Redefining Assembly Operations: European Union General Court’s Ruling

• General Court of the European Union has given a ruling on the scope of anti-circumvention measures under EU anti-dumping law.
• The General Court has held that “assembly operations” under Article 13 of the European Union Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation do not include “completion operations” involving a single input transformed into a finished product.
• The General Court found that the European Commission erred by holding that processing of stainless-steel slabs into hot-rolled stainless steel sheets and coils, without any assembly of parts, could be treated as a “completion operation” falling within the scope of “assembly operations” under Article 13(2) of the basic regulation.
• In contrast, the Indian circumvention provisions adopt a broader approach by covering assembly, finishing, and completion operations. 

Redefining ‘Assembly Operations’: The European Union General Court’s 2026 Ruling and Its Implications for Anti-Circumvention Law

Under anti-circumvention provisions, trade remedial measures may be extended where exporters seek to avoid trade remedial measures by altering the pattern of trade rather than exporting the product under consideration directly. A common form of such circumvention arises where parts or components originating in the country subject to measures are exported to a third country and are subsequently assembled into the finished product for export to the country, in this case the European Union, which has imposed the measures. In such circumstances, the European Commission may extend existing duties to imports of the finished product consigned from the third country, and in certain cases, to imports of parts, provided that the statutory conditions are satisfied.

The meaning of “assembly operations” under the European Union anti-circumvention law has long been a contested issue, particularly in determining whether it encompasses situations where a semi-finished product or a part is exported from a country subject to measures to a third country and merely completed there before being exported to the European Union. This question goes to the heart of the scope of Article 13 of the European Union Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, which allows extension of duties in cases of circumvention through assembly operations. In its recent judgment of March 2026, the General Court of the European Union provided important clarification by drawing a clear distinction between “assembly operations” and “completion operations.” This article analyses the ruling of the General Court of the European Union and examines its implications for future anti-circumvention cases.

Background of the case

On 6th October 2020, the European Commission adopted Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/1408 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils (SSHR) originating in Indonesia, the People’s Republic of China, and Taiwan)².

On June 2022, the European Commission received a request alleging a change in pattern of trade involving exports from Indonesia and Türkiye to the Union, showing a significant increase in exports of stainless-steel slabs, the main raw material to produce SSHR, from Indonesia to Türkiye and a significant increase in exports of SSHR from Türkiye to the Union. After conducting a detailed investigation, the European Commission concluded that the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of SSHR originating in Indonesia was being circumvented by imports of the product under investigation consigned from Türkiye by Çolakoğlu³.

Thereafter, Çolakoğlu filed an appeal in the General Court seeking annulment of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17th April 2023 extending the anti-dumping duty imposed on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia to imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils consigned from Türkiye.

Issue

The issue before the General Court of the European Union was whether the concept of “assembly operations” under Article 13 of the European Union Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation should be interpreted broadly to include processing operations involving a single input transformed into a finished product, without any combination of parts, such as the conversion of stainless-steel slabs into SSHR or, conversely, whether it should be confined to operations that involve the assembly of multiple components or parts.

The decision of the Court

While deciding this matter, the General Court of the European Union undertook a “literal, contextual, teleological, and historical” interpretation of Article 13 of the European Union Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation to determine the scope and meaning of “assembly operations.”

The General Court of the European Union held that “completion operations” cannot be considered to fall within the concept of “assembly operations,” so as to include the processing of a single input into a finished product without any assembly, having regard to a literal, contextual, teleological, or historical interpretation of Article 13 of the European Union Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation.

Accordingly, the Court found that the European Commission erred in law in concluding, in the contested regulation, that the processing of stainless-steel slabs into SSHR, being a single-input transformation without any assembly of parts, could be treated as a “completion operation” falling within the scope of “assembly operations” under Article 13(2) of the basic regulation.

Conclusion

The interpretation adopted by the General Court of the European Union significantly narrows the scope of the European Union anti-circumvention measures, as it excludes from their ambit those situations where products are merely completed or processed in a third country but includes any assembly of multiple parts. As a result, the ruling is likely to have far-reaching implications for ongoing and future investigations under Article 13 of the European Union Basic Anti-Dumping Regulation, particularly in cases involving intermediate or semi-finished goods.

In contrast, the position under the Indian law, which is provided in Rule 24 of the Indian Anti-Dumping Rules, is broader in scope. While the European Union framework is limited to assembly operations, Indian anti-circumvention provisions explicitly extend to assembly, finishing, or completion operations. This distinction is significant where unlike the European Union law, Indian law expressly contemplates scenarios where a single input is processed or completed into a finished product as falling within the ambit of anti-circumvention measures. Consequently, practices that may fall outside the scope of the European Union anti-circumvention action following the 2026 judgment could still be actionable under the Indian law.

To read this Newsletter in full, please click here.

Footnotes

2. (OJ 2020 L 235, p. 26; ‘the original regulation’ 

3. Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/825 of 17 April 2023 

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.