In parallel with the entry into force of Regulation 2017/2321 amending EU anti-dumping and subsidy rules (see here for further details), the Commission released its first country report on December 20, 2017. Unsurprisingly, the Commission has chosen China as the subject of this first report. In the accompanying Q&A document, the Commission stresses that this choice “merely reflects the fact that investigations and measures against China account for the largest proportion of the EU’s anti-dumping investigations and trade defense measures”.
On December 12, 2017, the European Parliament and Council signed the new regulation (EU) 2017/2321 amending the current anti-dumping methodology. This follows the Council’s approval, with amendments, on December 4, 2017. The final text of the regulation was published today in the Official Journal. It will enter into force tomorrow (December 20, 2017). (See our previous posts for further detail on the new anti-dumping methodology and the political agreement on the new methodology.) Continue Reading EU’s New Anti-dumping Methodology Enters Into Force
Fifteen years ago, China joined the World Trade Organization (“WTO”). To alleviate concerns of cheap Chinese goods flooding international markets at that time, China agreed to allow other WTO members to continue conducting their anti-dumping calculations in a special way, thereby recognizing the concerns of certain members that prices of Chinese goods could be distorted due to state interference. This methodology considered China as a “non-market economy” (“NME”). In a nutshell, this means other countries can disregard Chinese prices or costs, and can use “alternative methods” (external benchmarks, such as hypothetical costs of a third country) to determine the margin of dumping in an investigation. In doing so, authorities will typically end up levying higher anti-dumping duties on Chinese goods.
In recent times, the EU and its trade partners have cranked up momentum on the establishment of a multilateral investment court, with the aim of replacing ad hoc arbitration provisions in investor-state dispute settlement (“ISDS”) for the protection of investors. In our previous post, we noted that this has caused some debate in the Canada-EU trade deal, where this provision led to objections by numerous member states, as well as last minute blocking of Belgium’s approval to the trade accord.