures the uniform application of TDI measures, as TARIC data is automatically transmitted daily to the import systems of the Member States.

4.2.    Monitoring of undertakings 

Monitoring of undertakings forms part of the enforcement activities, given that undertakings allow for the suspension of AD or AS measures. The Commission accepts such undertakings if it is satisfied that they can effectively eliminate the injurious effects of dumping or subsidisation and regularly checks the exporters' compliance with the undertakings.

During 2024, 11 undertakings were monitored. These related to two proceedings, biodiesel from Argentina and citric acid from China. As regards the undertakings in biodiesel, monitoring showed that the exporting producers were complying in full. However, with regard to citric acid, the Commission found that certain conditions of the undertakings concerning citric acid from China were breached by the China Chamber of Commerce of Metals, Minerals & Chemicals Importers & Exporters (‘CCCMC’) and as a result withdrew its acceptance of the undertakings from 3 companies in March 2024.

There were no undertakings offered in anti-dumping investigations concluded in 2024. 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 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.

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 react whenever they have indications of any of the above practices. These manifest themselves through (i) subsequent to the imposition of measures, a significant decrease in imports from the country concerned into the EU which is 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; (ii) subsequent to the imposition of measures, imports from the country concerned into the EU are coming from a company with a low or a zero duty at the expense of imports from a company with a higher duty; or (iii) where low amount of duties was collected by Member States’ customs authorities.

Whenever the Commission receives information on irregularities occuring from the Union industry, either on an ad-hoc basis or in the framework of formal complaints, it informs OLAF. In the same vein, the Commission maintains regular contacts on these matters with Member States’ customs authorities, for example, by publishing specialised risk warnings in the EU common customs risk management system. However, given that investigations by OLAF or Member States’ law enforcement authorities into above practices are confidential, no further information can be given. OLAF publishes an annual report presenting its activities of the previous year, as well as statistics of its investigative performance and examples of cases.

5.    Refunds  

Articles 11(8) and 21(1) of the basic Regulations allow importers to request the reimbursement of the relevant collected duties where it is shown that 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.

44 new refund requests were submitted during 2024. At the end of that year, 11 refund investigations were still on-going, covering 144 requests. Moreover, the Commission adopted 10 Implementing Decisions granting partial refund requests and 5 Implementing Decisions rejecting refund requests. More details on these decisions and on the status of refund investigations can be found at  https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/refund .

6.    Information and Communication activities / Bilateral contacts

The Commission is fully committed to improving transparency and collaboration on trade defence issues and, in this context, the Trade Defence services organised, as well as participated in, various information sharing activities in 2024.

In January 2024, there was a meeting of the EU-Korea Working Group on Trade Remedy Cooperation held online which brought together experts to discuss trade remedy cooperation. The Commission also held a TDI dialogue with the Turkish trade defence service in June 2024, providing a platform for the exchange of information and ideas.

In October 2024, the Commission's Directorate-General for Trade (DG Trade) organized a training seminar for officials from third countries, focusing on trade defence investigations. The seminar, which was well-received, attracted participants from five countries: Madagascar, Malaysia, Türkiye, the Philippines, and the Dominican Republic. The event enabled the exchange of trade defence procedures and practices among third-country authorities, promoting cooperation and knowledge-sharing.

The Commission also participated in an International Webinar on Trade Remedy Investigations, hosted by the Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) in November 2024. The webinar provided a platform for the exchange of views and information on investigative practices, with officials from the World Trade Organization (WTO) also attending.

In addition to these events, the Commission engaged throughout the year with various stakeholder associations, including Business Europe and AEGIS Europe, to hear the views of interested parties. In September 2024, the Commission made a presentation to the Civil Society Dialogue, providing an update on developments in trade defence.

7.    Judicial review: decisions given by the Court of Justice and the General Court

7.1.    Overview of the judicial reviews in 2024 

In 2024, the General Court (GC) and the Court of Justice (CJ) rendered 25 judgments and orders in TDI cases. The GC handed down 14 rulings whereas the CJ decided on 10 appeals and 1 request for a preliminary ruling.

7.2.    Cases pending

At the end of 2024, 18 cases were pending before the GC and 6 before the CJ. A list of the cases is given in Annex S.

7.3.    New cases 

In 2024, 10 new court cases were lodged in the field of trade defence. Six of these were lodged before the GC and three appeals and one request for a preliminary ruling before the Court of Justice.

7.4.    Selection of court decisions

Court of Justice

C-688/22 P, Methanol Holdings (Trinidad) v Commission and C-725/22 P, Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK "Azot" v Commission

In those judgments, the Court of Justice dismissed the appeal brought by Nevinnomysskiy Azot and NAK "Azot", an exporting producer from Russia, and the appeal brought by Methanol Holdings (Trinidad), an exporting producer from Trinidad and Tobago against the judgment of the General Court in case T-865/19, in which the General Court rejected the exporting producer’s action for annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1688 of 8 October 2019 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of mixtures of urea and ammonium nitrate originating in Russia, Trinidad and Tobago and the United States of America.

These judgments of the Court of Justice are final and put an end to the direct actions against the measures on urea ammonium nitrate. On substance, the Court of Justice rejected all grounds of the appeal and confirmed the judgment of the General Court. The most relevant points are as follows.

The Court of Justice confirmed that the Commission may apply Article 2(9) of the Basic AD Regulation by analogy to the export prices used for undercutting and injury margin calculations.

The Court of Justice also confirmed that all the Commission’s undercutting calculations under several methodologies in the case at hand (i.e. either making adjustments to the Union industry's prices to bring the prices via related selling entities to an ex-works level, or only comparing direct sales ex-works, with export prices at the Union border adjusted according to Article 2(9)) were carried out at the same level of trade and confirmed the existence of undercutting.

The court of justice also confirmed that the injury margin calculations, based on a comparison of the EU industry's costs of production plus SG&A and profits without including any costs from other levels of trade with the export prices at the Union border adjusted according to Article 2(9) were correct.

The Court of justice confirmed that Article 2(9) of the basic regulation, which concerns construction of export price in cases where there is no export price or where the export price is considered unreliable, also applies and allows the Commission to deduct from the export price the costs incurred by a party established outside the European Union, when this party appears to be associated with the importer or exporter and those costs would normally be borne by an importer.

Court also confirmed the possibility for the Commission to, in addition to the evidence available in a complaint, the Commission may rely on further evidence at its disposal to justify the initiation of an investigation.

Finally, the Court also confirmed, for the first time, the Commission’s approach about modulation of the lesser duty rule in case of raw material distortions to the full amount of dumping. The Court confirmed the General Court's findings that the Commission did not discriminate between Trinidad and Tobago's imports and Russian imports when not initiating an investigation pursuant to Art. 7(2a) against Trinidad and Tobago's imports since the Commission had correctly stated that the schemes in force in Trinidad and Tobago were not covered by the exhaustive list set out in Article 7(2a) of the basic regulation. The Court noted that Article 7(2a) of the basic regulation contains an exhaustive list of distortions on raw materials, including dual pricing schemes, making it clear that such distortions must result in the price of the raw material being significantly lower as compared to prices in the representative international markets.

Case C261/23 P Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission 

On 30 May 2024, the Court dismissed the appeal by two exporting producers of certain woven and/or stitched glass fibre fabrics from China and Egypt against the rulings of the General Court in T301/20 Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt Fibreglass Industry v Commission. The General Court dismissed the action of Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt Fibreglass Industry for the annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/492 (‘the regulation at issue’), in so far as that regulation concerned them. 

The Court confirmed that Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation does not prevent the Commission from disregarding the costs entered in the records of the party under investigation where the prices of the raw material used in the manufacture of the product under investigation do not appear to be set at arm’s length, because of an intra-group relationship. 

The CJ also confirmed that, based on Article 2(5) of the basic Regulation, the Commission could adjust the costs of production of Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass on ‘any other reasonable basis’ instead of making an adjustment ‘on the basis of the costs of other producers or exporters in the same country’ as, in this case, such other producer or exporter, unlike Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass was a vertically integrated company. 

Joined cases C-269/23 P and C272/23 P – Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission 

On 24 November 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the joined appeal cases C-269/23 P and C272/23 P concerning the appeals against the judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 in case T‑480/20 (Hengshi Egypt Fiberglass Fabrics and Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission) and the judgment of the General Court of 1 March 2023 in case T‑540/20 (Jushi Egypt for Fiberglass Industry v Commission). 

The Court of Justice dismissed both appeals in their entirety. In doing so, it confirmed, among others, that a financial contribution provided by the authorities of a country (here, China) can be attributed to another country (here, Egypt) in some circumstances. 

Background 

Hengshi and Jushi are two Egyptian companies, each of them a subsidiary of a parent company established in China, who are in turn wholly owned and controlled by a Chinese state-owned entity called ‘China National Building Materials Co. Ltd’. Hengshi and Jushi are established in the China-Egypt Suez Economic and Trade Cooperation Zone (‘the SETC-Zone’). They export glass fibre products to the EU. 

In May and June 2019, the European Commission initiated two anti-subsidy investigations concerning imports of certain glass fibre products into the EU. Following these investigations, the Commission adopted Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/776 and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/870. In these regulations, the Commission considered that Hengshi and Jushi benefited from a number of subsidies granted by the Government of Egypt, some of which were in essence the result of cooperation between the Government of Egypt and the Government of China. 

Hengshi and Jushi each lodged an action for annulment with the General Court concerning the regulations mentioned above (cases T-480/20 and T-540/20). With its judgment of 1 March 2023, the General Court dismissed both actions as unfounded.  

The Court of Justice confirmed the concept of ‘cross-border’ financial contribution 

Hengshi and Jushi argued that the General Court incorrectly interpreted and applied Article 2(a) and (b) of the basic Regulation when it found that the Commission could consider that certain financial contributions granted to them by the Government of China, whether directly or through their parent companies, should also be regarded as subsidies which had been granted by the Government of Egypt or which could be attributed or imputed to the Government of Egypt. 

According to Hengshi and Jushi, Article 2(a) and (b) and Article 3(1) of the basic Regulation state, in their various language versions, that the concept of ‘subsidy’ includes only financial contributions which come from ‘a government in the country of origin or export’, which is generally understood as ‘a government or any public body within the territory’ of that country. Those provisions would not therefore permit the inclusion in that concept of financial contributions originating in the government of another country. Furthermore, those provisions refer to the subsidies which are ‘granted by’ the government in question and not to those which are ‘attributable’ or ‘imputable’ to them.  

The Court of Justice considered that, in order to be able to classify a financial contribution as a ‘subsidy’, Article 2(a) and (b) and Article 3(1)(a) of the basic Regulation require that that financial contribution was granted to one or more persons specified by the government of the country of origin or the country of export of a given product. Thus, it suffices that a public body within the territory of one or other of those countries has adopted conduct consisting in either formally granting that financial contribution to those persons or allowing them in practice to benefit from it. In both cases, that conduct must have played a decisive role in the allocation of such a financial contribution.  

In addition, the Court of Justice noted that the objective of the basic Regulation is to enable the EU to offset any subsidy granted, directly or indirectly, by governments of third countries in which goods originate or from which goods are imported. 

The Court of Justice concluded that such interpretation of the concept of subsidy does not run counter to the obligations of the EU under the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. The Court furthermore confirmed that that the specificity of a given subsidy may be determined by reference to the granting authority to which the financial contribution is attributed (here, Egypt). 

General Court 

T-762/20 - Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others v Commission 

T-763/20 - Inner Mongolia Shuangxin Environment-Friendly Material v Commission

T-764/20-Anhui Wanwei Updated High-Tech Material Industry and Inner Mongolia Mengwei Technology v Commission 

On 21 February 2024, the General Court delivered three judgements following actions brought by Chinese exporting producers againstImplementing Regulation 2020/1336 of the European Commission imposing definitive anti-dumping duties on imports of certain polyvinyl alcohols (‘PVA’) originating in the People’s Republic of China. The three cases are discussed in turn below.

T-762/20

While the Court sided with the Commission on several pleas, it partially annulled the Implementing Regulation 2020/1336with regard to the downward adjustments made to the export price under Article 2(10)(e), (g), (i) and (k) of the basic Regulation. 

In their first plea the applicants argued that the application of the Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation (which is the legal basis for the significant distortions methodology) is inconsistent with the obligations arising from WTO law. The General Court clarified, by referring to the judgment in case C-21/14 P Commission v Rusal Armenal,  that the significant distortions methodology, as well as the non-market economy provisions previously contained in the basic Regulation, established a special regime which could not be considered to be a measure intended to ensure the implementation in the EU legal order of a particular obligation assumed in the context of the WTO Agreements. On that basis, the General Court concluded that the necessary conditions for the principle of consistent interpretation to be applicable to Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation in the light of WTO rules are not satisfied and rejected the plea accordingly. 

The Court further found that the Commission did not violate Articles 3(2) and 3(3) basic Regulation and did not commit a manifest error of assessment when establishing price undercutting by not conducting a segmented price undercutting analysis. The Court sided with the Commission as it confirmed that there was no clear segmentation of the PVA market and a high concentration of Union industry sales and dumped imports in two distinct segments. The Court recalled that the basic Regulation gives an important discretion to the Commission with regard to the determination of injury. The General Court rejected the claim by concluding that the Commission was not obliged to proceed to an analysis of price undercutting per segment and in principle the analysis is done at the level of the 'like product'. Only under certain exceptional circumstances the Commission may be required to carry out an analysis by segment. These circumstances were not proven to exist in this case. 

The Court also established that the Commission did not violate the rights of defence of the applicant because of refusal to disclose Union industry's PCN prices and quantities. 

The Court upheld the adjustment made of the normal value because it was constructed VAT included, while the export price included an amount corresponding to a non-refundable VAT. The Court clarified that such an adjustment should be made under Article 2(10)(k) of the basic regulation and not Article 2(10)(b) of the basic Regulation because the latter does not provide for the normal value constructed according to Article 2(6a) of that regulation to be adjusted to take account of the non-refundable VAT affecting the export price in the country in which the dumped imports originate. 

The Court found the Commission applied correctly Article 18(1) of the basic Regulation (“facts available”) to determine the normal value of the applicants. The Commission used the normal values of the other exporting producers, which it had established, in part, by applying that same provision. However, the General Court upheld the applicants' claim in so far as the Commission calculated Sinopec Ningxia's normal value by using, for each product type, the highest of the normal values of the other exporting producers.  In this respect, based just on the non-cooperation, the Commission considered that Sinopec Ningxia's normal value, per product type, was not below the highest, per product type, of the normal values of the other exporting producers. The Court found that by applying such a presumption, the Commission erred in law.  

The General Court partially annulled the regulation regarding the downward adjustments to the export price made by the Commission under Article 2(10)(e), (g), (i) and (k) of the basic Regulation. 

The Commission found that the functions of Sinopec Central-China were not those of an internal sales department but were similar to those of an agent working on a commission basis. The General Court considered that the Commission erred in making a downward adjustment to the export price relating to those sales on the basis of Article 2(10)(i) of the basic regulation corresponding to that company's SG&A costs and a profit margin for it, based on information from an unrelated trader. The General Court established that the Commission did not provide conclusive evidence that might preclude recognition of Sinopec Central-China's status as an internal sales department. 

The Commission also made adjustments in order to establish an export price at the 'ex-works' level, by deducting some costs (insurance costs, transport, handling and loading expenses, credit costs and bank charges) from the sales price charged to unrelated customers. However, no such adjustments were made to the normal value constructed by the Commission on the basis of Article 2(6a) of the basic Regulation.  

The Court concluded that it was for the Commission, which had chosen to make the comparison at issue at the 'ex-works' level, to demonstrate that those adjustments were necessary for the comparison of the export price and the normal value to be fair. In essence, the General Court observed that the data on (SG&A) costs used by the Commission when constructing the normal value came from a company in the representative country (the Turkish company Ilkalem) and was taken from the Orbis database, without the possibility of knowing whether it included expenses that were deducted from the export price. Whilst the Commission did not have a more precise breakdown of Ilkalem's SG&A costs, it could not reasonably require the applicants to provide data relating to an unrelated party that were more precise than the data held by the Commission. The Court thus considered that the Commission infringed the obligation to make a fair comparison, at the same level of trade, between the export price and the normal value as the Commission did not provide the applicants with data that would have enabled them further to substantiate their request for the costs at issue not to be deducted from the export price or for them to be deducted from the normal value. 

The judgement is currently under appeal brought by the Commission and cross-appealed by the applicants (case C-319/24 P Commission v Sinopec Chongqing SVW Chemical and Others). 

T-763/20    

Among other pleas in T-763/20, the applicant alleged an infringement of Article 18 of the basic Regulation. The applicant submitted that the Commission was wrong to calculate the normal value on the basis of the facts available within the meaning of Article 18 of the basic regulation, despite the fact that the applicant had cooperated to the best of its ability. The Court rejected the applicant’s claim and clarified that the objective of Article 18 of the basic Regulation is to enable the Commission to continue with the anti-dumping investigation even though the interested parties refuse to cooperate or do not cooperate satisfactorily. In this regard, the Court stated that in order to be regarded as cooperating under that provision, the parties must provide all the information that they have which the institutions consider necessary for the purpose of reaching their findings. The Court noted that the applicant did not supply the information requested by the Commission regarding the inputs for self-produced factors of production, information that was necessary for determining the normal value. As the applicant did not demonstrate that it was impossible for it to provide that information, the Commission did not infringe Article 18(1) by using the facts available as a substitute for that information. Moreover, the Court ruled that, since the applicant did not provide the information required, Article 18(3) of the basic Regulation is not applicable, and the Commission was able to use only the facts available as a substitute for the missing information. 

T-764/20

In T-764/20, the applicants alleged a violation of Articles 3(2) and 3(3) of the basic Regulation and a manifest error of assessment when establishing price undercutting and a consequent violation of Article 3(6) Basic Regulation. The plea involved several arguments: firstly, failure to conduct a segmented price undercutting analysis; secondly, failure to make adjustments to account for quality differences between imported PVA and PVA produced in the European Union; and, thirdly, failure to establish price undercutting for the relevant product as a whole.   

The Court concluded that the Commission was not required to carry out an additional analysis of price undercutting over and above that based on the PCN method. Moreover, concerning the argument that the Commission failed to make adjustments to account for quality differences between imported PVA and PVA produced in the European Union, the Court held that the applicants did not produce any evidence capable of demonstrating that the Commission had made a manifest error of assessment in finding that the differences, between product types did not have a significant effect on their prices.  

Furthermore, the applicants submitted that the Commission infringed their rights of defence in that, despite their requests, it failed to provide them with any information with respect to the Union industry’s quantities sold and sales prices by PCN or the price undercutting and underselling margins by PCN. They argued that the Commission should have provided them with that information at least in the form of ranges of values. In their view, although Article 19 of the basic regulation provides for the confidential treatment of certain information, its application cannot deprive the rights of the defence of their substance. The Court held that the Commission correctly followed the steps laid down in the relevant provisions in order to strike a balance between the objectives referred in settled case law, on the one hand, to allow the interested parties effectively to defend their interests and, on the other hand, to preserve the confidentiality of the information collected in the course of the investigation. The Court established that, in view of the sensitivity of the information at issue and the exceptional circumstances of this case, the Commission did not make any error in refusing its disclosure. 

T-629/21 – Ereğli Demir ve Çelik Fabrikaları TAŞ, İskenderun Demir ve Çelik AŞ, and Erdemir Çelik Servis Merkezi Sanayi ve Ticaret AŞ v Commission and T-630/21 -Çolakoğlu Metalurji and Çolakoğlu Dış Ticaret v Commission

On 8 May 2024, the General Court dismissed the actions brought against Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1100 of 5 July 2021 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and definitively collecting the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain hot-rolled flat products of iron, non-alloy or other alloy steel originating in Turkey in T-629/21 and T-630/21. 

In T-629/21, the General Court ruled that: 

·the Commission did not infringe the basic regulation when it converted data labelled in foreign currency into Turkish lira for the dumping calculation. The Court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that the conversion was required for a fair comparison, as the records of the applicants had transactions invoiced in Euro, US dollars and Turkish Lira. The court also ruled that such conversions, based on monthly exchange rates, did not breach the rule that the costs must be calculated on the basis of the records kept by the party under investigation (whose accounting currency was the USD and that also had amounts in Turkish lira and Euro converted into dollars using daily exchange rates) as the Commission is not obliged to accept these records as such without reservation.  

·the Commission did not infringe the basic regulation when it rejected the applicant’s claim for an adjustment for hedging gains and losses. The General Court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that, since the dumping calculation was done in Turkish lira and all transactions in euro were converted to Turkish lira directly without an intermediate conversion to US dollar, the conversion rate between euro and US dollar agreed in the hedging contracts was irrelevant for the purpose of comparison.  

·the Commission was entitled, given the failure of the applicant to provide clear information, to add a calibrated amount in relation to SG&A costs in order to cover the sales services provided by Erdemir, based on the SG&A costs of Ersem, a related trader in the group.  

·the Commission did not infringe the basic regulation when it rejected the applicant’s claim for the inclusion of exchange rate gains and losses in their costs. The General Court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that those gains and losses were not linked to the production or sales of the product under investigation and therefore should not be included in their SGA costs for calculating normal value. 

In T-630/21, the General Court ruled that :

·the Commission did not make a manifest error of assessment when it concluded Çolakoğlu Metalurji and ÇOTAŞ (a related company to Çolakoğlu) did not constitute a single economic entity, as it took into account all the relevant factors to determine the economic reality of the relationship between those companies. Therefore, an adjustment for commissions was justified. The General Court also upheld the conclusion of the Commission that the adjustment was justified even in cases where the commission is a fixed amount and not a profit, as well the quantification of the adjustment done by the Commission that, given the relationship between Çolakoğlu Metalurji and ÇOTAŞ, was not based on the commission but on the SGA of ÇOTAŞ plus the profit margin of an unrelated importer. 

·the Commission did not infringe the basic regulation when it rejected the applicant’s claim for an adjustment to the normal value for import duties. Notably, the General Court upheld the Commission’s position that, as the applicants did not pay any import duty, the adjustment was unjustified. It further ruled that, even accepting a broad interpretation of the legal provision to include indirect effects of import duties, the applicant failed to prove that this had an impact on price comparability. 

·the Commission did not infringe the basic regulation when it rejected the applicant’s claim for a monthly or quarterly calculation of the dumping margin instead of the traditional yearly calculation. The General Court upheld the Commission’s conclusion that, given the fluctuations of costs and prices on the one hand, and the distribution of sales to the Union and the domestic market across the investigation period on the other hand, an annual calculation was justified. Of note, the General Court ruled that certain cost fluctuations are normal and that it is also necessary for the exporting producer to demonstrate to what extent such changes were reflected in prices, since it is the comparability of the prices that is at issue, and also that a certain variation in sales to the Union and in the domestic market is inevitable and that it would be inappropriate to establish an absolute numerical threshold above which an allocation of sales during the investigation period becomes exceptionally unequal as each case must be assessed on its own merits. 

·the Commission did not infringe the basic regulation when it rejected the applicant’s claim for an adjustment for hedging gains and losses. The General Court upheld the Commission’s views that, since the dumping calculation was done in Turkish lira and all transactions in euro were converted to Turkish lira directly without an intermediate conversion to US dollar, the conversion rate between euro and US dollar agreed in the hedging contracts was irrelevant for the purpose of comparison. 

The judgments were appealed and the cases (C-499/24 P and C-498/24 P) are pending at the time of drafting this report.  

8.    Activities by third countries targeting the EU

The main developments and trends in the area of third country actions in 2024, including Annex U (A - F) with detailed figures, are presented below.

In addition, this section also highlights important cases initiated by countries that use the instruments less frequently but have an impact on EU exports.

As of the end of 2024, the primary users of trade defence instruments (TDIs) against EU exports remain the United States, with 41 measures in force, followed by Türkiye with 23 measures and China with 18 measures. Brazil and Indonesia have 10 measures in force each, while Canada and Madagascar follow with 9 measures each. South Africa/the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) has 7 measures in place, while Argentina, Mexico, and Morocco each have 5 measures in force. Australia and India each have 4 measures in force, followed by Thailand with 3, and the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, and Pakistan 2 measures each. Additionally, Colombia, Egypt, Ghana, the GCC countries, Lebanon, the Philippines, Tunisia, the United Kingdom, and Vietnam have each 1 measure in force against EU exports.

United States

Overall trends

In 2024, the US initiated six new TD investigations affecting EU exports. 2024 marks the second year of increase in new cases after two years of a slowdown in the trend of new investigations (four new investigations in 2023, one new investigation in 2022 and none in 2021).

At the end of 2024, the US had 41 measures in force affecting EU imports (34 AD, 5 AS and 2 SFG). In the course of 2024, two new AD measures on mattresses and paper shopping bags and one SFG measure on fine denier polyester staple fibre were imposed. In addition, provisional AD measures on aluminium extrusions were imposed but the investigation was terminated the same year following a negative injury determination.

Main cases

Tin mill products AD

The investigation concerning imports of tin mill products from Germany and the Netherlands was initiated on 7 February 2023. The applicants claimed significant dumping margins, namely 44% for Germany and up to 294% for the Netherlands. Given that the economic interest in this case is EUR 1 billion, higher than in any other US trade defence case against the EU or its Member States to date, the Commission has been very active in this investigation in support of the exporters concerned. On 17 August 2023, the US Department of Commerce made a preliminary determination of 7% dumping on imports from Germany and no dumping on imports from the Netherlands.

On 5 January 2024, the investigation into imports from the Netherlands was officially terminated. On 29 February 2024 the investigation against imports from Germany was terminated following a negative injury determination by the US International Trade Commission.

Paper shopping bags AD

On 20 June 2023, the US initiated an investigation against imports of paper shopping bags from Portugal. The economic interest in this case is EUR 17 million. The Commission has been active in support of the exporters concerned since the start of the investigation. On 17 July 2024, the US imposed AD duties of 6.14% which are much lower than the dumping margins of up to 189% requested originally by the petitioners.

Ripe olives AD and AS

The US initially imposed the measures on 1 August 2018, and they have been in force since then. The EU economic interest, before the imposition of measures, was EUR 67 million.  The AS measures target support measures under the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP).

The Commission challenged these duties before the WTO and on 20 December 2021, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the final panel report declaring these duties inconsistent with WTO rules. The Commission considered that the US had failed to implement the WTO ruling and requested the establishment of a compliance panel, which was composed on 31 July 2023. On 19 March 2024, the DSB concluded that the United States had failed to comply with the original panel’s pass-through finding.

As the US did not take any measure to implement the findings of the compliance panel report, on 14 November 2024, the EU requested the WTO DSB to authorise the imposition of countermeasures. The US immediately requested an arbitration on the level of countermeasures by the EU and the arbitration panel was established on 29 November 2024. The conclusion of the arbitration proceeding is expected by mid-2025 (please see also the main part of the report).

Polyester staple fibre SFG

On 2 February 2024, the US authorities initiated a multilateral SFG investigation on imports of Fine denier polyester staple fibre (PSF). The economic interest in this case is EUR 11 million. The Member States most concerned is Ireland (EUR 10.6 million). The Commission has been active in support of the exporters concerned since the start of the investigation. On 8 November 2024, the US imposed a SFG measure in form of quantitative restrictions applicable only to imports of PSF admitted under Temporary Importation under Bonds (TIB) for a period of four years, with annual increases in the within-quota quantities in the second, third, and fourth years. From 23 November 2024 to 22 November 2025, no such imports will be allowed.

Aluminium extrusions AD

This investigation was initiated on 25 October 2023 against imports of aluminium extrusions from Italy, with petitioners alleging a dumping margin of 42%. The economic interest in this case is EUR 104 million. Since the start of the investigation, the Commission has been active in support of the exporters concerned. On 18 November 2024, the US investigating authority determined that the domestic industry was not materially injured, and as a result the investigation was terminated without any measures.

Türkiye

Overall trends

At the end of 2024, Türkiye had 23 measures in force affecting the EU (16 AD and 7 SFG). In 2024, Türkiye initiated 5 new trade defence investigations affecting EU exports, out of which 3 new SFG investigation targeting imports of knitted fabrics, uncoated paper and paperboard, and ethyl acetate. Moreover, it initiated 1 new anti-circumvention (AC) investigation (on articulated link chains from Spain) and 1 AD case on flat rolled products of tin-coated iron or non-alloy steel from Germany. The Commission continues to follow closely all the cases and will intervene, in support of the EU industry, as appropriate.

