EU defends stance as WTO panel finds limited flaw in anti-dumping investigation

EU defends stance as WTO panel finds limited flaw in anti-dumping investigation
Credit: Unsplash

The EU has told the World Trade Organisation’s Dispute Settlement Body that a panel largely upheld its anti-dumping measures on imports of fatty acid from Indonesia, while finding a narrow breach linked to currency conversion in part of the calculation, according to a statement delivered in Geneva.

The statement was delivered on 28 August by Davide Grespan, a minister counsellor at the EU mission to the WTO in Geneva, the European External Action Service (EEAS) informed on Friday.

The WTO panel found that “almost all aspects” of the EU’s anti-dumping investigation and definitive measures on Indonesian fatty acid imports were consistent with WTO rules, the EU said.

It highlighted findings on the investigation after the withdrawal of a complaint, the injury determination and Indonesia’s challenges to the EU’s methods for constructing “normal value” — a benchmark price used in anti-dumping cases to assess whether goods are being sold abroad below their home-market value.

The panel also found the EU acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.1 of the WTO Anti-Dumping Agreement.

The EU described the issue as fact-specific and limited to the exchange rate used for currency conversion in the dumping calculation.

For a minor portion of export transactions, the panel found the EU did not convert invoice values because it considered the exporting company had already reported those transactions in the relevant calculation currency.

EU rejects parts of the panel’s reasoning

The EU said it believed its main arguments were “neither properly reflected nor adequately addressed” in the report on the currency-conversion issue.

It added that the panel’s finding was based on a de novo — or fresh — examination that the EU said went beyond the proper scope of panel review.

The EU stated that its decision not to appeal should not be taken as acceptance of the panel’s reasoning, adding that it did not view the report as establishing precedent.

It said it had not appealed because the findings did not have a material impact on implementation.


Copyright © 2026 The Brussels Times. All Rights Reserved.