Legalize / European Union / Implementing Regulation

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2021/1029 of 24 June 2021 amending Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 to prolong the safeguard measure on imports of certain steel products

Type Implementing Regulation

Publication 2021-06-25

State Expired

Text As published

Department European Commission, TRADE

Source EUR-Lex

articles 2

This is the act as published. Later amendments are not folded into the text below: each one is a separate act in this repository and an entry in this law's history.

Reform history JSON API

(114) The same Staff Working Document also observed that “steel is a crucial input to several downstream ecosystems, such as construction, mobility and automotive, or for mechanical engineering companies. Data on steel consumption per sector shows that construction account for 35 % steel use in the EU, automotive for 19 %, mechanical engineering and metal ware by 15 % each and tubes for 10 %. Companies active in these sectors, many of which are small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), employ millions of workers in Europe and depend on EU steel production” ⁷⁷. In a similar vein, in 2016, a Commission Communication had already underlined that “a robust industrial base is essential for Europe's economic growth, preservation of sustainable jobs and our competitiveness on global markets, and that “a strong steel sector forms the basis of many industrial value chains” ⁷⁸.

(115) The Commission has established that the legal requirements of necessity and adjustment required to prolong a safeguard measure are met.

(116) Furthermore, the Commission has also found that a removal at this stage of the safeguard measure is liable to cause a sudden import wave that will severely worsen the current still fragile financial situation of the Union steel industry. Such removal would jeopardise the Union industry’s recovery, just when the Union and world economy and trade are rebounding after the COVID-19 pandemic recession, and have not yet returned to pre-pandemic conditions. This import shock, in turn, risks negating the adjustment efforts the Union steel industry is making to adapt to stronger import pressure coming from market dynamics seriously distorted by increasing global overcapacity, and State intervention.

(117) Moreover, the Commission has also found that the steel prices increases recently observed on the Union steel market cannot be imputable to, or be the result of, the Union steel safeguard because similar such high prices also prevail on worldwide markets and large volumes of free-of-duty TRQs remain nevertheless unused available under the safeguard.

(118) In this regard, the Commission also noted that, less than a month and a half to reach the end of the third year of the measure, around 11 million tonnes of free-of-duty TRQ remained unused, this is, 36 % of the total TRQ available ⁷⁹. Thus showing that users, across product categories, have had the possibility to source sufficient free-of-duty steel from multiple sources, and that the safeguard measure has not unduly limited effective supply, neither in terms of volume, nor in terms of origins.

(119) In sum, the Commission found that the downsides of letting the safeguard lapse on 30 June 2021 would clearly outweigh any potential benefits its termination could bring about.

(120) Accordingly, the Commission thus concluded that it is in the overall Union interest to prolong the safeguard measure.

6. DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SUBJECT TO THE SAFEGUARD MEASURE

(121) The list of developing countries that will continue being subject to the safeguard measure remains the same as that included in Annex II to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2037. ⁸⁰

7. COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES

(122) The Commission received over 160 submissions of observations and rebuttals from interested parties, including Union steel producers, Union steel users and importers, exporting producers and third country governments. In this section, the Commission will address the claims made by these interested parties. For the sake of administrative economy, the Commission grouped the claims by nature and content. Where appropriate, the Commission referred to previous findings in this Regulation that already addressed in detail most of the claims made by interested parties.

7.1. Legal requirements to prolong a measure

(123) Several interested parties argued that the legal requirement of import surge was not met, since, over the period considered, the overall level of imports had decreased; in these circumstances, they contended that the Commission is not entitled to prolong the safeguard. Furthermore, some parties argued that any injurious situation of the Union industry would not have been the result of an increase in imports. Other parties claimed that the effects derived from the COVID-19 pandemic, including a decrease in demand, do not justify an extension of the measure. Lastly, other parties claimed that the legal requirements to prolong a measure are the same as for imposing an original measure, including increased imports, causal link and unforeseen developments.

(124) In this respect, the Commission notes that the requirements to prolong a safeguard measure under Article 7.1 of the WTO Agreement on Safeguards and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EU) 2015/478, namely necessity to prevent or remedy serious injury and ongoing adjustment, do not require that an increase in imports takes place during the period considered. The Commission established that there is a likelihood that, should the safeguard lapse, imports would increase resulting in serious injury to the Union interest. Therefore, the Commission rejected these claims.

7.2. The Union industry is not adjusting

(125) Several interested parties challenged the fact that the Union steel industry is adjusting and therefore claimed that this legal requirement is not met.

(126) The Commission refers to the adjustments described in Section 3.2. The measures and the examples listed within this section illustrate that the Union steel industry is adjusting by means of numerous actions aimed at efficiency and innovation. Consequently, the Commission rejected these claims.

(127) Several interested parties argued that the adjusting measures of the Union industry were restructuring actions carried out during the Covid-19 pandemic or just regular investment, partially driven by the EU policies, such as European Green Deal, rather than measures adopted in the context of improving the Union steel industry competitiveness vis-à-vis foreign competition. In this respect, the Commission found that the adjustment measures adopted by companies in whatever context normally respond to many different reasons and are at the same time multi-objective. In the safeguard case, indeed, as stated under the adjustment section, some of the adjustments undertaken by the Union steel industry also aimed, among other objectives, at mitigating the shocks and adverse economic effects of the pandemic or meeting EU environmental commitments. However, these types of adjustments are in any event also measures that adapt the activities of the Union steel industry to a situation with higher level of imports and import pressure, in line with the EU industrial policy guidelines and objectives described in the same section. By way of example, Arvedi’s installation ⁸¹ of a new highly efficient electrical furnace in its production line aimed at becoming more cost efficient while reducing its carbon emissions. Therefore, the Commission considers that there was not sufficient evidence to justify these claims and rejected them.

7.3. No risk of trade diversion from the US Section 232 measures

(128) Some interested parties claimed that the US Section 232 measures on steel no longer pose a risk of trade diversion, as the market would have adjusted in the last three years. In addition, some parties claim that the exemptions in place under that measure would in any event largely reduce the risk of any trade diversion into the Union market. Furthermore, some parties also claimed that the level of prices in the US is substantially higher than other markets and hence, making trade diversion less likely.

(129) With respect to the US Section 232 measures, the Commission refers to Table 7, showing that imports into the US were drastically reduced after their imposition and that other markets have not absorbed that excess volume. Regarding the exemptions in place, the Commission noted that in certain cases, for instance Canada and Mexico (which are amongst the largest exporting countries to the US), these exemptions have no bearing on the risk of trade diversion, as these countries have negligible steel export volumes into the Union market. The main steel exporting countries to the EU continue to be subject to the US Section 232 measures and have sufficient capacity to increase their exports to the EU. The individual analysis of their export performance since the imposition of the US Section 232 measures shows a steady decline ⁸². Therefore, any exemption that may be in place does not diminish the risk of trade diversion. Lastly, the fact that prices in the US are higher does not invalidate the finding that a risk of trade diversion continues. In fact, the Commission points to the import trends into the US since 2018. Such massive reduction in imports is linked in time with the imposition of the US Section 232 measures. Therefore, the fact that the US may have higher domestic prices than other markets did not prevent imports from decreasing substantially over the period considered.

7.4. Overcapacity developments and link with trade diversion

(130) Several interested parties claimed that overcapacity was decreasing and that even if overcapacity continued in the steel sector, as such it did not automatically mean that it would lead to trade diversion into the Union market.

(131) The Commission considered that the evolution of overcapacity in the recent years is clear, and it refers to Section 3.1.2.d. Therefore, the claims that it is being reduced is clearly contradicted by evidence. Second, in the context described, namely, a decrease in exports to third countries, decline in domestic consumption, higher prices achieved in exports to the Union as compared to other markets, the EU being the largest importing market, and thus capable of absorbing large volumes, export behavior under the TRQ system, it would defy any economic logic to deny that exporting countries would have a clear incentive to increase their production and production capacity in order to sell larger volumes to the Union market. Therefore, the Commission noted that the findings of this investigation, in a context of an established significant global overcapacity (including amongst the main steel exporting countries to the Union), create a strong likelihood that imports into the Union would increase substantially if the safeguard measure expires.

7.5. Claims pertaining to specific product categories

(132) Several interested parties requested that a given product category be excluded from the measure, or be granted a special treatment within the measure if this were to be prolonged. The arguments in support of these claims were diverse.

(133) The Commission, however, noted that the scope of this investigation was limited to assess whether the measure, in its current form, should be extended in time or not. The investigation therefore did not cover any potential modification to the functioning of the measure affecting individual product categories. These claims were thus rejected, as they are not pertinent under the framework of this investigation.

7.6. Imports from a given country or in a given product category are not responsible for increased imports/injury/overcapacity

(134) Some interested parties claim that certain product categories, i.a. 1, 2, 3B, 4B, 6, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25A, should be excluded from the scope of the measure in case of prolongation, given that either TRQs are allegedly too narrow, that TRQs remained unused, or that import volumes of the category concerned recently decreased.

(135) The Commission recalls that the safeguard measure is not adopted against one particular country of origin or against one product category. Rather, the measure is in place on imports of the product concerned (certain steel products) from multiple origins. Therefore, any claim founded on individual country or product-category basis is against the principle of the measure. Like in the context of the original safeguard, and as explained in section 3.1.1., the Commission examined the situation on the basis of the product concerned as a whole (that is to say the 26 steel product categories) and confirmed its analysis on the basis of three product families.

7.7. Some countries claimed exclusion if the measure was prolonged on account of bilateral trade agreements in place with the European Union

(136) Some third countries, including some with whom the Union has bilateral trade agreements in place, requested the Commission to exclude them from the measure, should it be prolonged. Some of these countries referred to specific provisions in their respective bilateral agreements as an argument for the exclusion.

(137) The Commission noted that none of these agreements provide for the exclusion of a multilateral safeguard measure such as the one at hand. Therefore, the Commission confirmed that under these bilateral agreements, it is under no legal obligation to exclude any of these countries from the measure and it rejected these claims accordingly.

7.8. Risk of rebalancing

(138) Some interested parties claimed that because exporting countries would be entitled to seek compensation and in the absence of an agreement, rebalancing against the Union and that for this reason, the Commission should not prolong the safeguard measure.

(139) In this respect, the Commission is aware of the applicable legal framework in those cases where a measure lasts more than three years. However, the Commission recalls that the WTO Agreement on Safeguards and Regulation (EU) 2015/478 allow for a measure to last more than three years if the legal conditions are met. Thus, the Commission, by prolonging the measure beyond three years when the relevant conditions are met, is exercising its legal right under WTO and EU rules.

7.9. Illegal to extend the measure on an EU27 basis

(140) Some interested parties claimed that because the original measure was based on EU28 data, extending it on an EU27 basis would be illegal.

(141) The Commission considered that the current review investigation is based on EU27. No interested party contested that the original safeguard measure, adopted on the basis of the at the time EU28, was illegal. The scope of the safeguard measure in view of the UK’s withdrawal of the Union already took place by means of Regulation (EU) 2020/2037 ⁸³. Thus, the Commission rejected this claim.

7.10. The protection granted through anti-dumping and countervailing duties is sufficient for the Union steel industry

(142) Some interested parties submitted that anti-dumping and anti-subsidy measures already sufficiently protect the Union Industry against unfair imports and safeguards would allegedly provide for an exaggerated protection, giving the Union industry additional advantage in their dominant position in the Union market.

(143) The Commission recalls that anti-dumping and countervailing duties address unfair trade practices, while safeguards rather deal with an issue of increased volumes. The Commission has the so-called ‘double remedy regulation’ in place for those imports subject to both safeguards and anti-dumping and/or countervailing duties ⁸⁴. Such regulation ensures that when imports under the safeguard exceed the volume of free-of-duty TRQ, then the 25 % is not cumulated to the applicable anti-dumping and/or countervailing duty so that it does not lead to an effect on trade greater than desirable. On these grounds, the Commission rejected the double-remedy claims.

(144) Furthermore, the alleged protection granted through EU trade defence measures (ant-dumping and countervailing duties) is insufficient for the purposes of the current safeguard investigation as shown in Section 3.1. The majority of injury factors significantly worsened during the period considered.

(145) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee on Safeguards established under Article 3(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/478 and Article 22(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/755 respectively,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Regulation (EU) 2019/159 is amended as follows:

(1) In Article 10, the following second subparagraph is added:

“It shall apply until 30 June 2024 ”;

(2) Annex IV is replaced by the Annex to this Regulation

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. It shall apply from 1 July 2021.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 June 2021.

For the Commission

The President

Ursula VON DER LEYEN

Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports, (OJ L 83, 27.3.2015, p. 16).

Regulation (EU) 2015/755 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 on common rules or imports from certain third countries, (OJ L 123, 19.5.2015, p. 33).

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 of 31 January 2019 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (“Definitive Safeguard Regulation”) (OJ L 31, 1.2.2019, p. 27).

Notice of initiation concerning the possible extension of the safeguard measure applicable to imports of certain steel products (OJ C 66, 26.2.2021, p.50).

The open versions of questionnaire replies are available for inspection of interested parties in the open file of the investigation: https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/tron/TDI (accessible to registered interested parties).

A virtual hearing between the Commission and the Russian Government took place on 8 April 2021.

Regulation (EU) 2015/478 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 March 2015 on common rules for imports (OJ L83 of 27.3.2015).

https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/tron/TDI (accessible only by registered interested parties).

Available at DG TRADE’s dedicated website to the investigation (publicly accessible).

Data on a quarterly basis for the year 2020 is included in the questionnaire replies.

Given that the questionnaire replies do not include every steel producer in the Union, market share of the Union industry has been calculated based on the consumption data, import data and data from questionnaire replies.

Calculated over sales to unrelated customers in the Union.

Definitive Safeguard Regulation, recital (47).

For a full description of the product families, see recital (21) of the Definitive Safeguards Regulation.

The import data used in the investigation does not include imports from those countries that were excluded unconditionally from the safeguard measure. For these exclusions, see Article 6.1 of the Definitive Safeguards Regulation for European Economic Area (‘EEA’) countries, and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1712 of 13 November 2018 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1013 imposing provisional safeguard measures with regard to imports of certain steel products, OJ L 286, 14.11.2018, p. 17, for South Africa and certain other African countries with whom the EU had Economic Partnership Agreements (‘EPAs’) in place. This means that all findings throughout this investigation refer to worldwide imports except imports from those origins. Likewise, all findings regarding the effects of imports – both existing imports during the period considered and expected imports in the event of a lapsing of the safeguard measure – pertain to worldwide imports minus imports from those origins.

For a broader picture on import evolution in previous years, see Table 2 of the Definitive Regulation.

The Commission recalls that in Provisional Safeguard Regulation it had concluded that up to end of 2017, there had been a significant increase in imports into the Union market.

Furthermore, the share of imports compared with the production of the Union industry considerably increased under the safeguard measure (average of 16 % during the period considered) as compared to the years prior to the imposition of the measure (2013-2017, whether individually (maximum of 12 % in one year) or averaged (10 %)). Data regarding production for the period 2018-2020 can be found in Table 1 and for the period 2013-2017 in table 5 of the Definitive Safeguards Regulation.

See table 2 of Definitive Safeguard Regulation.

Data extracted from the Commission’s dedicated website providing information on every TRQ use, which is updated on a daily basis. The underlying data used for this analysis is publicly available at:

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/taric/quota_consultation.jsp

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/894 of 29 June 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products (OJ L 206, 30.6.2020, p. 27). See e.g. recitals (35), (36), (80).

World Steel Report: “World Steel in Figures, 2020’, p. 25. Available at: World Steel Report. See also OECD’s Steel Market Developments, Q4 2019, p. 24 and table 3. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/steel-market-developments-Q4-2020.pdf

Source: United States International Trade Commission - https://dataweb.usitc.gov/

These countries are (alphabetically listed): China, India, Korea (Republic of), Russia, Taiwan, Turkey, and Ukraine. The United Kingdom is also amongst the major exporting countries. However, since during the period considered it was still a member of the European Union, it has not been included when carrying out a backward looking assessment of import data of third countries.

This database gathers statistical information supplied by the national customs statistical offices from each country.

The OECD also confirmed this generally declining exporting trend on a wider level, i.e. covering also steel products outside the product concerned. See: OECD’s Steel Market Developments, Q4 2020, tables 3, 4 and 5. This general trend is also confirmed by tables 6 and 7 in the same document, showing the import evolution into the largest steel importing economies (table 6) and imports into other major steelmaking economies (table 7), and figure 8 (p.32). Available at: https://www.oecd.org/industry/ind/steel-market-developments-Q4-2020.pdf

Main steel exporting countries of the product concerned to the Union.

Source: CRU database. Data available for the main steel-making countries: Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, India, Iran, Japan, North Macedonia, Mexico, Moldova, Russia, Serbia, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, Ukraine and Vietnam, and for the following group of product categories: Hot-Rolled coil and coil plate CR coil, Hot-Dipped Galvanized (HDG), EZ coil, Tinplate, Reversing mill plate, Rebar, wire rod, Merchant bar, Structural Sections and Rail.

This table is meant to give a general overview of consumption trends of some of the main product categories in the Union and in the main steel markets worldwide. As it is clear from the table, the data does not cover the product concerned as a whole.

See OECD’s Steel Market developments Q2 2021, of 1 March 2021, p.28, recital 53.

Ibid. at recital 55.

Global Steel Forum on Steel Excess Capacity, 2020 Ministerial Report, recital 17.

Ibid. at recital 23.

Ibid. at recital 24 (including figure 5).

Source: CRU database for years 2018-2020, in particular overcapacity figures compared to consumption and production. https://www.crugroup.com/analysis/steel/ (access under subscription)

See recitals (99) to (110) of Definitive Safeguard Regulation

OECD, Steel trade and trade policy developments, 24 February 2021, Annex A.

Notice of determination 2020/06: safeguard measures on certain steel products – application of tariff rate quotas - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

See Section 3.1.2.c. of this Regulation.

Source of raw data: Global Trade Atlas ‘GTA’. https://www.gtis.com/gta/. Figures pertaining to the period 2015-2020, for exports from the main steel exporting countries to the EU, namely China, India, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan, Turkey and Ukraine. (United Kingdom was not included because, despite being one of the top 8 exporting countries to the Union, in the period assessed it was still an EU Member State).

Commission Communication of 11 June 2013 (COM/2013/0407 final).

©McKinsey & Company, Metals and Mining Practice, January 2018. Available at: https://www.mckinsey.com/~/media/mckinsey/industries/metals %20and %20mining/our %20insights/the %20current %20capacity %20shake %20up %20in %20steel %20and %20how %20the %20industry %20is %20adapting/the-current-capacity-shake-up-in-steel-and-how-the-industry-is-adapting.pdf

Commission Communication of 16 March 2016 (COM/2016/0155 final).

See, for instance, ArcelorMittal’s announcement to permanently close Krakow furnace and steel plant in Poland, 8 October 2020, available at: https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/100820-arcelormittal-to-permanently-close-krakow-furnace-and-steel-plant-in-poland.

Also see Bekaert’s announcement at: https://www.bekaert.com/en/about-us/news-room/news/bekaert-announces-restructuring-plans-belgium , Productos Tubulares’ job reduction in its open questionnaire reply and Outokumpu’s announcement to reduce its total employee headcount in Annex 32 of EUROFER’s submission.

See Interim Financial Report, Half year ending 30 June 2020, pages 12-14, Aperam Leadership Journey® available at: https://www.aperam.com/sites/default/files/documents/Aperam %20Half %20Year %202020.pdf

See, for instance, Thyssenkrupp’s open questionnaire reply and annexes.

For detailed description of ArcelorMittal’s projects and related press releases, see ANNEX 18 of EUROFER’s submission.

See, for instance Voestalpine’s open questionnaire reply.

See Salzgitter’s comprehensive restructuring program available at:

https://www.salzgitter-ag.com/en/company/strategy.html and also Salzgitter Mannesman Precision Tubes’ investment at: https://www.ndt.net/search/docs.php3?id=24381

Commission Communication of 10.3.2020 (COM(2020) 102 final).

Commission Communication of 5.5.2021 (COM(2021) 350 final).

Commission Staff Working Document of 5.5.2021 (SWD(2021) 353 final).

Commission Staff Working Document “Towards competitive and clean European steel”, SWD (2021) 353 final, 5.5.2021.

The Commission recalled that it had already increased the historical trade flows (average of imports in 2015 to 2017) by 5 % upon entry into force of the Definitive Safeguards Regulation.

Based on a compilation of the data available in the database at the end of the respective period.

See EUROFER’s rebuttal, p.37-39.

See OECD’s Steel Market developments Q2 2021, of 1 March 2021, figures 3, 4 and 5.

The choice of these categories is not meant to be exhaustive in scope, but it is nevertheless relevant to corroborate the price trends referred to by several interested parties (mostly users) because these categories are amongst the most relevant in terms of import volumes and they also concern two product families (flats (categories 1 and 4) and longs (category 13).

Ibid. p.24, section 6.2. See also: Steel Plats Global ‘Fundamentals support strong iron ore prices in 2021: Platts Analytics’, 4 May 2021: https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/050421-fundamentals-support-strong-iron-ore-prices-in-2021-platts-analytics (last accessed 12 May 2021); Financial Times ‘Iron ore price leaps 10 % on hopes of global economic recovery’, 10 May 2021: https://www.ft.com/content/e4c5d29b-51c2-4e8c-b87a-ad6cac924476 (last accessed 12 May 2021); Argus Media ‘Australia extends forecasts for iron ore price strength’

11 May 2021, https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2213766-australia-extends-forecasts-for-iron-ore-price-strength?backToResults=true (last accessed 12 May 2021), Kallanish ‘Scrap exceeds $500 in Turkey’ 12 May 2021, https://www.kallanish.com/en/steel-news/market-reports/article-details/scrap-price-exceeds-dollar500t-in-turkey-0521/ (last accessed 12 May 2021). See also the sharp increase in transportation costs, S&P Global Platts (25 March 2021) ‘High container freight rates leave commodity traders scrambling for alternatives: https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/shipping/032521-high-container-freight-rates-leave-commodity-traders-scrambling-for-alternatives

(⁶⁰) Extracted from Steel Platts Global ‘Fundamentals support strong iron ore prices in 2021: Platts Analytics’, 4 May 2021, available at: https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/050421-fundamentals-support-strong-iron-ore-prices-in-2021-platts-analytics (last accessed 15 May 2021).

See OECD’s Steel Market developments Q2 2021, of 1 March 2021 at p.24.

Ibid. at p.27.

See also S&P Global Platts, 14 May 2021, ‘Galvanized sheet supply squeeze, short imports leave EU buyers stranded Galvanized sheet supply squeeze, short imports leave EU buyers stranded - EUROMETAL (last accessed 15 May 2021).

See Fitch Ratings ‘Global Steel Price Rally Will Be Short-Lived’ (2 February 2021) https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/global-steel-price-rally-will-be-short-lived-02-02-2021 (last accessed 12 May 2021). See also IHS Markit, Steel Price Forecast and Market Outlook: https://ihsmarkit.com/solutions/steel-forecast.html (last accessed 25 May 2021)

Allegations made by several interested parties.

