EU Statement at the Dispute Settlement Body Meeting, 28 August 2026

AGENDA POINT 1: SURVEILLANCE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS ADOPTED BY THE DSB

1. European Union - Anti-Dumping Measures on Imports of Fatty Acid From Indonesia

1.1. Report of the Panel (WT/DS622/R and WT/DS622/R/Add.1)

•The EU would like to thank the Panel and the Secretariat for their work in this dispute.

•The Panel confirmed the WTO consistency of almost all aspects of the EU's anti-dumping investigation and definitive measures concerning imports of fatty acid from Indonesia.

•In particular, the EU welcomes the Panel's findings on the anti-dumping investigation after the withdrawal of the complaint, on the injury determination, and on Indonesia's challenges to the alleged methodologies for constructing normal value.

•The Panel found that the EU acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.1 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement (and as a consequence with Articles 9.3 and 1 of the Anti- Dumping Agreement and Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994). On substance, this was a narrow fact-specific issue concerning the exchange rate used for currency conversion in the dumping calculation. In particular, the Panel found that, for a minor portion of export transactions, the EU did not convert invoice values because it considered that the company had already reported those transactions in the relevant calculation currency.

•Concerning the finding that the EU acted inconsistently with Article 2.4.1 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, and the related finding regarding the scope of the Panel's review, the EU considers that its main arguments were neither properly reflected nor adequately addressed in the Report. The EU therefore maintains that the Panel's finding of inconsistency with Article 2.4.1 was based on a de novo examination of the case, which falls outside the scope of a panel's review.

•The decision of the EU not to appeal these findings should not be seen as our acceptance of the panel's reasoning which, in any event, should not be regarded as establishing "precedent".

•Rather, the EU has not appealed these findings because they do not have a material impact on implementation.