Australia: European Olive Oil Subsidy Not Proven to be ´Countervailable´

Last Updated: 23 June 2004
Article by Daniel Moulis

Subsidisation of agricultural products is a globally sensitive issue. The subsidies debate was a major reason for the failure of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Doha Development Round in Cancun last year. Agricultural subsidies and how to counteract them is high on the agenda of many countries, in particular those who are members of the Cairns Group and the G21. The expiry of the protection afforded by the so-called 'Peace Clause', which permitted members to maintain a certain level of subsidies and exempted them from action under the WTO's dispute settlement system, has brought these issues into sharp focus.

On 24 May 2004 the Australian Customs Service (Customs) terminated investigations into the alleged subsidisation of olive oil exported from Greece, Italy and Spain and the alleged dumping of olive oil from Italy and Spain. In the context of Australia's political complaints about subsidies granted under Europe's Common Agricultural Policy, and Australia's maintenance of a countervailing system which is aimed at counteracting foreign subsidies (and which has successfully achieved this purpose in the past), the failure of the Australian industry's complaint in this case deserves close analysis.

Australian industry alleged injury from European imports

The investigations were initiated in November 2003 following applications by an Australian producer of olive oil, Inglewood Olive Processors Ltd (Inglewood). Inglewood claimed that injury was being caused to the Australian olive oil industry by allegedly subsidised and dumped olive oil from Greece, Italy and Spain. The product complained of was extra virgin and blended olive oil in container sizes of 250 ml, 500 ml, 1 litre, 2 litre, 3 litre and 4 litre for retail sale. Olives themselves were not part of the complaint. Inglewood claimed that there were dumping margins of up to 62 per cent. The subsidies paid were said to be up to 130.4 euros per kg of olive oil.

What is 'dumping' and 'subsidisation'?

'Dumping' occurs where the 'normal value' of a product exported from a country is more than the 'export price' of that product. The difference is called the 'dumping margin'. The normal value is the domestic selling price of the product in the exporter's home market. The export price is normally the free-on-board invoice price of the same product when destined for the importing country's market. If 'dumping' is detected by the investigating authorities, and if it is demonstrated that the dumping has caused material injury to an industry in the importing country which produces the same product, the authorities of the importing country may impose a duty on the dumped imports to offset the margin of dumping.

Subsidisation occurs where a government or public body grants a 'financial contribution' that is 'specific' and which confers a 'benefit' on an enterprise. If the investigating body in the country of importation establishes that material injury has been caused or is threatened to the domestic industry by reason of such a subsidy, the importing country may impose what is called a 'countervailing duty' on the imports of the product which have benefited from that subsidy. The duty is normally imposed in an amount which is equivalent to the subsidy, in order to counteract its effects.

European 'production aid' subsidy

Inglewood claimed that a 'production aid' was paid to olive growers in Greece, Italy and Spain. Inglewood submitted that this 'aid' had a consequential price effect on olive oil through the production stage in that it lowered the price of olive oil sold to Australia. Inglewood argued that the production aid was a 'countervailable subsidy'. Inglewood claimed that irrespective of whether the olive growers were producers of olive oil through independent mills or by cooperatives, the production aid subsidy involved a direct transfer of funds from a government to an enterprise by whom the goods exported to Australia are produced. Where olive growers were not also olive oil producers, Inglewood said that the producers paid a much lower price for the olives used to produce the oil, thereby reducing the price of the oil, and that Customs should consider what the price of olive oil would be in the Australian market if the benefit of the production aid did not exist.

In its investigation, Customs established that the European Commission (EC) administered the production aid scheme through producer organisations in various countries. Nearly all olive growers in Greece and Italy, and 80 per cent of olive growers in Spain, were found to belong to producer organisations. Consistent with previous cases, Customs considered the production aid to be a subsidy paid to olive growers in the countries concerned. It was also established that the subsidy was calculated and paid on the basis of the amount of olive oil extracted from the olives grown by the olive growers. Customs also considered that the result of the scheme, whether intended or not, had been to increase olive oil production in European Union (EU) countries.

A subsidy, but where is the proof of a benefit to olive oil producers?

Customs recognised that just because 'subsidies' were paid to olive growers was not determinative of the question of whether the subsidy was countervailable in respect of olive oil exported to Australia. The legal question depends on specificity, and whether or not the subsidy confers a benefit.

In relation to specificity, Customs concluded the subsidy was specific, because it was specifically limited to particular enterprises (namely olive growers), and because access to the subsidy was established by objective criteria set out in EC regulations that stipulated that production aid was limited to olive growers.

However, the Australian industry's complaint failed on the question of the 'benefit' of the subsidy. The EU, and various exporters and importers, provided submissions to Customs concerning the question of whether a benefit was conferred. They argued that the subsidies were paid at the grower level, which was the first stage of a long chain in the production of olive oil. In their view, any price paid by the ultimate customer would be the result of market forces of supply and demand only. They also argued that the existence of a benefit to exporters of olive oil would need to be demonstrated by positive evidence. Accordingly, they said that the amount of the alleged subsidy which passed through from olive growers to eventually benefit the exported product must be determined, in order to determine whether it is countervailable and, if so, the degree which it is countervailable.

