Indonesia: WTO Case Summary. The Case "EU - Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia)"

WTO APPELATE BODY REPORT

The case "EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia)" (DS 464) deals with anti-dumping measures imposed by the European Union on imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends from Indonesia. Indonesia contested (1) an unwarranted adjustment to the export price, (2) a performanceof a non-attribution analysis with respect to such factors as "financial/economic crisis" and "issues related to the European Union's domestic industry's access to raw materials", (3) non-disclosure of the verification outcomes to Indonesian producers. Eventually, both Indonesia and the EU appealed certain measures developed by the Panel.

In fact, Indonesia appealed some interpretations developed by the Panelfindings regardingArticle 2.4 of the Agreement on Application of Article VI of the GATT 1994 relating to the application of antidumping measures (the "ADA"), which stipulates the obligation of investigating authorities to make a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value.

Simultaneously, the EU appealed the Panel's conclusionunder Article 6.7 of the ADA. It concerned the scope of the "results" of the on-the-spot investigation, whether it has to be disclosed to the interested parties and to which extent.Additionally,the EU contested the appropriateness of the appeal by Indonesia referring to the expiry of the measure at hand as well as some other issues.

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REPORT

The Appellate Body Report in this case sends a strong signal to practical implementations of the recognized standards in anti-dumping investigation procedures. It emphasizes the importance of fair comparison between the normal value and the export price and precludes the possible circumventions in determining price comparability. In addition, it elaborates on the details ofArticle 2.4 application with regard to due allowance and treatment of related parties.

The Appellate Body also established the explicit requirements of Article 6.7 of ADA with respect to proceeding of data after on-the-spot verifications. A red line isdrawn between the requirements regarding the information on the results of investigation to be disclosed to the investigated parties based on Article 6.7 and Article 6.9 of the ADA. Thus, Article 6.7 gives the opportunity to the parties in question to protect their interest by insuring that the "results" of on-the-spot investigations are provided accurately in a detail.

BACKGROUND

In August 2010, the EU authorities initiated an anti-dumping investigation concerning imports of certain fatty alcohols and their blends originating in India, Indonesia, and Malaysia.1

By comparing the normal value and export price on an ex-works basis, the EU authorities made some allowances for differences affecting price and price comparability. In particular, these allowances concerned the differences in indirect taxes, transport, insurance, handling, loading and ancillary costs, packing costs, credit costs, and commission, where applicable and warranted.2

The challenged adjustments were made inter alia for commissions concerning the payments of two Indonesian producers (PT Musim Mas and Ecogreen) to their related trading companies. Consequently, the EU authorities imposed provisional anti-dumping duties on imports of fatty alcohols from these investigated Indonesian producers.3

In particular, the EU authorities found out that PT Musim Mas paid a mark-up to its related company for sales made by the latter to customers in the EU. The EU authorities assessed this mark-up as a payment for a service for which there was no corresponding pricing component on the domestic side. As a result, this commission was considered as a difference, which affects price comparability. Therefore, a downward adjustment to the export price was justifiable.4

The definitive anti-dumping duty was also imposed in respect of the products from Ecogreen, because Ecogreen in fact paid a commission to its related company, and therefore, the similar adjustment was conducted.

In January 2012, both companies filed actions for annulment of the anti-dumping duty before the European Union's General Court. They, in particular, contested the downward adjustment to export price for the commissions paid to their related companies.5

Based on the Interpipe Judgement6, the EU authorities decided to reassess their findings. In the revised calculations, the EU determined that the adjustment made for the commission paid by Ecogreen to its related trading company was not justifiable. The reassessed dumping margin for Ecogreen was de minimis. Thus, the anti-dumping duties applicable to Ecogreen were terminated. However, with respect to PT Musim Mas, the EU authorities did not change their previous view and, therefore, the duty remained applicable to PT Musim Mas.7

In June 2015, the General Court rejected the action for annulment introduced by PT Musim Mas (the "Indonesian producer").

CHALLENGED ISSUES

  • mark-up payment affects price comparability

Mark-up was a payment made bythe Indonesian producer to its related trading company for its services pursuant to a Sales and Purchase agreement between these related companies. As stated earlier, with regard to this payment, the EU investigating authorities made an adjustment, which helpedto determine the export price. Indonesia disputed that this downward adjustment did not comply with Article 2.4 of the ADA.

Specifically, Article 2.4 elaborates on a fair comparison between the export price and the normal value. It envisages that "due allowance shall be made in each case, on its merits, for differences which affect price comparability, including differences in conditions and terms of sale, taxation, levels of trade, quantities, physical characteristics, and any other differences which are also demonstrated to affect price comparability" emphasis added8.

In its argumentation line, Indonesia brought up the Appellate Body's findings in US – Hot-Rolled Steel to argue that a the prices charged within"single economic entity" between related companies which constitute this "single economic entity" might not show any commercial effect. On appeal, Indonesia thus contested the Panel's assessment and denial of its arguments, namely:

  • that the existence of a single economic entity prevented the EU authorities from making adjustments for the mark-up; and
  • that the allowance resulted in asymmetrical evaluationwith the normal value.

Indonesia also underlined that the costs for services within a single economic entity are, for dumping purposes, indirect selling expenses, which are usually included in the normal value and export price and, thus, they cannot be deducted from both the normal value and export price.

