WRITTEN QUESTION E-2782/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission. Anti-dumping measures against non-Community steel products.
C 330 E/50 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 Does the Commission not consider that the indirect effect of measures of this kind may be to destroy the Neapolitan tradition and inventiveness that has made the regionís pizza the best known and most highly appreciated in the world, and that there will be repercussions in terms of employment given that at this point pizzas and breads produced by hand in the traditional way are at risk of disappearing from the market? Lastly, does the Commission not consider that it should present new legislation which, rather than penalising, would secure the legality and protect the specific characteristics of traditional quality products from all the Member States of the European Union? Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission (1 February 2000) The Commission is aware of the reports in the Italian press and other Italian media about an alleged European hygiene directive which could lead to a ban on traditional Italian wood fired pizza ovens. The Commission can confirm that these reports are completely inaccurate and in fact there are no existing or proposed hygiene requirements relating to wood burning pizza ovens. The European hygiene legislation covering the cooking of traditional pizzas is Council Directive 93/43/EEC of 14 June 1993 on the hygiene of foodstuffs (1). However there are no provisions in this Directive that would require wood burning pizza ovens to be banned. In fact, neither ovens, nor any other specific food preparation equipment are mentioned. The Directive covers many different types of food businesses using a wide range of preparation and cooking equipment and therefore it establishes very broad principles for food hygiene. It requires food equipment that comes into direct contact with food to be in good order, repair and condition so as to minimise the risk of contamination to food. Equipment must be cleaned, and where necessary disinfected, and the area surrounding should be cleanable. The Commission is currently considering a proposal for a recast and consolidation into a single text of all 14 food hygiene directives, including Directive 93/43/EEC. This exercise does not include any changes to the current focus on legislation covering the preparation and cooking of pizzas. The measure will addressing risks to health from foodstuffs, their production and preparation at all stages from the farm to the consumer. Where specific unacceptable risks to health are identified, linked to the production, preparation or cooking of any foodstuffs and these can best be addressed by measures at the European level, the Commission will continue to seek the most effective course of action necessary so as to protect consumer health. (1) OJ L 175, 19. 7. 1993. (2000/C 330 E/055) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2782/99 by Alexandros Alavanos (GUE/NGL) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Anti-dumping measures against non-Community steel products Before his resignation, Commissioner Leon Brittan strangely did not take the decision required of him to impose temporary anti-dumping tariffs on imports of hot rolled coil from Bulgaria, India, Iran, South Africa, Taiwan and Yugoslavia despite the fact that the Commission had found that they were damaging the European steel industry, but referred the final decision to the new Commission to be taken six months 21. 11. 2000 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 330 E/51 later. The increase in imports from these countries gave rise to surplus stocks which were constantly sold off to the extent that European steel producersí earnings fell from 17-18 % in early 1998 to -3 % by the end of the year and to -10 % during the early months of 1999. Examining 1998 as a whole, the Commissioner drew the conclusion that the damage sustained by the end of the year was slight. Article 6(1) of Decision ECSC 2277/96 (1) states, however, that áfor the purpose of a representative finding, an investigation period shall be selected which, in the case of dumping shall, normally, cover a period of not less than six months immediately prior to the initiation of the proceeding. í If this Decision is observed in spirit and to the letter, the conclusion to be drawn is that the damage to the European steel industry was enormous. (European steel producersí earnings fell from 17-18 % in 1998 to -10 % in the early months of 1999). Anti-dumping measures should, therefore, have been taken immediately as the rules provide that such measures may be imposed no later than nine months after the initiation of the investigation. Will the Commission, therefore, say: 1. on what grounds this tactic was pursued, 2. whether the provisions of Article 6 of Decision 2277/96 on protection against dumped imports from countries not members of the European Coal and Steel Community were complied with, and 3. whether it will take definitive anti-dumping measures within the prescribed period of six months commencing from 8 October 1999? (1) OJ L 308, 29. 11. 