Commission attacked on cotton levy

Date: 04/06/1998

By Peter Chapman

A COALITION of eight member states led by the UK has launched a stinging attack on the European Commission's anti-dumping policy.

The move follows the institution's decision to ignore the views of a majority of EU governments by imposing provisional duties of up to 32.5&percent; on imports of unbleached cotton cloth from China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey.

In a statement set to be debated by the Council of Ministers, the eight - the UK, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, Austria and Sweden - have warned the Commission that its decision was “regrettable” and “went against the clear will of the majority of member states”.

When the Commission consulted the EU's anti-dumping advisory committee in early March, nine member states opposed provisional measures. Only five supported the duties and one abstained.

Opponents of duties feared they would protect a small number of EU producers at the expense of the bigger textile finishing industry which uses the raw cotton.

But the Commission went ahead with duties, denounced by the eight states as likely to have “doubtful consequences for a part of the Community's textile industry”.

They pointed out that a previous investigation was terminated in May 1997 when a proposal for definitive anti-dumping duties was rejected by member states who have the last word in proceedings.

“There is now even less support for measures than there was at the same stage of the previous investigation,” they added.

UK cotton importer Broome & Wellington was so incensed by the decision that it opened EU court proceedings against the Commission.

Hendrik Abma, of the Foreign Trade Association, which is supporting the Manchester-based firm in its legal fight, welcomed the warning delivered by the eight member states. He said the Commission's decision had “weakened its credibility” and constituted harassment of Europe's major trade partners in the textile sector.

One Commission anti-dumping official described the statement as “interesting”, but said the institution stood by its decision. “If we are convinced, then we will continue with a case. Our role is to make the best decision according to the regulations,” he insisted.

“Of course, we take note that these member states have expressed a view. But at the end of the day it's not an important point. There are no legal consequences.”