Main cases

Other paper and cardboard SFG

This SFG investigation was initiated on 12 January 2024 and definitive measures were imposed at the end of June 2024. Given the economic interest of around EUR 140 million the Commission has been very active and intervened during the investigation in close contact with EU industry and in support of the exporters concerned. On 28 June 2024 definitive measures were imposed in form of a specific duty of USD 87 per ton, subsequently decreasing every year. The Commission intervened arguing that the imposition of measures would not be warranted, as the Turkish industry is not suffering any injury and certain products (semi-chemical fluting paper) which is not produced in Türkiye and cannot be substituted by other products should be excluded from the product scope. In the final determination Türkiye confirmed the measures and the product exclusion as requested by the EU industry.

Knitted or crocheted fabrics SFG

This SFG investigation was initiated on 12 January 2024. Given the high economic interest of EUR 122 million, the Commission has intervened in support of EU industry and Member States and will continue to do so as the investigation continues.

Flat rolled products of tin-coated iron or non-alloy steel AD

On 28 June 2024, Türkiye initiated AD investigation regarding imports of flat rolled product of tin-coated iron or non-alloy steel from inter alia Germany. The economic interest in this case is EUR 52 million. The Commission intervened in support of the EU industry and continues to follow this case closely.

Türkiye – Articulated link chains – anti-circumvention (AC)

On 21 May 2025, Türkiye initiated an AC investigation concerning imports of articulated chains from Spain. The economic interest in this case is EUR 57.60 million and the Commission continues to follow this case closely.

China

Overall trends

In 2024, China's trade defence activity towards the EU increased significantly, after four years without any new investigation initiated regarding EU exports. The total number of measures in force against the EU at the end of 2024 was 18 (17 AD, 1 AS), unchanged since 2022. China initiated five new investigations (3 AD, 1 AS, 1 SFG) and imposed provisional measures on one product.

In 2024, there have been obvious indications that China initiated cases in reaction to the EU AS investigation against imports of battery electric vehicles from China launched in October 2023. Since the beginning of 2024, the government of China has launched three trade defence investigations into imports of certain agrifood products originating in the European Union (brandy, pork and dairy). According to the Commission’s assessment, these investigations are based on questionable allegations and insufficient evidence, and thus are not in line with WTO rules for initiating an investigation. In the brandy case, China imposed provisional measures, but the investigating authority equally failed to sufficiently motivate the justification for AD measures in the preliminary determination (please see also in the main part of the report).

The Commission addressed this issue both at political and at technical level during the investigations. Lacking any meaningful response in 2024, the Commission requested and held consultations with China challenging the initiation of the AS investigation against imports of certain dairy products from the EU. This was the first time the EU had decided to challenge an investigation at its initiation stage. The EU also requested consultations challenging the initiation as well as the preliminary determination, consultations were held in January 2025.

Main cases

Spirits (brandy) AD

On 5 January 2024, China initiated an AD investigation into imports of spirits obtained by distilling grape wine in containers holding less than 200 litres (brandy) from the EU. The value of EU exports to China in 2022 was around EUR 800 million. Most (97%) of the exports are from France and a very minor share (2%) from Spain. On 29 August 2024, China published the preliminary determination and since 11 October 2024 applied provisional measures of 30.6%-39.0%. Since the start of the investigation, the Commission is following the proceedings very closely and intervenes as appropriate. On 25 November 2024, the EU requested WTO consultations, challenging Mofcom’s decision to initiate the investigation, as well as the provisional findings on (threat of) injury to the Chinese domestic industry, and a causal link between allegedly dumped imports and the alleged threat of injury. China agreed to hold consultations on 20 and 21 January 2025.

Pork AD

On 17 June 2024 the government of China decided to initiate an AD investigation on imports of pork and pig by-products from the European Union. EU exports of pork and pig by-products to China represented around EUR 2.7 billion in 2023 and basically all EU pork exports (meat and by-products) are targeted in the investigation. Member States mainly concerned are Spain (EUR 1.3 billion), Netherlands (EUR 527 million), Denmark (EUR 443 million), France (EUR 275 million), Ireland (EUR 110 million). Applicants are alleging a dumping margin of 62%. In support of the EU industry, the Commission is monitoring the case very closely and intervenes as appropriate.

Dairy AS

The AS investigation against imports of certain dairy products from the EU was initiated on 21 August 2024. The investigation targets mainly programme of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and also some national schemes of Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands and Romania. EU exports to China of the products subject to the investigation amounted to around EUR 513 million in 2023. The Member States mainly concerned are France (EUR 179 million), Italy (EUR 57 million), the Netherlands (EUR 53 million), Denmark (EUR 52 million), Spain (EUR 46 million), Ireland (EUR 45 million) and Germany (EUR 33 million). Since the start of the investigation, the Commission has followed the case closely, intervening where appropriate and replying, in coordination with Member States and the EIB Group, to the government questionnaires issued by the investigating authority.

On 23 September 2024, the EU requested WTO consultations challenging the initiation of this investigation, to protect its industry and the CAP against abusive proceedings, and to signal its disagreement with China’s WTO-incompatible actions. On 3 October 2024 China accepted the request for consultations which were held on 6 and 7 November 2024. The Commission is now considering any next steps.

Brazil

Overall trends

Brazil remains among the important users of trade defence instruments against the EU. As of the end of 2024, there were 10 AD measures in force against EU exports—one fewer than in 2022 and 2023. Notably, Brazil did not initiate any new investigations against the EU in 2024.

Indonesia

Overall trends

Indonesia continues to be one of the most frequent users of safeguard investigations in the world, making regular use of SFGs rather than AD or AS.

By the end of 2024, the number of measures in force by Indonesia remained stable, with 10 definitive measures imposed compared to 11 in 2023. Indonesia's SFG measures are increasingly in force for the maximum periods allowed, with extensions being a simple standard practice. In this context, Indonesia initiated 3 SFG reviews in 2024 on imports of expansible polystyrene, articles of apparel, and ceramic tiles with a total EU economic interest of around EUR 80 million.

In addition, Indonesia initiated 2 new SFG investigations concerning imports of tarpaulins made from plastics and synthetic fibres, and low linear density polyethylene (total EU economic interest around EUR 8 million).

Main cases

Ceramic tiles and mosaic SFG

In March 2018, Indonesia initiated a SFG investigation on imports of ceramic tiles and, in October 2018 imposed definitive measures in the form of ad valorem duties for a period of three years. The first review was initiated in July 2021 and the measures were extended in November of the same year. The second review was initiated in June 2024 and the Indonesian SFG Committee concluded its investigation in August 2024 and proposed an extension for a further two years; however, the Ministerial Decree confirming the extension has not yet been issued.

The Commission, in close cooperation with the European Ceramic Industry Association, has been actively intervening in the case since 2018, submitting written comments and participating in public hearings.

