Posted June 6, 2014
The European Commission decided to apply anti-dumping duties on all U.S. ethanol coming to the European Union (EU) through Norway, according to an article on Ethanol Producer Magazine by Holly Jessen available here. Bloomberg also published an article by Stearns available here and Hydrocarbon Processing published Stearn’s article here.
In February 2013, anti-dumping duties were imposedon imported U.S. fuel for the next five years. In January 2011, ePURE filed a complaint with the European Commission stating that a new pattern emerged with U.S. ethanol going to Norway for blending with gasoline, and then exported to the EU without anti-dumping duties imposed by customs.
The European Commission decided to instruct customs officials across the coalition to apply the import tax to U.S. bioethanol that has been blended with gasoline in Norway, said Andreas Guth, trade manager at Brussels-based ePURE, according to Bloomberg.
“The sole aim of the processing operation in Norway was to avoid the duty,” Guth said. “The blended product, a mix of 52 percent gasoline and 48 percent bioethanol, has no use as a motor fuel in the EU. Before it can be used, it has to be further blended with gasoline,” he said.
ePURE dropped its request for an anti-circumvention investigation.
“An anti-circumvention investigation by the European Commission would have taken much more time to deliver results,” said Rob Vierhout, ePURE’s secretary-general. “The solution that has now been found puts an immediate end to these unfair trade practices and shields the EU industry from further injury,” according to Ethanol Producer.
Last May the Renewable Fuels Association (RFA) and the Growth Energy filed a complaint in EU court challenging the decision to impose anti-dumping duties. “The anti-dumping duties are not justified and are being challenged in court. When all the facts are examined, we are confident the WTO will find the U.S. was not dumping and should not be subject to the duties,” they said. The case is still ongoing.
Bob Dinnenn, President and CEO of RFA said the decision was a “perfunctory and routine decision” that dealt with where the product was produced originally and “does not speak to the credibility of the underlying anti-dumping tariff.”
For more information on international trade, please visit the National Agricultural Law Center’s website here.
Share: