WTO Panel
Upholds Indonesia's Key Challenge Against EU Anti-Dumping Duties on Fatty Acid
Imports
·
The
WTO Panel found that the European
Union violated Article 2.4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement by failing to use the exchange rate on the
date of sale when calculating the dumping margin.
·
As a
consequence of this incorrect exchange-rate methodology, the EU imposed anti-dumping duties exceeding
the margin of dumping, thereby acting inconsistently with:
o Article 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and
o Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.
·
The
Panel also found the EU inconsistent
with Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement because this
violation flowed directly from the substantive breaches.
The
Panel rejected Indonesia's allegations that the EU had violated:
·
Article
5.6 by
continuing the anti-dumping investigation after withdrawal of the written
application.
·
Article
X:3(a) of GATT 1994
concerning the administration of EU anti-dumping and anti-subsidy regulations.
·
Articles
2.2 and 2.2.2
relating to the construction of normal value.
·
Articles
3.1 and 3.4
concerning the EU's injury analysis and assessment of positive injury
indicators.
·
The
broader consequential claim under Article
VI of GATT 1994, except for the specific violation of Article VI:2 linked to
the excessive anti-dumping duty.
·
The
Panel concluded that the EU's WTO-inconsistent measures nullified or impaired benefits accruing
to Indonesia under the Anti-Dumping Agreement and the GATT
1994.
·
Pursuant
to Article 19.1 of the
Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU), it recommended that the European Union
bring its measures into conformity with its WTO obligations.
Claims
Upheld
·
Failure
to use the date-of-sale exchange rate (Article 2.4.1 ADA).
·
Anti-dumping
duty exceeded the lawful dumping margin (Article 9.3 ADA and Article VI:2 GATT
1994).
·
Consequential
violation of Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Claims
Rejected
·
Withdrawal
of application.
·
Administration
of EU regulations.
·
Construction
of normal value.
·
Injury
determination.
·
General
consequential claim under Article VI of GATT 1994.
Recommendation
·
The
WTO Panel recommended that the European
Union amend its anti-dumping measures to comply with the Anti-Dumping Agreement
and the GATT 1994.
[ABS
News Service/09.07.2026]
WTO Panel Issues Report regarding
EU Duties on Imports of Fatty Acid from Indonesia
On 8 July, the
WTO circulated the panel report in the case brought by Indonesia in European Union
- Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Fatty Acid from Indonesia (DS622).
·
Just the findings
and conclusions
·
Addendum
The summary below was up-to-date at 8 July 2026
Complaint by Indonesia
On 7 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.
Indonesia
claimed that definitive anti-dumping measures on imports of fatty acid from Indonesia,
and the investigation leading to their imposition appear to be inconsistent with:
·
Articles 1, 2.2, 2.2.2, 2.4.1, 3.1, 3.4, 5.3,
5.4, 5.6, 5.8, 9.2, and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement; and
·
Articles X:3(a) and VI of the GATT 1994.
Indonesia
also claimed that the methodology applied by the European Union in anti-dumping
investigations for constructing normal value based on PCN-specific costs and profit
data appears to be inconsistent with:
·
Articles 2.2 and 2.2.2 of the Anti-Dumping
Agreement; and
·
Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
On 14
November 2024, Indonesia requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting
on 25 November 2024, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
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.
Following
the agreement of the parties, the panel was composed on 11 April 2025.
On 1 October
2025, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that, in light of the amount and complexity
of the work involved, the panel did not expect to issue its final report to the
parties before the first quarter of 2026. The Chair also apprised the DSB that the
report would be available to the public once it was circulated to the Members in
all three official languages, and that the date of circulation depends on completion
of translation.
On 8
July 2026, the panel report was circulated to Members.
This dispute concerns Indonesia's complaint against the anti-dumping
measures applied by the European Union on imports of fatty acid from Indonesia following
an anti-dumping investigation conducted by the European Commission and an allegedly
unwritten measure that the European Commission is claimed to have used in calculating
dumping margins.
Claims related to withdrawal
of the written application
With respect to Indonesia's claim challenging the European Commission's
continuation of the anti-dumping investigation despite the withdrawal of the written
application without first making a separate determination that the conditions in
Article 5.6 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement were met, the Panel found that the European
Commission did not act inconsistently with Article 5.6 because this Article applies
only to the initiation of an investigation and does not set out rules of application
in the course of the investigation.
Regarding Indonesia's claims of non-uniform and unreasonable administration
of Article 9(1) of the EU Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation and Article 14(1) of the
EU Basic Anti-Subsidy Regulation following the European Commission's continuation
of the anti-dumping investigation while terminating an allegedly parallel countervailing
duty investigation, the Panel found that the European Commission did not act inconsistently
with Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994.
Claims related to dumping
margin calculations
Concerning Indonesia's claims challenging the European Commission's
decision to rely on profits, and selling, administrative and general (SG&A)
expenses for certain models of the product under investigation which were derived
from domestic sales of those models that were made in low volumes, the Panel found
that the European Commission did not act inconsistently with Articles 2.2, 2.2.2,
9.2 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement or Articles X:3(a) and VI:2 of the GATT
1994.
With respect to Indonesia's claims challenging an error made by the
European Commission resulting from a failure to correctly convert the currency of
certain transactions, the Panel found that the European Commission's error was inconsistent
with Article 2.4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. Based on this finding, the Panel
also found that the European Commission acted inconsistently with Article 9.3 of
the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994.
Claims related to the unwritten
measure
Regarding Indonesia's claims challenging an allegedly unwritten measure
that the European Commission is asserted to have used in calculating dumping margins,
the Panel found that the European Commission did not act inconsistently with Articles
2.2.2 and 2.2 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement and Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994
because Indonesia had not established that any such unwritten measure existed.
Claims related to injury
determination
With respect to Indonesia's claims challenging the European Commission's
evaluation of the state of the domestic industry based on various factors set out
in the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Panel found that the European Commission did
not act inconsistently with Articles 3.1 and 3.4 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement.
Other claims
Regarding Indonesia's claims under Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement
and Article VI of the GATT 1994 as a consequence of the alleged substantive violations
under these Agreements, having found the substantive inconsistencies with Articles
2.4.1 and 9.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, the Panel upheld Indonesia's claim
under Article 1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement. However, the Panel rejected the consequential
claim under Article VI of the GATT 1994.