Brussels, 03/03/2008 (Agence Europe) - Under pressure from thirteen of his colleagues in the scam, Peter Mandelson was forced to back-pedal last week on the dossier on imports of air compressors from China. Following a investigation which concluded dumping of between 67.4 and 77.6%, the Trade Commissioner proposed not imposing antidumping duties on imports of Chinese air compressors, on the pretext that such measures would not be in the EU's economic interest as only 8% of the air compressors currently sold in Europe are produced in the EU (where production is in inexorable decline), and that 50% of imports come from China (EUROPE 9600).
Despite support from a weak majority of Member States in the Council - 13 votes in favour of his proposal plus one abstention in a qualified majority vote in the Antidumping Committee - Mr Mandelson was forced, under pressure from Commissioners Frattini, Verheugen, Barrot, Kovacs, Figel, Spidla, Almunia, Orban, Reding, Kyprianou, Borg, Hübner and Dimas, at the College meeting of 27 February, to present a new compromise proposal including the imposition of duties on imports of Chinese air compressors. According to an internal Commission note of which EUROPE has obtained a copy, they have serious concerns on several points: - the choice of procedure used by Mr Mandelson on this dossier (an accelerated written procedure) and the change of practice which this decision seems to have brought about, the orientation in terms of trade policy and the risk that this decision could be seen as a sign of an ongoing revision of antidumping policy; - the repercussions for employment and the social cost to be expected in certain Member States if the dumping is not stopped; - the validity of the facts and figures used as the basis for the decision and the relevance of certain arguments; - the political reception of this dossier, given the marked opposition of 13 Member States in the Antidumping Committee and the general political context; - the absence of legal justification for Mr Mandelson's decision given that dumping had been established; - the weakness of the argumentation concerning the Community interest in deciding not to impose antidumping measures; - the problem posed by the interpretation of the concept of Community interest in the context of trade relations with third countries; - the fact that the compromise solution put forward (by Cyprus: edit.) during the examination of the dossier was not examined in greater depth.
Mr Mandelson did, however, manage to limit the duration of the application of the duties to two years instead of five in his new compromise proposal, after which time they are reviewed. However, even though the economic impact of the dossier is limited, this constitutes a stinging setback for the Trade Commissioner who, under pressure from the producer Member States led by Germany, France and Italy, major industrial lobbies and the President of the Commission José Manuel Barroso, has already been forced to temporarily abandon his proposal for a revision of the EU's trade defence instruments (EUROPE 9580). (E.H.)