European Business Law, the fourth volume in our series, shows how the European authorities simultaneously abolish all restrictions on access to and exercise of economic activities and support the growth of domestic markets, through the harmonization the internal legislation or the enactment of genuinely unified regulations.

European Business Law

For anti-dumping to be established , it is not sufficient that the existence of dumping, injury to Union industry and a causal link between them be found. The Commission must further make sure that it is in the interest of the Union to take these measures. The interest is based on the need to eliminate the trade distorting effects of dumping and to restore effective competition. Even if injury is  …

Overall economic assessment

For anti-dumping to be established , it is not sufficient that the existence of dumping, injury to Union industry and a causal link between them be found. The Commission must further make sure that it is in the interest of the Union to take these measures. The interest is based on the need to eliminate the trade distorting effects of dumping and to restore effective competition. Even if injury is found, anti-dumping measures may not be applied where it results from the Commission's analysis that it is not in the interest of the Union to apply them (Regulation No 2016/1036, Article 21) .

Interests at stake are assessed on the whole given the position of all the economic agents, in particular complainants, importers and their representative associations, representative user and representative consumer organizations (Regulation No 2016/1036, Article 21). With regard to the information supplied, the Commission assesses the impact of possible measures and the consequences of not taking measures for all parties involved in the investigation . It may, inter alia, take developments after the investigation period into account, as Article 21 contains no temporal restrictions in that respect .

The adoption of anti-dumping measures complies with the interest of the Union industry where these measures are indispensable to avoid further deterioration of its situation  and in the medium term the disappearance of the activity under consideration , or to maintain its market share and restore its profitability . On the other hand, it is not in the interest of the Union to hold measures which, by reason of the adjustment of the market prices, would lead to a net transfer of wealth to suppliers of third countries which would greatly exceed any benefit that the Union industry would derive .

Imposing an anti-dumping duty is mainly aimed at improving the sales prospects of the Union industry as compared to those of importers selling dumped products. Self-defense measures must however not produce negative effects on independent importers or traders. Their economic activity is not jeopardized where they were already vulnerable before the initiation of the proceedings . Importers may not claim an increase in their costs, decrease in their profitability, or employment  to counter these measures where they do not suffer any net loss , where they may reflect part of any duties paid on their customers , where they deal with a far larger product range  or where neither employment nor significant investment is directly related to the dumped products . 

Imposing anti-dumping measures is not in the interest of users where they are not much supplied by the Union industry but depend to a large extent on external sources of supply  or must bear a cost increase induced by the long-term cumulative effect of these measures . By contrast, it is in the interest of users that anti-dumping measures be imposed when the existence of several sources of supply is vital for guaranteeing proper access to the raw materials concerned and in a context of shortage, a reduction or the eventual disappearance of the Union industry could create supply shortage . In all events, users may not object to anti-dumping measures if the price advantages from which they benefit mainly result from unfair competition  or if they have not cooperated in the investigation . 

Lastly, imposing anti-dumping measures may be precluded if they are likely to cause short-term supply shortages and price increase at the expense of consumers . In effect, the interests of consumer are outweighing the interests of the Union industry where the overall advantages of the imposition of anti-dumping measures are minimal for that industry, given the relatively low level of employment directly affected, whilst consumers are likely, in case of imposition of such measures, of being deprived of taking advantage of technological variety and development of products from third States, without having any viable alternative in the foreseeable future .

The Union interest requirement must also be taken into consideration during a review when deciding whether to retain anti-dumping measures that are due to expire: Case T-132/01 Euroalliages and others v Commission [2003] ECR II-2359, LawLex200900001226JBJ.

See, also, Case T-132/01 Euroalliages and others v Commission [2003] ECR II-2359, LawLex200900001226JBJ, which underlines that the existence of dumping and injury does not give the complainant Union industry the right to set up or retain protection measures where those measures are not justified by the Union interest.

Council Regulation (EU) No 2380/95 of 2 October 1995, imports of plain paper photocopiers (Japan), LawLex200900002395JBJ. 

Council Regulation (EU) No 1799/2002 of 8 October 2002, imports of polyester staple fibres (Belarus), LawLex200900002559JBJ; No 1235/2003 of 10 July 2003, imports of silicon (Russia), LawLex200900002652JBJ, as regards a trader having purchased, through an importer in a third country, substantial quantities of the producers concerned, then having promptly re-exported them outside the Union and having found other sources of imports.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 449/2000 of 28 February 2000, imports of malleable cast iron tube or pipe fittings (Brazil, the Czech Republic, Japan, China, Korea and Thailand), LawLex200900002888JBJ.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 617/1999 of 23 March 1999, imports of stainless steel wires (India), LawLex200900002853JBJ.

Council Regulation (EU) No 2080/2001 of 23 October 2001, imports of internal gear hubs for bicycles (Japan), LawLex200900002607JBJ.

Commission Decision No 2001/230 of 21 February 2001, imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil, LawLex201100000528JBJ.

Commission Decision No 1238/2000 of 14 June 2000, imports of coke (China), LawLex200900002869JBJ. See also Regulation No 617/98 of 18 March 1998 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of polysulphide polymers originating in the USA, LawLex200900002821JBJ.

Commission Regulation No 761/90 of 26 March 1990, provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of tungsten ores and concentrates originating in the people's Republic of China, LawLex200900002689JBJ.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1628/2003 of 17 September 2003, imports of large rainbow trout (Norway, Faeroe Islands), LawLex200900002635JBJ.

Council Regulation (EU) No 1567/97 of 1 August 1997, imports of leather, plastic and textile handbags (China), LawLex200900002437JBJ; Commission Decision No 2001/230 of 21 February 2001, imports of ferro-silicon originating in Brazil, LawLex201100000528JBJ.

Council Regulation (EU) No 930/2003 of 26 May 2003, imports of farmed Atlantic salmon (Norway, Chili, Faeroe Islands), LawLex200900002550JBJ.

Commission Decision No 1999/55 of 21 December 1998, imports of certain laser optical reading systems (Japan, Korea, Malaysia, China, Taiwan), LawLex201100000520JBJ.

Case T-192/08 Transnational Company "Kazchrome" AO [2011] ECR II-7449, LawLex201200000663JBJ.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1662/2002 of 18 September 2002, imports of certain filament yarns of cellulose acetate (United States of America, Lithuania), LawLex200900002770JBJ.

Council Regulation (EU) No 1531/2002 of 14 August 2002, imports of color television receivers (China, Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore), LawLex200900002563JBJ.

Council Regulation (EC) No 535/87 of 23 February 1987, imports of plain paper photocopiers (Japan), LawLex201200000250JBJ, concerning OEM imports whose continued existence in the Union was not jeopardized by the imposition of anti-dumping measures since they were already vulnerable to the setting-up of new distribution systems and manufacturing facilities in the Union by producers of the countries concerned and had lost their market share in the Union to the latter's own-brand machines.

Commission Regulation (EC) No 1418/88 of 17 May 1988, imports of serial-impact dot-matrix printers (Japan), LawLex200900002673JBJ; Council Regulation (EU) No 2380/95 of 2 October 1995, imports of plain paper photocopiers (Japan), LawLex200900002395JBJ.

European Business Law

430. Overall economic assessment

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

430. Overall economic assessment

Demandez un accès gratuit au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise

Les décisions de justice citées dans ce paragraphe :

Les notions juridiques connexes

Demandez un accès gratuit
au contenu exclusif Livv – juristes d’entreprise