Citing recent WTO authority (the panel report in United States – Final Countervailing Duty Determination with respect to Certain Softwood Lumber from Canada), it was argued that Customs must not simply assume that a benefit had 'passed through' from olive growers to the olive oil, and that without any evidence to the contrary it must be presumed that aid granted to olive growers does not benefit producers and exporters.

In response, Inglewood offered the opinions of a Senior Counsel and an economist. The Senior Counsel argued that a finding by Customs that the production aid provided a stimulus to production, which in turn resulted in a drop in world prices for olive oil, must lead to a conclusion that the benefit of the production aid was 'passed through' to the olive oil exported to Australia. The economist concluded:

'I have no doubt that there is significant pass through of the olive oil subsidy to consumers, both in the EU and elsewhere in the world …
I have also been asked whether the pass through of benefit of the subsidy is significantly affected according to whether the subsidy is paid to the grower (as is the case) or to the processor. In my view the dynamics of the entire supply chain are not affected. The benefit of the subsidy travels with the product, ie the olive oil, and it should make no difference where in the chain the subsidy is injected.'

Despite these opinions, Customs concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a benefit had been conferred. In its report, Customs stated:

'After the sale by the olive grower, market forces drive the price of each transaction in the selling chain in a (generally) non-vertically integrated industry. The pass through of the benefit of the subsidy from the recipient to the exporter has not been established.'

Accordingly, Customs determined that the production aid was not a subsidy against which a countervailing duty could be imposed, and the investigation was terminated.

Minimal dumping detected

In relation to the alleged dumping, Customs calculated weighted averages of export prices and corresponding normal values for each exporter. Using these 'variable factors', Customs was able to calculate the dumping margin for each exporter. Customs found that two exporters did not dump; that the dumping margin for one exporter was negligible (ie less than two per cent); and that the dumping margins for the other three exporters ranged between two and 10 per cent.

Customs accepted that Inglewood had suffered price-related injury in the form of price undercutting, price depression and price suppression during the period of investigation. However, Customs considered that a number of factors would have affected the Australian industry regardless of dumping. Customs said that the price of olive oil was relatively high when Inglewood established itself in the Australian market and the subsequent lowering of world olive oil prices was part of the supply and demand cycle. Customs found that Inglewood had significant start-up costs. Also, Customs decided that Inglewood bought market share in an established market and had lowered its price to maintain that market share, and that both it and importers had been affected by the dominance and buying power of Australian supermarket chains. Lastly, Customs said that in comparison with major exporters, Inglewood was not a large-scale producer and so would incur a greater per unit cost, resulting in higher prices needed to recover these costs.

Accordingly, Customs was not satisfied that the dumped imports caused the injury. In the absence of any countervailable subsidies, and because there was no causal link found between the dumping and the injury, the investigation was terminated.


The Australian industry may appeal to the Trade Measures Review Officer. Whether or not there is an appeal, the case will have important reverberations.

Inglewood's case preparation was found to be lacking on a critical evidentiary point, namely establishing whether or not a benefit had been conferred on olive oil producers by way of the payment of a subsidy to olive growers. Inglewood's dilemma is not a new one, in that it can be difficult to present economic evidence to prove such a proposition. However, it is not impossible to do so, if the facts are available and the expert opinions needed to interpret the facts are carefully prepared and presented. The case is not authority for the proposition that countervailing duties cannot be imposed in respect of downstream products where the subsidy is paid in respect of the upstream product. As agricultural subsidies are usually paid to growers, complaints levelled against imports of processed agricultural products need to take particular care in addressing this issue.

An apparently contradictory finding by Customs, in its April 2003 report Canned Tomatoes from Italy (Trade Measures Branch Report No 66), illustrates the importance of legal and factual argumentation, and an investigating authority's approach to evidentiary issues and the 'burden of proof'. The underlying facts in the canned tomatoes case, which was a continuation inquiry (or 'sunset review'), were similar to those in the olive oil case. It was found that a production aid was paid to tomato growers, and that it was calculated on an end-use basis depending on whether the tomatoes were processed or not. Customs decided that tomato processors were being provided with fresh tomatoes at less than fair market value. Exporters did not participate in the investigation. Customs was required to make decisions on the basis of the available evidence, and claimed that it was entitled to use adverse inferences against exporters by reason of their non-cooperation. In the end result, full 'pass through' of the tomato subsidy was accepted by Customs. (The countervailing measures against the canned tomatoes were terminated, on other grounds.)

The olive oil report also indicates a more open and balanced approach on the part of Customs to the assessment of whether or not the dumping of imports can be said to have caused 'material injury' to an Australian industry. For example, Customs found that the Australian industry's own start up costs, and its small size relative to international competitors, counteracted the proposition that dumped imports had caused injury. Customs also considered that supermarket buying power had been causative of injury, taking into account that most undercutting had taken place at the 'house brand' market sector, and found that this was a factor unrelated to dumping. The consideration by Customs of wider issues of industry efficiency, scale and competitive factors, and the elevated relevance of these factors as signalled by the olive oil report, is likely to lead to more active argumentation about injury and causation in future cases.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.