Anti-dumping and anti-circumvention: the extension of duties annulled by the EU General Court
The judgment in Case T-379/23 of the General Court of the European Union provides a particularly valuable clarification for international trade operators regarding the scope of anti-circumvention rules
The European Commission initially imposed anti-dumping duties on imports of certain hot rolled stainless steel sheets and coils originating in Indonesia, China and Taiwan.
It subsequently initiated an anti-circumvention investigation concerning similar products dispatched from Turkey. That investigation, combined with the registration of the imports at issue, led to the adoption of an implementing regulation extending the anti-dumping duties in force.
In the present case, a company purchased stainless steel slabs in Indonesia and then shipped them to Turkey for processing, without incorporating any additional components.
The Commission considered that those operations constituted a “completion or assembly operation” within the meaning of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036, thereby justifying the extension of anti-dumping duties to those products, whether originating in or shipped from Turkey. It also held that those operations lacked due cause or economic justification and had been carried out for the sole purpose of circumventing the anti-dumping measures
In this context, the General Court was required to address the following question: can an operation involving a single input, without any assembly, be classified as an “assembly operation” within the meaning of Article 13(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the EU?
In its judgment, the Court undertakes a literal, contextual, teleological and historical interpretation of Article 13(2) in order to clarify the concept of an assembly operation.
In particular, it identifies a key criterion: an assembly operation presupposes the combination of several parts. The Court further emphasises that the mere fact that an operation constitutes a stage in the completion of a product is not sufficient.
Accordingly, the processing of a single input, without incorporation of other parts, cannot fall within the concept of an assembly operation for the purposes of Article 13(2).
By this judgment, the Court reiterates that Article 13 requires, first, a proper legal characterisation of the operation (assembly operation vs. completion operation), and only then an assessment of whether such operation results in circumvention.
In doing so, the Court rejects an overly broad interpretation of the anti-circumvention mechanism. The Court annulled the contested regulation (EU) 2023 /825 extending anti-dumping duties.
In practice:
• A limitation of the scope of anti-circumvention rules;
• Increased legal certainty for operators carrying out operations that do not involve the combination of multiple parts;
• Increased importance of properly structuring and controlling industrial processes.
