Predictably, European importers and consumers tend to urge for restraint in the use of trade-defence instruments (TDIs), whereas EU producers see them as an effective tool in the fight against "unfair trade practices" and oppose any loosening of the current rules.
Supporters of TDIs often view them as the only means currently available to the EU for addressing predatory trade practices by non-EU companies. They point out that in certain countries, particularly in China – the world’s biggest target for anti-dumping measures – state interference makes it necessary to maintain TDIs.
Opponents of the EU's trade defence system say that, although TDIs could be legitimate if they were really used to remedy abusive behaviour, generally the sole aim is to protect outdated and uncompetitive industries. They say that imposing TDIs goes against the interests of consumers and those industries that have succeeded in modernising and remaining competitive.
They are especially critical of the practice of determining whether a country is dumping goods on EU markets by comparing its production to an "analogue country", which often fails to present any similarities with the economy under investigation. This was an issue in the EU-China shoe dispute, where the Chinese shoe industry was compared with Brazil's in order to determine whether China was exporting its shoes at below-cost prices.
Despite their disagreements, both supporters and opponents tend to agree that EU investigations could benefit from greater transparency.