See Global Market Outlook of December 2020 and Global Market Outlook of April 2021, S&P Global Platts (last accessed 18 May 2021).

See consumption figures in table 2.

See European Manufacturers Automobile Association (ACEA) statements of 3 February 2020 https://www.acea.be/press-releases/article/covid-stakes-are-high-for-european-automotive-recovery-new-facts-and-figure, and of 30 July 2020 https://www.acea.be/press-releases/article/eu-car-sales-covid-recovery-expected-to-start-in-2021-auto-industry-says

OECD’s Steel Market developments Q2 2021, of 1 March 2021, p.21.

See S&P Global Platts, 16 April 2021, ‘Trade Review: Global steel imbalances present export opportunities in Q2’ https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/041621-trade-review-global-steel-imbalances-present-export-opportunities-in-q2 (last accessed 21 May 2021).

See IHS Markit, Steel Price Forecast and Market Outlook: https://ihsmarkit.com/solutions/steel-forecast.html (last accessed 25 May 2021)

See Exhibit 6 of EUROFER’s rebuttal, containing information from external sources confirming the restart of several furnaces by various Union producers in recent months.

See also Global Market Outlook of December 2020 and of April 2021, S&P Global Platts (last accessed 18 May 2021).

See OECD’s Steel Market developments Q2 2021, of 1 March 2021, at p.22.

See S&P Global Platts “ Steel supply should start to ease toward mid-year as production is restored”, 16 April 2021, ‘Trade Review: Global steel imbalances present export opportunities in Q2’ https://www.spglobal.com/platts/en/market-insights/latest-news/metals/041621-trade-review-global-steel-imbalances-present-export-opportunities-in-q2 (last accessed 21 May 2021). See also Fitch Ratings ‘High EU Carbon Prices to Weigh on Steelmakers’ Profitability’, 12 May 2021, https://www.fitchratings.com/research/corporate-finance/high-eu-carbon-prices-to-weigh-on-steelmakers-profitability-12-05-2021 (last accessed 23 May 2021).

Commission Staff Working Document “Towards competitive and clean European steel”, SWD(2021) 353 final, 5.5.2021, p. 2.

Ibid. at p. 3.

Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the European Council, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the European Investment Bank, “Steel: Preserving sustainable jobs and growth in Europe”, COM(2016) 155 final, 16.3.2016, p. 2.

This situation of large unused TRQ volumes across categories has taken place, to different degrees, throughout each period since the imposition of a provisional safeguard measure on 18 July 2018. A ‘period’ or ‘year’ under the safeguard measure has comprised the following: Period/year 1: 18 July 2018 – 30 June 2019, period/year 2: 1 July 2019 - 30 June 2020 and period/year 3: 1 July 2020 – 30 June 2021.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/2037 of 10 December 2020 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/159 imposing definitive safeguard measures against imports of certain steel products, OJ L 416, 11.12.2020, p.32.

For detailed description of this project see file “Start-up of the new Tenova Consteel® EAF at Arvedi Plant, Cremona, Italy - TENOVA.pdf” under Annex 19 in EUROFER’s submission.

See evolution of imports in Table 9.

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1382 of 2 September 2019 amending certain Regulations imposing anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures on certain steel products subject to safeguard measures (OJ L 227, 3.9.2021, p. 1).

ANNEX

“ANNEX IV

IV.1 – Volumes of tariff–rate quotas

Reading this document does not replace reading the official text published in the Official Journal of the European Union. We assume no responsibility for any inaccuracies arising from the conversion of the original to this format.

This text is published under EUR-Lex's own terms of reuse, not a Legalize or public-domain licence. EUR-Lex
Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
© European Union, https://eur-lex.europa.eu — Source: EUR-Lex (Publications Office of the European Union). Reused under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. Only EU legislation published in the printed Official Journal of the European Union is deemed authentic; consolidated texts are reproduced here for documentation purposes and have been reformatted to Markdown.