EIFI Withdraws Antidumping Complaint; Has Option to Resubmit

Jason Sandefur

The European Industrial Fasteners Institute reportedly withdrew its antidumping complaint, but has the option to resubmit a complaint with new backup data.\
A senior policy advisor at the UK”s Department of Trade and Industry told Fastener & Fixing Europe magazine editor Phil Matten that “at the March 22 Anti-Dumping Committee meeting, the European Commission confirmed it had received a complaint on carbon steel fasteners relating to imports originating in China and Taiwan. The Commission had doubts about its acceptability and had informed the complainants. The complainants then withdrew the complaint.”
The advisor explained there is a legal difference between a complainant voluntarily withdrawing and a complaint being rejected: “If the complaint is withdrawn, it is considered not to have been lodged at all. This means that the complainant may resubmit the complaint at any time. Therefore the advantage to the carbon steel fastener producers is that they can amend the complaint and re-submit.
“On the other hand, if the complaint is rejected, it is the practice of the Commission not to consider a new complaint for at least 12 months from the date when the procedure is formally terminated. So if the carbon steel fasteners manufacturers had not withdrawn the complaint and it had got rejected, then they would have had to wait a year before lodging a new complaint,” the advisor told F&FE.
A reliable F&FE source in the EIFI confirmed the withdrawal of the complaint in order to “actualize the data.” It is not clear, at this stage, which data requires revision.
The source went onto say “We will not stop trying.”
One European distributor association has indicated its belief that the withdrawal signifies that “the EIFI has finally given up.” In view of the comments from the UK DTI and the EIFI source it would seem more prudent, at this stage anyway, to view this as a strategic withdrawal.
A lot may now depend on which data the EC has indicated requires revision. If this relates to the argument for injury and requires the inclusion of 2006 trading results, as opposed to those for 2005 presumably used to construct the original complaint last summer, it is likely to represent a significant challenge to the EIFI campaign. Indications are that most European fastener manufacturers will have enjoyed better results in 2006 than 2005.
As one commentator put it, this complaint is becoming “like the Loch Ness Monster.” Its intangibility is now generating uncertainty in the market, which is clearly becoming detrimental to investment and planning decisions for both fastener manufacturers and importers.
At this stage, however, there are no indications of when a revised complaint might be resubmitted and, therefore, of the potential timeframe for a decision about an investigation. Unless or until the EIFI makes an unequivocal statement that it has abandoned its campaign that uncertainty appears set to continue for some time yet. �2007 FastenerNews.com