- Country or region
- Trade topics
- Dispute settlement
- Dispute settlement
- WTO - Complaint against the EU
Summary of the case
- Complaint by: Indonesia
- Complaint against: EU
- Third parties: India, Korea, Republic Of, Malaysia, Thailand, Turkey, United States
On 27 July 2012, Indonesia requested consultations with the European Union with respect to the imposition of definitive and provisional anti-dumping measures by the European Union on the importation of fatty alcohols and with respect to certain aspects of the investigation underlying these measures.
The definitive measure challenged by Indonesia was imposed pursuant to Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 of 8 November 2011 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia, OJ L 293, 11.11.2011, p.1. The provisional measure challenged by Indonesia was imposed pursuant to Commission Regulation (EU) No 446/2011 of 10 May 2011 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia, OJ L 122, 11.5.2011, p. 47. The investigation was initiated pursuant to the Notice of initiation of an anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia and Malaysia, OJ C 219, 13.8.2010, p. 12.
Indonesia claims that the measures are inconsistent with:
- Articles 1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.8, 6.7, 6.9, 9.2, 9.4, 18 of the Anti Dumping Agreement; and
- Articles VI and X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
On 1 May 2013, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 24 May 2013, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
At its meeting on 25 June 2013, the DSB established a panel. India, Korea and the United States reserved their third party rights. Subsequently, Malaysia, Thailand and Turkey reserved their third party rights.
On 8 December 2014, Indonesia requested the Director-General to determine the composition of the panel. On 18 December 2014, the Director-General composed the panel.
On 11 June 2015, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that the panel's work had been delayed as a result of a lack of available experienced lawyers in the Secretariat. The panel expects to begin its substantive work shortly and to issue its final report to the parties in the second half of 2016.
On 16 December 2016, the panel report was circulated to Members.
As regards Indonesia's claim concerning the allowance made for a trading commission, the Panel considered that the European Union had a sufficient evidentiary basis to treat the price mark-up as a difference affecting price comparability between the export price and the normal value of fatty alcohols. In addition, the Panel found no legal basis in the text of the Anti-Dumping Agreement for Indonesia's claim that costs incurred within a single economic entity could not be deducted in the process of calculating the dumping margin of a product. It ruled that the existence of a close relationship between the producer and the trader was not dispositive of whether a payment could be treated as a factor affecting price comparability.
As regards Indonesia's claim concerning the European Union's failure to disclose the results of the on-the-spot verifications of Indonesian producers, The Panel also ruled that the European Union had not complied with the provisions of Article 6.7 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, which establishes an obligation for investigating authorities to make the results of verification visits available to the companies concerned. In the present case, the Panel found that the European Union had not disclosed the results of the verification visit at the premises of PT Musim Mas because it had failed to explain which information was requested from the company, whether PT Musim Mas had made available the information requested and whether the investigating authority had been able to confirm the accuracy of the information supplied in writing by the company.
Relevant WTO provision: Anti-dumping (Article VI of GATT 1994): Art. 1, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.5, 4.1, 5.8, 6.7, 6.9, 9.2, 9.4, 18; GATT 1994: Art. VI, X:3(a)
Panel report was circulated on 16 December 2016.
- Consultations requested: 30 July 2012