1996, p. 11. Answer given by Mr Lamy on behalf of the Commission (22 February 2000) The Commission would like to point out that in addition to the anti-dumping proceeding concerning imports of certain flat rolled products of iron or non-alloy steel originating in Bulgaria, India, Iran, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, South Africa and Taiwan to which the Honourable Member refers, a parallel anti-subsidy investigation with regard to India, South Africa and Taiwan was also initiated. In the framework of these proceedings, the Commission, based on the information available in September 1999, provisionally concluded that the results of the analysis were mixed and there would need to be further evidence of material injury before any action could be taken. In these circumstances, an affirmative determination of injury could not be made at that time, namely within the deadline for the imposition of provisional measures. Consequently it was decided to pursue the investigation and to collect further information. The mixed picture that emerged in September 1999 was that on the one hand prices and profits (on an annual basis) in the period 1997 to 1998 increased, whereas on the other, imports had surged and other factors related to the Commmunity industryís economic situation had deteriorated. Article 6(1) and 11(1) of the basic decisions (anti-dumping and anti-subsidy respectively) exclude the possibility to change the length of the investigation period (IP) after the initiation of an investigation. The one-year period (1998) selected by the complaining industry as the IP in its complaint was well known by all interested parties in the above proceedings. This was never the subject of dispute. In these cases, any change in the length of the IP would have suggested a manipulation which would be contrary to proceedings being carried out in an objective manner. Nevertheless, after the deadline for the imposition of provisional measures, the Commission continued and completed its investigation and analysed the additional information received. This supplementary analysis was carried out in particular on a quarterly basis, per main product categories and per type of sales contract. As a result it was found that the economic situation of the industry C 330 E/52 Official Journal of the European Communities EN 21. 11. 2000 deteriorated seriously during the investigation period. Indeed, it was found that profitability, sales volume, sales prices, production, etc, during the second half of the investigation period developed so negatively that it had to be qualified as material injury. In addition, it was found that this bad situation persisted in 1999. information also provided concrete explanations as to why there has been a time-lag The additional between the surge in dumped and subsidised imports and the beginning of the deterioration of the economic situation of the Community industry during the IP. The Commission concluded that no other factors other than dumped and subsidised imports were the cause of the injury. The evaluation of all the interests involved on the Community market, the so called Community interest test, showed that no compelling reasons existed against the imposition of measures. On this basis the Commission decided to impose definitive anti-dumping and countervailing measures in the framework of the above proceedings (1). (1) Commission Decision No 283/2000/ECSC of 4 February 2000 (Anti-Dumping) Commission Decision No 284/ 2000/ECSC of 4 February 2000 (Anti-subsidies) (OJ L 31, 5. 2. 2000). (2000/C 330 E/056) WRITTEN QUESTION E-2804/99 by Jorge HernÆndez Mollar (PPE-DE) to the Commission (18 January 2000) Subject: Concerns felt by the avocado sector as a result of the EU-Mexico agreement Farmers in the province of Malaga (Spain), one of the main centres for avocado production in the Community, have expressed their concern at the possible consequences of the recent signing of the trade agreement between the EU and Mexico. At present the EU import duty on Mexican avocados is 4 % from January to May, 7,5 % from June to November and 5 % in December. Under the free trade agreement these duties will disappear, causing serious damage to the EU avocado sector. How will the Commission protect the interests of Spanish avocado producers in the face of Mexican imports of this product, given the serious consequences they will suffer as a result of the liberalisation brought about by the entry into force of the EU-Mexico free trade agreement? Answer given by Mr Fischler on behalf of the Commission (6 March 2000) Under the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, avocados from that country will indeed benefit from a gradual, linear reduction in ad valorem customs duties on imports into the Community from July 2000 and from the complete abolition of such duties from 2008. This reduction will be applied to basic duties of between 2,7 % and 5,1 % (depending on the months involved). In addition, a 20 000 tonne duty-free quota will apply to Mexican imports during the period from 1 June until 30 September, which is outside the traditional Community production period (October to May). Community production will, therefore, have a substantial period of time to adapt to the dismantling of duties on Community imports of Mexican avocados. Furthermore, since the ad valorem duties currently in force are already low (between 4 % and 5,6 %, depending on the months involved), it seems unlikely that the entry into force of the Free Trade Agreement with Mexico could have a detrimental effect on Community avocado production, which is characterised by a very high degree of competitiveness