Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2013)192 - Amending regulations No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from non-EU countries and No 597/2009 on protection against subsidised imports from non-EU countries - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2013)192 - Amending regulations No 1225/2009 on protection against dumped imports from non-EU countries and No 597/2009 on protection ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2013)192  |
| date | 10-04-2013 |
Grounds for and objectives of the proposal
This proposal concerns amendments to Regulation (EC) No 1225/2009 (“the basic anti-dumping regulation”) and Regulation (EC) No 597/2009 (“the basic anti-subsidy regulation”). Taking account of the fact that these Regulations have not been substantially revised since the completion of the Uruguay Round in 1995 and taking account of the conclusions of the evaluation study carried out into the functioning of these instruments, it is proposed to update and modernise the instruments.
General context
Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides, inter alia, for measures to be established to protect trade such as those to be taken in the event of dumping or subsidies.
Existing provisions in the area of the proposal
The above-mentioned Council Regulations.
Consistency with the other policies and objectives of the Union
There is no conflict with any policy or objective of the Union.
Contents
Consultation of interested parties
Interested parties concerned by this proposal have had the opportunity to participate in the Public consultation carried out from April to July 2012. A summary of the results of the public consultation has been available on DG Trade’s website since October 2012.
Collection and use of expertise
An evaluation study into the functioning of the EU’s anti-dumping and anti-subsidy instruiments was finalised in early-2012 and has been available on DG Trade’s website since then.
Impact Assessment
Taking into account the results of the public consultation, the evalutation study and the Commission's extensive practice in the use of the instruments an impact assessment was carried out in autumn 2012. The impact assessment report identified problems in the functioning of the trade defence instruments and proposed various solutions. The Impact Assessment Board considered the report in December 2012 and gave a favourable opinion subject to some revisions to the report. The report has since been revised and finalised. The preferred solutions form the basis for this proposal.
Summary of the proposed action
It is proposed to amend the basic anti-dumping and basic anti-subsidy Regulations in order to improve them in a number of areas. Regarding transparency and predictability, these will be enhanced by providing that interested parties are informed two weeks in advance of the imposition of provisional measures that such measures are going to be imposed. Parties will also be given a guarantee that the measures will not be imposed within this two week period. A summary of the basis on which it is intended to impose the measures will be sent to interested parties and they will have the opportunity to comment on the calculation of the dumping and injury margins. Furthermore, when it is decided not to impose provisional measures but to continue the investigation, interested parties will be informed of the intention not to impose such measures two weeks in advance of the ultimate date for imposition.
Concerning threats of retaliation against Union producers who are considering lodging an anti-dumping and/or anti-subsidy complaint, such threats can be considered to constitute special circumstances that warrant the ex-officio opening of an investigation. Furthermore, when investigations are opened on an ex-officio basis, it is proposed to oblige Union producers to cooperate in the proceeding.
In regard to the effectiveness of the instruments, it is proposed to remove the lesser duty rule in cases of circumvention, or where structural raw material distortions have been found to exist, and subsidisation. Concerning reviews, it is proposed to reimburse duties collected during an expiry review investigation that is concluded by the repeal of the measures.
Finally, there are a number of areas where it is proposed to codify certain practices which stem from ECJ or WTO rulings that have been handed down in recent years. These concern the definition of Union industry, the consequences for exporting producers found not to be dumping or to be dumping at de-minimis levels in an original investigation, dealing with changed circumstances in a review investigation, the treatment of related companies in anti-circumvention investigations, the conditions for the registration of imports and the basis for choosing a sample of Union producers.
Legal basis
Article 207 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
Subsidiarity principle
The proposal falls under the exclusive competence of the Union. The subsidiarity principle therefore does not apply.
Proportionality principle
The proposal complies with the proportionality principle for the following reasons:
The form of action is described in the aforementioned basic Regulations and leaves no scope for national decisions.
It will not entail any increased financial or administrative burden on the Union, national governments, regional and local authorities, economic operators and citizens. However, the reimbursement of duties collected during an ongoing expiry review, if such an expiry review does not lead to a prolongation of measures, is handled by national customs authorities. The additional workload on customs authorities is considered to be small and proportionate to the objective of the proposal, i.e. increasing fairness of the instruments.
The non-application of the lesser duty rule in cases of circumvention, or where structural raw material distortions have been found to exist, and subsidisation is proportionate to the additional need to protect trade in these situations.
Choice of instruments
Proposed instruments: Regulation.
Other means would not be adequate for the following reason(s):
The aforementioned basic Regulations do not provide for alternative options.
The proposal has implications for the Union budget. The non-application of the lesser duty rule under certain circumstances will in some cases lead to higher duty levels and is thus revenue enhancing. The reimbursement of duties in cases where measures are terminated after an expiry review represents an expense for the Union budget. Quantification is very difficult since any revenue or expense depends on the circumstances of each individual case.
The proposed legislative changes will also entail some changes to the practice. These will not have any budgetary implications but changes to the working routines (e.g.: pre-disclosure, advance notice, summary document). The upgrading of the SME helpdesk (explained in the communication) has resource implications set out in the attached legislative financial statement.
5. OPTIONAL ELEMENTS
Not applicable.