InfoSAWIT, JAKARTA – Ministry of Trade on Thursday (14/12/2017) officially gave release about the return of palm oil fatty alcohol to European Union because the Anti – Dumping Import Duty (ADID) has been revoked.
But according to Appellate Body Reports, the case is the implementation of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1138/2011 on 8 November 2011 that emphasized definitive anti - dumping duty on the import of particular palm oil fatty alcohol and the mixture from India, Indonesia, and Malaysia. OJ L 293, 11.11.2011, p.1.
What Indonesia claimed about the provisional regulation is Commission Regulation (EU) No 446/2011 on 10 May 2011 that makes provisional anti-dumping duty on certain fatty alcohol and the mixture from India, Indonesia, and Malaysia, OJ L 122, 11.5.2011, p. 47.
The investigation was done as the information about the anti-dumping process on the particular imported fatty alcohol and the mixture from India, Indonesia and Malaysia, OJ C 219, 13.8.2010, p. 12.
Before it, on 20 July 2012, Indonesia decided to claim to Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) WTO within the issue, to object the interpretation of European Union. The issues were the status of Indonesian exporters in the form of Single Economic Entity (SEE), the objection on the adjustment that European Union did, the incompatibility when implementing ADA in WTO in relationship with economic crisis in Europe, and the issue in material as the other factor out of the dumping which made loss for the domestic industries in fatty alcohol in European Union. Besides the European Union Authority when verifying (on the spot investigation) did not publish the result of the check and it was not used by European Union to determine ADID.
Based on the report, there was only one clause to win on 23 September 2016. The Panel of DSB WTO sentenced that Indonesia won the claim on the verification ‘result’. The decision was re-confirmed by Panel AB WTO. When deciding the ADID to Indonesia, European Union did not use the verification result that had been done. As a matter of fact, in the process of anti-dumping investigation, the verification result should be used as the basic thing to determine margin dumping and the injury.
Actually not every company that produces fatty alcohol has anti – dumping policy. In the report, ADID is to PT. Musim Mas though there is the other company getting ADID, that is, Ecogreen. In the investigation done by European Union, only the two companies were investigated. So ADID is not to Indonesia but only to PT. Musim Mas.
Indonesia thought to win the case because the Panel of WTO blamed European Union for not telling the information about the result of investigation to PT. Musim Mas.
While the main claim of Indonesia based on Chapter 2.4 was totally fail. It was about mark - up that PT .Musim Mas paid to ICOF-S, a Singaporean company to sell fatty alcohol to European Union.
From the information that InfoSAWIT got, the panel and Appellate Body WTO, agreed with European Union that the mark-up payment from PT. Musim Mas to ICOF-S was the payment to the agent that works for commission. The argumentation from Indonesia saying that PT. Musim Mas and ICOF – S is a single economic entity was strictly rejected.(T2)