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 imposed
on 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.