Articles of apparel and clothing accessories SFG

The SFG investigation was initiated in October 2020 (EU exports EUR 76 million). The Commission filed several written submissions and has requested a WTO consultation in order to avoid or reduce the very high duties initially proposed by Indonesia. In November 2021, the SFG measures were nonetheless imposed, though approximately 45% lower than initially recommended by the Indonesian Safeguard Committee. In November 2024, Indonesia initiated an expiry review and the Commission, in close cooperation with the EU industry, intervened at the initiation stage. The review investigation is ongoing, and the Commission is monitoring the case closely.

Canada

Overall trends

In 2024, Canada initiated one AD investigation on imports of concrete reinforcing bars, impacting EU exports with a total economic interest around EUR 51 million. However, Canada did not impose any new measures by the end of 2024. Despite this, Canada remained a significant user of TDI measures against the EU. By the end of 2024, Canada had 9 measures in force (7 AD, 1 AS), maintaining the same number of measures in force as in 2023.

Madagascar

Overall trends

Madagascar initiated 2 new SFG investigations concerning imports of certain types of edible vegetable oil and tomato products in 2024 showing continued trend in use of the SFG instrument. In addition, Madagascar imposed 3 new SFG measures in 2024 bringing the total number of definitive SFG measures imposed by ANMCC to 10, compared to 7 in 2023.

South Africa / Southern African Customs Union

Overall trends

At the end of 2024 there were 7 measures in force, 4 AD (frozen bone-in portion, ropes and cables, frozen potato chips and frozen chicken) and 3 SFG (bolts, screws and threaded fasteners). In July 2024, South Africa also imposed provisional measures in the safeguard investigation concerning imports of flat rolled steel. At the end of 2024, the SACU had 1 AD measure in force against the EU (pasta).

Main cases

Flat rolled steel SFG

On 23 February 2024, South Africa initiated new SFG investigation concerning imports of flat rolled steel. The economic interest is around EUR 113 million. The Commission has intervened in all appropriate fora in close contact with the EU industry. The investigation is ongoing, and the Commission is monitoring this case.

Argentina

Overall trends

By the end of 2024 there were 5 AD measures imposed by Argentina against EU exports, certain boilers, electrical terminals, radiators, sodium benzoate, straight handsaw blades – the same number as in 2023. Argentina did not initiate any new investigations in 2024.

Mexico

Overall trends

By the end of 2024 there were 5 AD measures imposed by Mexico against EU exports, hot rolled steel coils, seamless carbon steel pipes, steel beams, steel plate, stranded wire ropes and cables – the same number as in 2023. Mexico did not initiate any new investigations in 2024.

Morocco

Overall trends

In 2024, Morocco initiated 1 new SFG investigation, on coated fibreboard with an EU economic interest around EUR 40 million, and 1 new AD expiry review on insulin against the EU. At the end of 2024, there were 4 SFG and 1 AD measures in force against EU exports.

Australia

Overall trends

At the end of 2024, Australia had a total of 4 AD measures in force against the EU. This is three less than in 2023 as AD duties on A4 copy paper, railway wheels and ammonium nitrate expired during 2024.

During 2024, the Australian Anti-Dumping Commission (ADC) initiated an AD and AS investigation concerning imports of preserved tomato from Italy.

Main cases

Tomatoes, prepared or preserved AD/AS

In August 2024, the ADC informed the Commission of the receipt of a request for a new AD and AS investigation concerning preserved tomatoes from Italy. Pre-initiation consultations were held on 17 September. The investigations were initiated in October 2024. Given the high EU economic interest of EUR 63 million, the Commission, in close cooperation with the Italian Government and the Italian industry, intervened strongly since the pre-initiation stage through consultations and written submissions. In addition, the Commission raised the case at the WTO ASCM and AD Committees which took place on 29 and 30 October 2024. The case is problematic as the AS investigation targets the EU Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Italian subsidy programmes. The Commission will continue to follow the investigation closely in support of the Italian exporters and in defence of the CAP.

India

Overall trends

The total number of TDI measures in force by India against the EU has been steadily decreasing since 2019. In 2024, India had 4 measures in force against imports from the EU (compared to 5 in 2023 and 14 in 2020). However, India initiated 6 new investigations, namely 5 AD (acrylonitrile-butadiene rubber (NBR), thiram in any form, para-nitrotoluene (PNT), vitamin A palmitate, sulphenamide accelerators) and one SFG investigation on imports of non-alloy and alloy steel flat products. An expiry review on imports of toluene di-isocyanate (TDI) was initiated in 2024. India remains a significant user of TDI against the EU.

Thailand

Overall trends

By the end of 2024, there were 3 AD measures imposed by Thailand against EU exports: hot rolled flat in coils and not in coils, tin free steel and tinplate – the same number as in 2023. Thailand did not initiate any new investigations in 2024.

Republic of Korea

Overall trends

By the end of 2024, there were 2 AD measures in force (butyl glycol ether, coated printing paper) imposed by the Republic of Korea representing a decrease compared to 4 AD measures in 2023 and previous years. The Republic of Korea did not initiate any new investigations in 2024.

New Zealand

Overall trends

By the end of 2024, there were 2 AD measures in force (canned peaches, preserved peaches) imposed by New Zealand remaining unchanged from 2023 and previous years. New Zealand did not initiate any new investigations in 2024.

Pakistan

Overall trends

By the end of 2024, there were 2 AD measures in force (CR coils and sheets, hydrogen peroxide) imposed by Pakistan remaining unchanged from 2023 and 2022. Pakistan did not initiate any new investigations in 2024.

Colombia

Overall trends

By the end of 2024, there was 1 AD measure in force (frozen fries) imposed by Colombia remaining unchanged from 2023 and previous years (please see also in the main part of the report). Colombia did not initiate any new investigations in 2024.

Philippines

Overall trends

By the end of 2024, there was 1 SFG measure in force on high-density polyethylene and linear low-density polyethylene pellets and granules representing decrease by 1 measure compared to 2023. Philippines did not initiate any new investigations in 2024.

United Kingdom

Overall trends

By the end of 2024, there was 1 SFG measure in force on certain steel products remaining unchanged from 2023. The United Kingdom initiated one new AD investigation regarding certain engine oils in 2024.

Ukraine

Overall trends

The year 2023 was another challenging one for Ukraine, following the invasion and war of aggression initiated by the Russian Federation on 24 February 2022—a date that also marked the start of martial law in the country. On 27 February 2022, Ukraine suspended all ongoing TDI investigations, and no new investigations have been initiated over that time.

Prior to the war, Ukraine had a relatively high number of ongoing investigations against EU imports. The Commission had been actively engaged in these investigations, including at the political level, to encourage Ukraine to reconsider its frequent and excessive use of the SFG instrument.

By the end of 2024, Ukraine had no measures in force against EU exports, compared to 1 AD measure and 2 SFG measures in 2023. However, in 2024, Ukraine initiated a SFG investigation on imports of fresh-cut roses.

Fresh cut roses SFG

The original measures on imports of fresh cut roses were imposed in April 2021, with an economic interest around EUR 3 million. The Commission closely followed the case and intervened on different occasions, definitive measures of 56% were imposed (Ukraine had originally proposed 140%).  On 18 April 2024, Ukraine initiated a review of the SFG measures and the Commission actively intervened.  Following a brief investigation, the Ukrainian authorities completed the review and terminated the measure with effect of 22 May 2024.  

Vietnam

Overall trends

By the end of 2024, there was 1 SFG measure in force on semi-finished and finished products of alloy and non-alloy steel remaining unchanged from 2023. Vietnam did not initiate any new investigations in 2024.

9.    Activities in the framework of the WTO

9.1Dispute settlement in the field of trade defence 

The WTO procedure for the settlement of disputes between WTO Members concerning the application of the WTO agreements is divided into two main stages.

The first stage consists of bilateral consultations between the WTO Members concerned. If those consultations fail 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 parties, with an interest in a given dispute, can intervene as 'third parties' before the panel.

The panel issues a report, which must be adopted by the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) in order to become binding between the parties to the dispute. In a fully functioning WTO dispute settlement system (see further below), panel reports first can be appealed before the WTO 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 AB are adopted by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) unless the DSB rejects the report by unanimity. The findings of a panel report or an AB report must 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.

Anti-dumping, anti-subsidy and safeguards measures are among the most common subject matters in WTO dispute settlement. The EU is also an active participant in WTO dispute settlement proceedings as a third party in relation to TDI.

Regarding the procedures, it should be noted that, since 11 December 2019, due to the blockage of new appointments to the AB, the WTO dispute settlement system is not able to function fully, because there are no members on the Appellate Body. This affects the capacity of the WTO dispute settlement system to deliver binding resolutions of trade disputes and undermines rules-based international trade.

The EU continues its efforts to find, together with the WTO Membership, a lasting solution to this situation. Pending a solution, the EU, together with certain other WTO Members, created a workaround arrangement to apply as long as the appointments to the AB remain blocked. Known as the ‘MPIA’, the Multi-party interim appeal arbitration arrangement allows its participating WTO Members to bring appeals and solve disputes within the framework of the DSU despite the current paralysis of the AB. It achieves this through the conclusion of agreements between participating WTO Members to have appeals in disputes between them dealt with by way of arbitration within the framework of the DSU. In this way, the MPIA provides a functioning, binding, two-tier and independent dispute settlement system in the disputes that it covers. It mirrors the usual WTO appeal rules and, for as long as the AB remains unable to function fully, can be used between any Members of the WTO that join the MPIA. 

Dispute settlement cases requested by EU

DS 631: Provisional anti-dumping duties imposed by China on imports of Brandy from EU

In November 2024, the European Union requested consultations with China with respect to the provisional anti-dumping duties imposed by China on imports of spirits made from distilled wine in containers of less than 200 litres (commonly referred to as “brandy”) originating in the European Union. On 5 December China agreed to hold consultations, which were held online on 20 and 21 January 2025. No solution was found. The Commission is now considering any next steps.

DS 628: Initiation of Countervailing investigation by China on imports of Dairy products from EU

In September 2024, the EU requested consultations with China with respect to the WTO-incompatible initiation of an anti-subsidy investigation on imports of certain dairy products from the European Union. On 3 October 2024 China accepted the request for consultations which were held on 6 and 7 November 2024. No solution was found. The Commission will decide on next steps depending on the evolution of the investigation.

The AS investigation against imports of certain dairy products from the EU was initiated on 21 August 2024. The investigation targets mainly programme of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and also some national schemes of Austria, Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands and Romania.

DS591: Anti-Dumping Duties by Colombia on Frozen Fries from Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands

This dispute dates back to November 2019 when the EU requested consultations with Colombia regarding the anti-dumping duties imposed by Colombia on imports of potatoes, prepared or preserved (otherwise than by vinegar or acetic acid), frozen (frozen fries), originating in Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany. Consultations took place in January 2020. The Panel Final report was issued in August 2022 where the EU prevailed. Columbia appealed in the framework of the MPIA (Multi Parti Interim Appeal Arbitration Arrangement). This was the first appeal to the MPIA which issued its report in December 2022 and where the EU again prevailed (main claims won related to the dumping calculation, fair comparison and adjustments e.g. for product mix, or packaging which Colombia had rejected).

Colombia had one year to implement the ruling, which should have led to the termination of the duties. Colombia issued its implementation report in October 2023. While Colombia made some adjustments to the calculation, which led to lower duties in some cases but to higher duties in others, the EU considered these adjustments not in line with the ruling. On 14 November 2024, the European Union requested the establishment of a compliance panel with respect to measures taken to comply. On 27 November 2024, the compliance panel was composed. The panel expected to issue its final report to the parties during the third quarter of 2025.

DS577:  Anti-Dumping and Countervailing Duties by the United States on Ripe Olives from Spain

The EU challenged the countervailing duties imposed by the US on ripe olives originating in Spain before the WTO in December 2021, the WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) adopted the final panel report declaring these duties inconsistent with WTO rules. The Commission considered that the US had failed to implement the WTO ruling and requested the establishment of a compliance panel, which was composed on 31 July 2023. On 19 March 2024, the DSB concluded that the United States had failed to comply with the original panel’s pass-through finding.

As the US did not take any measure to implement the findings of the compliance panel report, on 14 November 2024, the EU requested the WTO DSB to authorise the imposition of countermeasures. The US immediately requested an arbitration on the level of countermeasures by the EU and the arbitration panel was established on 29 November 2024. The conclusion of the arbitration proceeding is expected by mid-2025.

Dispute settlement cases against the EU

DS630: Countervailing Duties on New Battery Electric Vehicles from China

In November 2024, China requested consultations with the European Union regarding the definitive countervailing duties imposed by the European Union on new battery electric vehicles from China, as well as the underlying investigation that led to the imposition of these duties. An earlier request for consultations with the EU was filed by China on 9 August with respect to the same investigation and the provisional countervailing duties imposed by the EU on imports of BEVs from China (DS626). The panel was established on 25 April 2025.

DS622: Anti-dumping duties on fatty acid from Indonesia.

In February 2024, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union with respect to (i) the definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of fatty acid from Indonesia; (ii) the investigation leading to the imposition of these measures; and (iii) the methodology applied by the European Union in anti-dumping investigations (including in the investigation on imports of fatty acid from Indonesia) for constructing normal value based on product control numbers (PCN)-specific costs and profit data. At its meeting on 18 December 2024, the DSB established a panel. Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Kingdom and the United States, reserved their third-party rights.

DS 618: Countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia

In August 2023, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union regarding the definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia. In October 2023, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel. The panel was composed in March 2024. The first meeting of the Panel took place in October 2024. The Panel report will not be issued until at least June 2025.

Indonesia claimed that the definitive countervailing duties on imports of biodiesel from Indonesia and the investigation leading to their imposition are inconsistent with certain provisions of the ASCM. Indonesia alleges that the countervailing duties adopted by the EU are in contravention of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. Indonesia is challenging the Commission’s determination concerning Government support to the biodiesel industry through direct transfer of funds via the ‘Biodiesel Subsidy Fund’ and also the provision of crude palm oil (“CPO”) for less than adequate remuneration. Indonesia is also challenging the threat of injury and the causal link analysis made by the Commission.

DS 616: Countervailing and Anti-Dumping Duties on Stainless Steel Cold-Rolled Flat Products from Indonesia

On 24 January 2023, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union with respect to countervailing and anti-dumping measures imposed by the European Union on imports of stainless-steel cold-rolled flat products from Indonesia. Indonesia claimed that the measures are inconsistent with a number of provisions of the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing measures (ASCM) and the Anti-Dumping Agreement.

