Sir, Gordon Moffat writes that “legitimate trade defence is not protectionism” (Letters, November 27). He goes on to refer to the current review on the continuation of anti-dumping duties on Chinese and Vietnamese shoes – an area somewhat outside his particular sphere of expertise, one would have thought, as director general of Eurofer, the European iron and steel association.

You might expect the Foreign Trade Association, a campaigner of free trade and an advocate of the cessation of those duties, to disagree with his statement. In fact, I do not. However, the key word here is legitimate. We are not seeking the total abolition of the European Union’s trade defence instruments, such as the anti-dumping regulation, as that would be unrealistic. What we have argued for is reform of those instruments so that investigations are conducted in a transparent manner that fairly considers the needs and opinions of all parties involved: the EU importers, retailers and consumers, not only the EU producers. In that regard, Peter Mandelson’s reform attempt was perhaps overly ambitious but it was certainly not an attempt at destruction – unlike the reaction by EU industry (Eurofer included) to his conclusions, which resulted in the whole reform being shelved.

The current investigation against the imports of footwear from China and Vietnam has not been conducted in a legitimate manner; the needs and opinions of EU importers, retailers and consumers have been given short shrift in comparison with EU producers. Neither is it necessary; Europe no longer produces shoes comparable to those being imported.

Despite the Commission’s best attempts at obfuscation and its lobbying of “swing” member states, on November 19 a majority of 15 member states showed that they recognised these failings and voted against the continuation of these duties. When they are called upon to vote for a final time at the Council in December I trust that the result will be the same.