WTO RULES AGAINST EU

Indonesia lauds ‘landslide victory’, now sees biodiesel exports to eurozone hitting US$1.7b

THE World Trade Organisation (WTO) has ruled in favour of several challenges by Indonesia to anti-dumping duties imposed on its biodiesel exports to the European Union, saying the measures needed to be changed.

The ruling was the latest in a series of legal challenges to duties the EU set in 2013 on biodiesel imports from Indonesia and Argentina.

A WTO panel on the case brought by Indonesia in 2014 said in a ruling made public on Thursday the EU needed to bring its measures into conformity with WTO agreements.

Argentina has already secured a WTO ruling criticising the way the EU set anti-dumping duties. This prompted the EU to cut duties to between 4.5 and 8.1 per cent, from initial rates of 22 to 25.7 per cent.

The rates for Indonesia remained those set in 2013 — between 8.8 and 20.5 per cent.

The General Court of the Eu- ropean Union, the second-highest EU court, also delivered a series of rulings in September 2016 to annul each set of duties in their present form.

The EU decided earlier this week to withdraw a planned appeal, although the actual withdrawal could take some time.

Both countries impose an export duty on the raw material — soybeans for Argentina and palm oil for Indonesia — which the EU said meant biodiesel producers in the two countries had lower costs than elsewhere, allowing them to “dump” product at unfairly low prices.

Indonesia’s Trade Minister Enggartiasto Lukita said yesterday the WTO ruling was a “land- slide victory” for Indonesia and it should boost the value of the country’s biodiesel exports, which had fallen to US$150 million (RM581 million) in 2016, from US$649 million (RM2.51 billion) in 2013.

He estimated exports to the EU to reach US$1.7 billion in 2020.

Oke Nurwan, Indonesia’s foreign trade director-general, said it would continue to secure markets for its products.

Indonesia had wanted the panel to suggest how the EU should adapt its measures, arguing they should be withdrawn. However, the panel did not make specific recommendations.

The parties have 60 days to decide whether to appeal.