The main issue raised by Indonesia is the legality of the ‘attribution theory’ used in EU trade defence policy, whereby financial contributions formally paid by the Chinese government are attributed to a third country government, in this case the Government of Indonesia. This attribution was made because of a substantive body of evidence demonstrating that Indonesia ‘acknowledged and adopted’ the subsidizing conduct of the Chinese state as its own. The theory was used for the first time in the Egyptian Glass-Fiber Fabric case, where the General Court approved the Commission’s use of the attribution theory.

Indonesia also contested the part of the EU Regulation concerning the provision of nickel ore at less than adequate remuneration, in particular the treatment of the Indonesian mining companies as public bodies or private bodies being entrusted or directed by the government, the selection of the appropriate benchmark for nickel ore and the calculation of the benefit.

Consultations between the EU and Indonesia took place on 13 March 2023 but failed to resolve the dispute. On 17 April 2023, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 30 May 2023, the DSB established a panel. Following the agreement of the parties, the panel was composed on 13 September 2023. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, India, Japan, Korea, the Russian Federation, Singapore, Chinese Taipei, Thailand, Türkiye, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States reserved their third-party rights.

The first two meetings of the parties took place in April and December 2024. In December 2024, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that, owing to the complexity and number of claims at issue and the availability of certain panel members, the panel did not expect to issue the final report to the parties before the third quarter of 2025.

DS521: European Union — Anti-Dumping Measures on Certain Cold-Rolled Flat Steel Products from Russia

The case dates from January 2017, when the Russian Federation requested consultations with the European Union concerning anti-dumping measures imposed by the European Union on imports of certain cold-rolled flat steel products from the Russian Federation. Consultations with Russia took place on 8 June 2017. Almost two years later, on 13 March 2019, the Russian Federation requested the establishment of a panel. The panel was established on 16 March 2020. Written procedure took place during the summer 2020 whereas the first substantive meeting planned for the autumn was postponed due to COVID-19 related travel restrictions.  In March 2022 and again in July 2023, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that it had granted the Russian Federation's requests of March 2022 and June 2023, that the panel suspend its work pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU. In granting the suspension of the panel in July 2023, the Chair of the panel noted that, pursuant to Article 12.12, if the work of the panel has been suspended for more than 12 months, the authority for establishment of the panel shall lapse.

As the panel had not been requested to resume its work, pursuant to Article 12.12 of the DSU, the authority for establishment of the panel lapsed as of 13 July 2024.

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

On 24 July 2020, the panel circulated to all WTO Members its final report in DS494 European Union – Cost Adjustment Methodologies and Certain Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports from Russia. Both the EU and Russia appealed the report. However, with the ongoing difficulties in the WTO Dispute Settlement, there was no progress in 2024.

9.2    Meetings of the WTO Anti-dumping, ASCM and Safeguards Committees. 

The WTO hosts meetings of the Subsidies and Countervailing, Anti-dumping and Safeguards Committees each year in spring and autumn. Under the auspices of the Anti-dumping Committee, the WTO also hosts two groups: a Working Group on Implementation (WGI) and an Informal Group on Anti-circumvention practices where members exchange information on the practicalities of investigations. There are also informal sessions for ‘Friends of Safeguards Investigations’.

In the various Committees, WTO members monitor the implementation of the relevant agreements by investigating authorities and raise concerns and exchange views on trade defence cases. The EU is very active in all the committees, drawing attention to concerns of a general and systemic nature as well as specific trade defence cases which impact our exporters. The EU also strongly defends its own trade defence activities.

The EU participated in both meetings of the Anti-dumping Working Group on Implementation. Members discussed the following topics: Adjustments to the scope of the product under investigation, the impact of COVID-19 on investigations and lessons learned for the future; conditions of competition in the context of injury analysis as well as dealing with threat of material injury and material retardation in investigations.

The Informal Group on Anti-circumvention met in October 2024, its first meeting in a number of years, where participants shared information and experiences on the ways and means they address circumvention.

In the Special Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the members continued the review of subsidy notifications made in 2023. The EU’s notification was reviewed with questions from Australia about the EU’s fisheries subsidies. The WTO Secretariat’s update on notifications showed that compliance with notification obligations under the Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (ASCM) remains low. Less than half of the WTO membership made a notification of subsidies in 2023. The EU continued to stress the importance of complying with the obligations and pushed for greater transparency on subsidies, with next notifications due in June 2025.

In the regular Committee on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures, the EU defended its anti-subsidy investigations into battery electric vehicles from China and aluminium road wheels from Morocco. In turn, the EU raised concerns and highlighted shortcomings in anti-subsidy investigations by Australia into canned tomatoes from Italy, by China into dairy products from the EU and by USA into melamine from Germany.

In the Anti-dumping Committee, the EU responded to criticisms raised about its anti-dumping investigations on hot rolled flat products from Japan, optical fibre cables from India and an expiry review into tube and pipe fittings by Russia. The EU raised its concerns about the anti-dumping investigations by Australia into canned tomatoes from Italy as well as investigations by China concerning brandy and pork products from the EU. Regarding the investigations by China, the EU highlighted the fact that these were based on questionable allegations and insufficient evidence and represented an unfair use of trade defence instruments given the clear overlap in timing between China’s actions and different milestones of the European Commission’s anti-subsidy investigation on battery electric vehicles.

In the Safeguards Committee, the EU and many delegations expressed concerns at the misuse of safeguards worldwide, their duration, the fact that they are used as a retaliatory weapon and often do not respect WTO rules. Some developing countries, who are relatively new users of the instrument, had an exponential increase in the number of safeguard cases as they consider the instrument an easier alternative to anti-dumping or anti-subsidy. Discussions also focused on individual cases of concern with the EU’s steel safeguard attracting much attention at the meetings.  The EU robustly defended its steel safeguard against criticism from Brazil, China, India, Japan, Korea, Turkey, Switzerland, and Russia. Most of them reiterated previous arguments that the measures should have been terminated and not extended. No consensus was reached on a US proposal to transfer the informal ‘Friends of Safeguard Investigations’ group to the Committee due to opposition by India.

In 2024, including during the WTO’s 13th Ministerial Conference, the WTO negotiations continued on the outstanding issues to achieve a comprehensive agreement on fisheries subsidies. The EU conducted outreach to encourage other WTO members to accept the WTO Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies which had been concluded at the 12th Ministerial Conference in 2022. The Agreement will enter into force once two thirds of WTO members have accepted it.

Furthermore, the EU and other like-minded WTO members continued subsidies-related work strands under the WTO Fossil Fuel Subsidy Reform initiative and under the Trade and Environmental Sustainability Structured Discussions.

Trilateral cooperation with the US and Japan focused on a sectoral assessment of market-distortive policies and practices, including subsidies that are not sufficiently addressed by WTO rules. The partners shared specific examples and exchanged information on potential tools to address the identified practices.

LIST OF ANNEXES

ANNEX A

ANNEX B

ANNEX C

ANNEX D

ANNEX E

ANNEX F

ANNEX G

ANNEX H

ANNEX I

ANNEX J

ANNEX K