The Appellate Body approved the Panels assessment based on the fact that the EU authorities relied on direct sales of Indonesian producer conducted to domestic and export consumers. By assessing these facts, the related trading company was considered not to be a part of the internal sales department of Indonesian producer. Actually, the related trading company made most of its sales to unrelated entities, which also proves that Indonesian producer and its related companies do not establish "single economic entity". Finally, from the Sales and Purchase agreement concluded between Indonesian producer and its related company it is possible to extract the functions of the latter as the ones "similar to those of an agent working on commission basis". In fact, the mark up did affect the price comparability and, thus, the corresponding due allowance was warranted. The Appellate Body upheld the Panel's findings and conclusions on this matter.9

  • on-the-spot verification issue

Before the Panel, Indonesia challenged that the disclosure to the investigated Indonesian producers did not meet the requirements of Article 6.7 of the ADA. Indonesia argued that no separate report was made available after the verification visits and that the disclosure of valuable facts was very general that improperly disclosed the "outcomes" of the verification visits.

In turn, the EU submitted that it had complied with Article 6.7, because it either "made available" or "disclosed" the outcomes of verification visits to the investigated Indonesian producers. In particular, the EU investigating authorities informed the Indonesian producers beforehand about the facts that were going to be checked, the EU investigating authorities also provided a list of exhibits collected during the on-the-spot verifications and, thus, provided the results of them, which can be considered as a part of the general disclosure of important facts to Indonesian exporters. Additionally,this disclosure was made by issuing country-specific report.

The Panel's analysis interpreted the meaning of the "results of any such investigations", which is the requirement of Article 6.7 of the ADA. The Panel underlined, that the aim of on-the-spot verifications is to enable the investigating authorities to prove whether the information supplied by the investigated firms is accurate.

The Panel further stated that Panel Report in Korea-Certain Paper contained the requirements that such disclosure pursuant to Article 6.7 of the ADA must constitute "adequate information regarding all aspects of the verification". The Panel relying on the above decision of the Panel assessed that the EU authorities had not made available or disclosed the "results of any such investigations" to Indonesian producer, as prescribed by Article 6.7. In particular, they could not manage to explain those parts of the questionnaire response or other information, for which they needed supporting evidence orfurther information, and whether the Indonesian producer and its related companies indeed had made available the appropriate evidence and information. The EU authorities also failed to explain whether they were or were not able to confirm that the supplied information was accurate in questionnaire responses of verified companies.10

On appeal, the EU raised the question of the scope of the "results" of the on-the-spot investigation pursuant to Article 6.7 of the ADA. The Appellate Body underlined that the investigating authority does not have to conduct on-the-spot investigations. However, if the investigated authorities carry out on-the-spot investigations, they must provide the investigated firms with the "results". The disclosure may take place either as a discrete step in the overall investigation, or together with the disclosure of the "essential facts" pursuant to Article 6.9.

The Appellate Body reaffirmed that the authorities should disclose the part of the questionnaire response or other information, for which they requestedsupporting evidence, as well as any further information, for which they managed to collect the appropriate documents. The Appellate Body stressed that the text of Article 6.7 of the ADA expressly states that on-the-spot investigations shall serve to "obtain further details".11 The (1) fact of the accuracy of information and the (2) fact of the accuracy of information that cannot be confirmed constitute the "outcomes" of the verification exercise. Thus, the "results" of the verification visits must be disclosed.12 The disclosure of the "results" of the on-the-spot investigations must provide the firms with the opportunity to defend effectively their interests at the remaining stages of the anti-dumping investigation. To insure this right, the investigating authorities must provide the investigated entities with the information that theyconsidered to have been successfully verified, as well as information that could not be verified, and inform them of the results in sufficient detail and in a timely manner.

  • Panel's ruling on the expired measure

The EU asked to dismiss Indonesia's appeal as inconsistent with Article 3 of the Understanding on Rules and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes (the "DSU") because it related to an expired measure. It concerned the fact that the Panel issued its final report to the parties on 23 September 2016. While the Panel Report was being translated and circulated to all WTO Members, the EU sent an email on 16 November 2016 informing the Panel that the measure at issue had expired on 12 November 2016.

The Appellate Body found that it is within Panel's discretion to decide how to take into account subsequent modification to, or repeal of, the measure at issue. In the absence of any findings or acknowledgement by the Panel that the measure at issue is no longer in force, there was no basis for the Panel to depart from the requirement in Article 19.1 of the DSU to make recommendation after having found that measure to be inconsistent with the covered agreements.

Accordingly, the Appellate Body found that Indonesia did not act inconsistently with Article 3 of the DSU by appealing the Panel Report notwithstanding the expiry of the measure at issue shortly before circulation of the Panel report to WTO Members.13

CONCLUSIONS

Therefore, the Appellate Body upheld the Panel's finding that Indonesia had not demonstrated that the EU authorities acted inconsistently with Article 2.4 of the ADA by considering the mark‑up paid by the Indonesian producer to its related entity as a difference affecting price comparability, and, therefore, making a due allowanceto the export price. At the same time, the Appellate Body confirmed that the EU authorities failed to make available or disclose the "results" of the on-the-spot investigations to Indonesian producers pursuant to Article 6.7 of the ADA.14

Footnotes

1 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.3.

2 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia),para. 5.4.

3 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.6.

4 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.5.

5 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.10.

6 The judgment in an appeal in the Court of Justice on 16 February 2012, which confirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of the EU , where there was an analogous price adjustment for commissions paid by an exporter to its related trader.

7 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.12.

8 ADA, Article 2.4., third sentence.

9 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.57-5.60.

10 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.125.

11 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.151.

12 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.152.

13 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 6.6.

14 Appellate Body Report, EU – Fatty Alcohols (Indonesia), para. 5.165.

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 Mondaq.com.

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

Authors
 
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”

Related Topics
 
Related Articles
 
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions