EU Files Official WTO Dispute on Chinese Provisional AD Duties on EU Brandy

The EU officially filed dispute settlement consultations at the World Trade Organization with China regarding its provisional antidumping duties on EU brandy imports after announcing the move last week (see 2411250014), the WTO announced. The move opens a 60-day window for the parties to negotiate an end to the conflict, after which a dispute settlement panel can be requested.

At issue are China's provisional AD on EU brandy, imported under tariff subheading 22082000, and any related amendment, supplement, extension or implementing measures. The bloc said its concern is that the duties are "unfounded and retaliatory in nature," noting that China imposed them right after the EU voted in favor of countervailing duties on Chinese electric vehicles. The bloc added that the investigation on brandy was one of three China opened within a few months of the EU opening the countervailing duty investigation on electric vehicles.

The EU's request advances nine different legal claims against the duties, all of which concern Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994, known as the "Anti-Dumping Agreement."

The bloc said the measures violate the Anti-Dumping Agreement since China's finding of dumping isn't based on an "objective assessment based on positive evidence as regards the" volume of the imports and the effect of the imports on prices in China and the Chinese industry. China "wrongly compared incomparable periods," the submission said.

China also "failed to properly determine a genuine and substantial relationship of cause and effect between" the imports and the "threat of injury to the domestic industry," and also failed to make sure the injury caused by other factors wasn't attributed to the dumped imports, the EU argued. China didn't "adequately separate and distinguish any future injurious effects by other factors than the allegedly dumped imports," such as changes in demand and patterns of consumption.

The EU added that China only based its injury finding on "allegation, conjecture and remote possibility," also noting that the nation "failed to consider and decide with special care the application of the provisional" duties.

In imposing its duties, China didn't impose as short a duration as possible, instead implementing the duties without any specification on how long they will be in place, the EU said. China also failed to make sure the duties applied to the non-investigated companies doesn't exceed the AD rates established for the investigated exporters.

Lastly, the EU said China failed to disclose "essential information on injury and failed to provide in sufficient detail the findings and conclusions reached on all issues of fact and law considered material by the investigating authority."