Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/2001 of 21 October 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council

(194) In view of the non-cooperation of the Chinese exporting producers accounting for a representative volume of imports as stated in recital (36), the Commission determined the price undercutting during the review investigation period by comparing the weighted average sales price of the sole Union producer charged to unrelated customers in the Union market, adjusted to an ex-works level and the weighted average export prices from the 14(6) database, including the anti-dumping duty, with appropriate adjustments for the post-importation costs. The price of the volumes of aspartame imported under the inward processing system were not taken into account as these volumes are not released in free circulation into the Union market.

(195) The result of the comparison was expressed as a percentage of the sole Union producers’ turnover during the review investigation period and showed no undercutting.

(196) In their comments following final disclosure, Changmao claimed that HSWT offered significant additional sales services to its clients which would be reflected in the sales prices and therefore brought HSWT’s sales to a different level of trade than the sales prices of Chinese exporters. Changmao considered that the Chinese and the Union industry’s prices should be compared at the same level of trade in the price undercutting calculations.

(197) Changmao’s claim is speculative. As stated in recital (75), Changmao was the only Chinese exporting producer who cooperated in the investigation; however, its exports to the Union were not found to be representative for the PRC and Article 18 of the basic Regulation was applied. Therefore, the Commission could not assess the level of trade of the Chinese exporters. Finally, as stated in recital (195), there was no undercutting during the investigation period even without making any level of trade adjustments. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(198) The imports of aspartame from third countries other than the PRC were almost exclusively from Japan.

(199) The imports of aspartame from third countries other than the PRC and Japan represent less than 2 % of total imports over the period considered. As aspartame is produced only in the PRC, Japan and in the Union, the Commission considered that these imports were wrongly classified as aspartame, or their origin was wrongly declared. For this reason, the Commission did not consider these imports further in its injury analysis.

(200) Aspartame was imported from Japan under the normal regime as well as under the inward processing system.

(202) The total volume of imports from Japan increased by 727 % over the period considered. 60 % of total imports from Japan were imported under the inward processing regime in the review investigation period. The imports from Japan under the inward processing system were inexistent in 2018 and increased by 46 % in the review investigation period as compared to 2019.

(203) The market share of imports from Japan increased during the period considered, reaching [57 % – 80 %] in the review investigation period. The market share of the imports from Japan under the inward processing system increased as well during the period considered and reached [34 % – 47 %] during the review investigation period.

(204) The average price of the imports from Japan increased by 5 % between 2018 and 2020. In the review investigation period, the prices return to similar levels to 2018.

(205) The assessment of the economic situation of the Union industry included an evaluation of all economic indicators having a bearing on the state of the Union industry during the period considered.

(207) Production volume increased by 67 % between 2018 and 2020. In the review investigation period the production volume remained at similar levels to the production volume in 2020. The production volume increased following the change in the business strategy of the applicant that took over the assets of the previous Union producer of aspartame in 2019 as explained in recital (37).

(208) The production capacity of the Union industry was maintained at the same level during the period considered, as the applicant took over the production assets of the previous Union producer as explained in recital (37).

(209) The capacity utilisation increased in line with the increase of the annual production volume described in recital (207), by 66 %.

(211) The sales volume of the Union industry on the Union market had an increasing trend during the whole period considered. Overall, the sales volume increased by 44 %.

(212) Despite the increase in the sales volume, the market share of the Union industry decreased by 44 % over the period considered, reaching [22 % – 33 %] in the review investigation period.

(213) As stated above, the sales volume of the Union industry increased by 44 % over the period considered. However, the Union consumption increased even more, by 157 % over the period considered and as a result the market share of the Union industry decreased by 44 %.

(215) The number of employees fluctuated during the period considered. It first decreased by 16 % in 2019 as compared to 2018 when the applicant took over the assets and certain employees of the former Union producer of aspartame as explained in recital (37). The gradual increase in the number of employees from 2019 to the review investigation period occurred at the same time as increasing production and sales levels for the Union industry.

(216) Productivity increased by 94 % between 2018 and 2020 reflecting the increase in production volume as explained in recital (207) and then decreased by 4 % in the review investigation period as compared to 2020. Overall, the productivity increased by 86 %.

(217) The dumping margin during the review investigation period was significantly above the de minimis level as stated in recital (156) and the volume and market share of the imports from the PRC as described in Tables 3 and 4 were still significant during the period considered.

(218) However, despite the fact there was still dumping from the PRC, the Union industry managed to recover from past dumping practices, notably because of the new business strategy of the sole Union producer and increased domestic consumption.

(220) The Union industry’s average unit sales price to unrelated customers increased by 13 % over the period considered.

(221) The unit cost of production decreased by 29 % over the period considered. This was due to an increase in efficiency concerning the consumption of certain key raw materials and lower prices for electricity and gas.

(223) The average labour costs per employee increased by 11 % in 2019 as compared to 2018 and then decreased by 12 % in the review investigation period as compared to 2019. Overall, the Union average labour costs per employee decreased by 3 %.

(224) The fluctuation of the labour cost was due to changes in the mix of employees over the period considered.

(226) The volume of inventories increased by 68 % from 2018 to 2020 and then decreased by 26 % to the end of the review investigation period. Overall, the stocks level increased by 24 %.

(227) Closing stocks as a percentage of production volume increased by 6 % in 2019 as compared to 2018 and then decreased by 29 % by the end of the review investigation period as compared to 2019.

(229) The Commission established the profitability of the Union producer by expressing the pre-tax net profit or loss of the sales of the like product to unrelated customers in the Union as a percentage of the turnover of those sales.

(230) The profitability situation of the Union industry improved over the period considered moving from a substantial loss in 2018 to a lower loss in 2019 and a profit in the review investigation period. However, the Union industry did not manage to achieve the target profit margin specified in the original investigation (34).

(231) The net cash flow is the ability of the Union producers to self-finance their activities. Cash flow was negative in 2018 when the Union industry producer went into bankruptcy. As the new Union producer, the applicant, increased sales, cash flow gradually improved from 2019 to the RIP.

(232) There were limited investments in 2018, the year that the former Union producer entered bankruptcy. However, under new ownership investments increased by 346 % in 2019 and then increased steadily reaching a 499 % increase compared to 2018 in the RIP. The investments were mainly made to replace old equipment with new, more efficient equipment.

(233) The return on investments is the profit or loss in percentage of the net book value of investments.

(234) When the applicant acquired the production site in 2019 it implemented a comprehensive restructuring program, with substantial capital investments by HSWT and its shareholders for the following years, in order to try to make the plant profitable again.

(235) The return on investments was substantially negative in 2018 and again in 2019. The return on investment improved in 2020 and the review investigation period.

(236) Most injury indicators, such as production, capacity utilisation, unit cost of production, sales volumes, sales prices, labour costs, productivity, profitability, employment investments, return on investments and cash flow developed positively and do not indicate material injury.

(237) Based on the above, the Commission concluded that the Union industry did not suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period.

(238) However, given Chinese imports continued at substantial volumes and the Union industry enjoyed profits only in 2020 and the RIP but still below the target profit level identified in the original investigation, the Union industry was not able to fully recover from the previous injurious dumping within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation by the review investigation period.

(239) Changmao claimed that the Commission has not received any information from the applicant on the reasons for Hyet Sweet SAS’s bankruptcy. Furthermore, Changmao claimed that the Commission has not received any information on Hyet Sweet Group’s substantial and self-injurious imports in the Union of aspartame and raw materials from the PRC and Japan and on why both Hyet Sweet and HSWT groups did not submit such information to the Commission while HSWT continues to argue that injury has been caused by imports of aspartame from the PRC.

(240) The Commission concluded above that the Union industry did not suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation during the review investigation period. Therefore, the reasons for Hyet Sweet SAS’s bankruptcy are not relevant for the current investigation. Furthermore, as explained in recital (176), Hyet Sweet Group is not involved any more in the production of aspartame in the Union and is not related to HSWT. Therefore, the Commission can only encourage unrelated importers to cooperate in the investigation. Moreover, HSWT has provided information in the questionnaire reply regarding the purchases of raw materials and the investigation did not reveal that the purchases of the raw materials caused injury. Changmao failed to explain why the imports of raw materials from the PRC and Japan would be self-injurious or submit any evidence in this regard. Therefore, these claims were rejected.

(241) Changmao argued that it was doubtful whether HSWT produced aspartame rather than purchasing a large number of finished and semi-finished products, mainly from Ajinomoto Inc. and certain Chinese companies. It was stated that according to HSWT’s 2019 annual report, HSWT purchased a lot of finished products, and there was a big change in the cost data compared with the data before the bankruptcy of Hyet Sweet SAS.

(242) As stated in recital (207), the investigation revealed that HSWT manufactured aspartame during the period considered. Furthermore, the investigation did not reveal any purchases of aspartame from the PRC or Japan. As stated in recital (221), the unit cost of production decreased by 29 % over the period considered due to an increase in efficiency concerning the consumption of certain key raw materials and lower prices for electricity and gas. Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(243) In their comments following final disclosure, Changmao stated that certain essential information was not disclosed properly by the Commission or HSWT such as (1) the volume of imports of aspartame from the PRC and Japan, (2) the volume of imports of aspartame from the PRC and Japan under inward processing system, (3) the market shares (4) average prices of aspartame imports originating in the PRC and Japan, (5) whether Hyet Sweet SAS was officially dissolved at the moment of the initiation of the expiry review, (6) the asset purchase agreement between HSWT and Hyet Sweet SAS, (7) the cooperation plan agreement between HSWT and Hyet Sweet SAS and (8) the stock evaluation and management accounts of HSWT. Changmao also asked the Commission to disclose the methodology for creating the ranges.

(244) The Commission could not disclose the data regarding volume of imports, market share and import prices from the PRC and Japan as it is market sensitive and confidential under Article 19 of the basic Regulation given the limited number of the parties operating on the Union market (one Union producer, one Japanese exporter, two predominant Chinese exporters). The disclosure of this information could allow parties to calculate back company-specific confidential data. The Commission provided this information in ranges and indexes which gave sufficient meaningful information to all interested parties to understand the Commission’s analysis and conclusions and provide comments in this regard. The data was also provided in the form of meaningful trends so that all interested parties could defend their interests. The Commission could not disclose the method for creating the ranges as this would allow the parties to retrieve the exact numbers from the ranges.

(245) Regarding whether Hyet Sweet SAS was officially dissolved at the moment of the initiation of the expiry review, no explanation was provided as to why this information was relevant for the current expiry review investigation. In any event, as stated in recital (37), Hyet Sweet SAS stopped manufacturing aspartame in the Union in 2018 and entered into bankruptcy. Finally, as regard the other three documents requested by Changmao, these documents are confidential by nature and cannot be disclosed to parties under Article 19 of the basic Regulation. The Commission provided detailed information with regard to Hyet Sweet SAS, which allow interested parties to understand the factual situation without disclosing confidential information. The level of disclosure allowed parties to fully exercise their right of defence. Therefore, these claims were rejected.

(246) Changmao also claimed that the Commission’s conclusion that the Union industry did not suffer material injury was wrong as there was no assessment on the impact of the increase in low priced imports from Japan during the period considered.

(247) The Commission disagreed with this claim. The injury determination involves an examination of the situation of the Union industry regardless of its cause. The Commission found that the industry did not suffer material injury and therefore it was not appropriate to assess the cause of (inexistent) injury. Absent injury, imports for Japan were of course not relevant for the determination of likelihood of recurrence of injury should measures on imports from the PRC be allowed to lapse. It should also be noted that imports from Japan appeared to have replaced imports from the PRC subject to the current measures. Should measures be allowed to lapse, imports from Japan are likely to be replaced by imports from the PRC made at lower prices. The claim was therefore rejected.

(248) The Commission concluded in recitals (236) and (237) that the Union industry did not suffer material injury during the review investigation period, although it had not been able to fully recover from the material injury previously suffered. Therefore, the Commission assessed, in accordance with Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation, whether there would be a likelihood of recurrence of material injury caused by the dumped imports of aspartame from the PRC, if the measures were allowed to lapse.

(249) For the likelihood of recurrence of material injury caused by the dumped imports of aspartame from the PRC, the Commission examined the production capacity and spare capacity in the PRC, the likely price levels of imports from the PRC in the absence of anti-dumping measures and their impact on the Union industry, including the level of undercutting in the absence of anti-dumping measures.

(250) As explained in recitals (164) to (173), based on the spare capacity in the PRC and the high attractiveness of the Union market for Chinese exporting producers, there is a strong likelihood that the expiry of the anti-dumping measures would result in an increase of exports to the Union.

(251) Regarding the likely effect of such imports, the Commission examined their likely price levels should measures be allowed to lapse. In this regard, the Commission considered the import price levels during the review investigation period without anti-dumping duty to be a reasonable indication. On this basis, the Commission established significant undercutting of the Union industry prices of [25 % – 50 %].

(252) In the absence of the measures, it is likely that the market share of Chinese producers would increase significantly. In the short term, as the Union producer is a rather small producer as compared to the Japanese exporter, the Chinese exporters would likely take over the market share of the Union industry as the Union industry would not be able to survive the price pressure from the Chinese exporters and thus the economic situation of the Union industry would quickly deteriorate resulting in material injury.

(253) On this basis, it is concluded that the absence of measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from the PRC at injurious prices and material injury would be likely to recur.

(254) In their comments following final disclosure, Changmao claimed that because there was no spare capacity in the PRC (see recital (168)), the conclusions of the Commission regarding the likelihood of recurrence of injury due to likelihood of increase of exports of aspartame to the Union in the absence of the antidumping measures were not based on positive evidence, nor involved an objective examination in accordance with Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation as well as Article 3.1 of Anti-dumping Agreement.

(255) As stated in recital (169), after taking into account the decrease in production capacity of Changmao and Shaoxing Yamei Biochemistry Co. Ltd there would still be spare capacity which could cover a significant share of the total consumption of aspartame in the Union. Furthermore, the findings of the likelihood of recurrence of injury were not based solely on the volume of spare capacity in the PRC but also on the likely price levels of imports from the PRC in the absence of anti-dumping measures and their impact on the Union industry, including the level of undercutting, which Changmao did not dispute. Even if there is no spare capacity in the PRC, the Union market is more attractive than third markets. Therefore, the Chinese exporting producers have an incentive to redirect volume from third markets to the Union as concluded in recital (173). Therefore, the Commission’s conclusions were based on the positive evidence collected during the investigation and constitute an objective examination, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the basic Regulation, as well as Article 3.1 of the Anti-dumping Agreement. The claim was rejected.

(256) Changmao claimed that when assessing the likelihood of recurrence of injury the Commission should also assess the injurious effect of the commercial disputes between the former Union producer and HSWT and the reasons for the bankruptcy of Hyet Sweet SAS. Furthermore, Changmao stated that HSWT failed to disclose several documents/information. Changmao stated that only such complete disclosure could reflect how the cooperation and subsequent conflict between Hyet Group and HSWT influenced the situation and state of the Union industry.

(257) The Commission disagreed with these claims. The analysis of likelihood of recurrence of injury that needs to be carried out pursuant to Article 11(2) of the basic Regulation is focused on how the injury picture at present (in this case a situation of no material injury) would evolve if measures were allowed to lapse. In such an assessment the causal link between dumping and injury, established in the original investigation, would exist and need not be established anew (35). Consequently, this assessment in this case is centred on the dumped imports of aspartame from the PRC and the effect of the removal of measures on the situation in the future. Therefore, these claims were rejected.

(258) In their comments following final disclosure, Changmao claimed that the Commission should also assess the likelihood of recurrence of self-inflicted injury to the Union industry. In particular, Changmao claimed that because of HSWT’s small investment in land, building and other assets as well as low capitalization, HSWT’s shareholders have not taken any commercial risk regarding the ongoing operations of the aspartame plant and made no great efforts to the viable and continuing aspartame production operations in the Union. Furthermore, given HSWT’s low profitability and dependence on financial means for raw materials supplies, HSWT might go bankrupt at any moment. Changmao also stated that as HSWT received considerable subsidies from local government, it might lack motivation and dynamics. Changmao considered that the support from the local government distorted the Union market price and production cost for aspartame. Furthermore, labour disputes and trade union strikes against the former Union producer, Hyet Sweet SAS, might have been a major cause of self-inflicted injury and therefore, if the new Union producer was still facing the pressure of large imports from Japan together with labour struggle, it was likely that it would go bankrupt in the future.

(259) The Commission noted that those claims were simply baseless speculations. As explained in recital (51), Hyet Sweet SAS’s assets were sold under a bankruptcy procedure. The sale of these assets was made at a lower value than their book value which explains the low capitalization of HSWT. Furthermore, as stated in recital (232), the investment of HSWT increased by 499 % in the RIP as compared to 2018 and these investments were made to replace old equipment with new, more efficient equipment. This clearly indicates commitment on the part of HSWT to maintain production of aspartame in the Union. Furthermore, it is not clear from Changmao’s submission what dependence on financial means for raw materials supplies means in this case. Moreover, as indicated in recital (230) the profitability situation of the Union industry improved over the period considered moving from a substantial loss in 2018 to a profit in the review investigation period. Furthermore, Changmao simply speculates when claiming that the subsidies allegedly received by HSWT have a demotivating effect on HSWT. Changmao’s claim regarding the distorting effect of the alleged subsidies received by HSWT on the Union market price and production cost for aspartame is not based on any concrete evidence. Furthermore, government intervention within the meaning of Article 2(6a)(b) of the basic Regulation that the Commission demonstrated in recitals (87) to (108), and baseless allegations of the distorting effect on Union market price and production cost for aspartame of subsidies received by HSWT, are not comparable. Finally, the fact that the former Union producer was faced with labour disputes and trade union strikes does not mean that the current Union producer will face such issues. Therefore, the claims were rejected.

(260) In accordance with Article 21 of the basic Regulation, the Commission examined whether maintaining the existing anti-dumping measures would be against the interest of the Union as a whole. The determination of the Union interest was based on an appreciation of all the various interests involved, including those of the Union industry, importers and users.

(261) As stated in recitals (237) and (238), the Union industry did not suffer material injury within the meaning of Article 3(5) of the basic Regulation, during the review investigation period. However, given Chinese imports continued at substantial volumes and the Union industry did not achieve the target profit level identified in the original investigation, the Union industry remained in a fragile situation.

(262) Should the measures be allowed to lapse, the situation of the Union industry would likely to deteriorate quickly, as explained in recital (252).

(263) It was therefore, concluded that extending the measures in force against the PRC would be in the interest of the Union industry.

(264) As indicated in recital (36), no unrelated importer cooperated during the investigation.

(265) The previous investigation concluded that in general, importers have quite a wide product portfolio out of which aspartame is only one item.

(266) As no importer cooperated it is reasonable to assume that, like in the original investigation, aspartame does not represent a major proportion of the importers/traders’ turnover and that there are no factors suggesting that importers/traders would be disproportionally affected if measures were to be maintained.

(267) On these grounds, the Commission concluded that should measures be maintained, the impact on the economic situation of the importers is likely not to be significant.

(268) Only one user submitted a questionnaire response and cooperated in the investigation.

(269) This user was buying aspartame from the PRC and it was profitable. It also stated that it would not be in favour of the continuation of the measures. The share of aspartame in its cost of production was below 2 % and therefore the impact of the measures was rather low.

(270) In view of the above observation that in the absence of measures the Union industry may be forced to cease the production of aspartame and as the import price from the PRC (without anti-dumping duties) is around 30 % lower than the import price from Japan, and therefore in the longer term, the Chinese are also likely to take over the market share from the Japanese exporter, the measures are likely to benefit users in so far as they preserve the production of aspartame in the Union and the choice for users to source aspartame produced by different competing producers.

(271) On these grounds, the Commission concluded that should the measures be maintained, the impact on the economic situation of these operators is likely not to be significant.

(272) On the basis of the above, the Commission concluded that there were no compelling reasons of the Union interest against the maintenance of the existing measures on imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China.

(273) In their comments following final disclosure, Changmao claimed that due to the uncertainties related to HSWT’s viable future operation and the lack of recurrence of injury caused by the Chinese exports of aspartame, in case the Commission decided to maintain anti-dumping measures in place, it should also simultaneously adopt a decision to suspend the antidumping duties pursuant to Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation. Changmao claimed that the suspension of the duties would allow the Commission sufficient time to evaluate the impact on the Union producer of several factors that cast doubt on the Union producer’s viability and was thus in the Union’s interest.

(274) The Commission noted that Changmao did not provide any evidence that market conditions had temporarily changed and that injury was unlikely to resume if the measures were suspended, as required by Article 14(4) of the basic Regulation. Furthermore, the claims regarding the alleged lack of likelihood of recurrence of injury and uncertainties related to HSWT viable future operation were addressed in recitals (254) to (259). Therefore, the claim was rejected.

(275) Changmao also claimed that if the likelihood of recurrence of injury by imports from the PRC was very small, while the imports from the PRC were important to cover the Union market shortage or to make up for the Union producer’s lower capacity utilization, the Commission should initiate an interim review allowing it to reduce the current levels of antidumping duties or to accept a price undertaking.

(276) The Commission noted that Changmao did not provide sufficient evidence of lasting change of circumstances as required by Article 11(3) of the basic Regulation for the Commission to assess whether the initiation of an interim review was warranted. Furthermore, as explained in recitals (248) to (259), the absence of measures would in all likelihood result in a significant increase of dumped imports from the PRC at injurious prices and material injury would be likely to recur. Moreover, the investigation did not reveal any shortages of aspartame on the market. The Union industry is not using its full capacity and imports are available from Japan as well as the PRC. It is recalled that despite the measures in force, the market share of the Chinese imports was [7 % – 10 %] in the review investigation period. As concerns price undertakings, the Commission notes that no exporter submitted a price undertaking offer. Therefore, the claims were rejected.

(277) On the basis of the conclusions reached by the Commission on continuation of dumping, recurrence of injury and Union interest, the anti-dumping measures on aspartame from the PRC should be maintained.

(278) The individual company anti-dumping duty rates specified in this Regulation are exclusively applicable to imports of the product concerned and produced by the named legal entities. Imports of the product concerned produced by any other company not specifically mentioned in the operative part of this Regulation, including entities related to those specifically mentioned, should be subject to the duty rate applicable to ‘all other companies’. They should not be subject to any of the individual anti-dumping duty rates.

(279) A company may request the application of these individual anti-dumping duty rates if it changes subsequently the name of its entity. The request must be addressed to the Commission (36). The request must contain all the relevant information enabling to demonstrate that the change does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it. If the change of name of the company does not affect its right to benefit from the duty rate which applies to it, a regulation about the change of name will be published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

(280) In view of Article 109 of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council (37), when an amount is to be reimbursed following a judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the interest to be paid should be the rate applied by the European Central Bank to its principal refinancing operations, as published in the C series of the Official Journal of the European Union on the first calendar day of each month.

(281) The measures provided for in this regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Committee established by Article 15(1) Regulation (EU) 2016/1036,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

(a) it did not export the goods described in Article 1(1) originating in the PRC during the period between 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2015 (original investigation period);

(b) it is not related to an exporter or producer subject to the measures imposed by this Regulation; and

(c) it has either actually exported the product under review or has entered into an irrevocable contractual obligation to export a significant quantity to the Union after the end of the original investigation period.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

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

Done at Brussels, 21 October 2022.

For the Commission The President Ursula VON DER LEYEN

(1) OJ L 176, 30.6.2016, p. 21.

(2) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1247 of 28 July 2016 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 204, 29.7.2016, p. 92).

(3) Notice of the impending expiry of certain anti-dumping measures (OJ C 366, 30.10.2020, p. 24).

(4) Due to the fact that there is only one producer of aspartame in the Union, some of the data in this Regulation is presented in ranges or in index form to preserve the confidentiality of the data of the Union producer.

(5) Notice of initiation of an expiry review of the anti-dumping measures applicable to imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ C 303, 29.7.2021, p. 12).

(6) Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1247.

(7) http://www.vitasweet.cn/news/30.html

(8) https://tron.trade.ec.europa.eu/investigations/case-view?caseId=2534

(9) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 29.12.2015, p. 558).

(10) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2022/116 of 27 January 2022 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of acesulfame potassium originating in the People’s Republic of China, following an expiry review pursuant to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EU) 2016/1036 of the European Parliament and of the Council (OJ L 19, 28.1.2022, p. 22).

(11) Regulation (EU) 2022/116, recitals 82-88 and 121-122.

(12) Regulation (EU) 2022/116, recitals 91-92.

(13) Regulation (EU) 2022/116, recitals 93-94, 96: While the right to appoint and to remove key management personnel in SOEs by the relevant State authorities, as provided for in the Chinese legislation, can be considered to reflect the corresponding ownership rights, CCP cells in enterprises, state owned and private alike, represent another important channel through which the State can interfere with business decisions. According to the PRC’s company law, a CCP organisation is to be established in every company (with at least three CCP members as specified in the CCP Constitution) and the company shall provide the necessary conditions for the activities of the party organisation. In the past, this requirement appears not to have always been followed or strictly enforced. However, since at least 2016 the CCP has reinforced its claims to control business decisions in SOEs as a matter of political principle. The CCP is also reported to exercise pressure on private companies to put ‘patriotism’ first and to follow party discipline. In 2017, it was reported that party cells existed in 70 % of some 1,86 million privately owned companies, with growing pressure for the CCP organisations to have a final say over the business decisions within their respective companies. These rules are of general application throughout the Chinese economy, across all sectors, including to the producers of acesulfame potassium and the suppliers of their inputs.

(14) Regulation (EU) 2022/116, recitals 97-100.

(15) Regulation (EU) 2022/116, recitals 101-104.

(16) Regulation (EU) 2022/116, recitals 105-106.

(17) Regulation (EU) 2022/116, recitals 107-117.

(18) Commission staff working document SWD(2017) 483 final/2, 20. 12. 2017, available at: https://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2017/december/tradoc_156474.pdf

(19) https://www.lpfoods.com/

(20) See Section 12 – Light Industry; available at: www.gov.cn/xinwen/2019-11/06/content_5449193.htm (accessed on 19 May 2022).

(21) See company’s 2021 and 2020 annual report: https://media-changmaobio.todayir.com/2021041917080276349723103_tc.pdf and https://media-changmaobio.todayir.com/20220421185601518210220602_tc.pdf

(22) The Plan provides the following in annex 3 page 21: ‘[…] strive to build 100 innovative service support platforms by 2012 to fully support the rapid development of our province’s biotechnology and new pharmaceutical industries.’ And further, among the 100 platforms listed: ‘87. Jiangsu Functional Food Ingredients Research and Development Centre (to be built)’.

(23) World Bank Open Data – Upper Middle Income, https://data.worldbank.org/income-level/upper-middle-income

(24) If there is no production of the product under review in any country with a similar level of development, production of a product in the same general category and/or sector of the product under review may be considered.

(25) https://globalfinancials.com/index-admin.html

(26) https://www.ajinomoto.com.my/investors/annual-reports

(27) https://www.ilmia.gov.my/index.php/my/labour-cost

(28) https://www.tnb.com.my/commercial-industrial/pricing-tariffs1

https://www.tnb.com.my/assets/files/Tariff_Rate_Final_01.Jan.2014.pdf

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

(30) https://www.ilmia.gov.my/index.php/my/labour-cost

(31) https://www.tnb.com.my/commercial-industrial/pricing-tariffs1

https://www.tnb.com.my/assets/files/Tariff_Rate_Final_01.Jan.2014.pdf

(32) www.ajinomoto.com.my

(33) Based on total Chinese capacity of [30 000 – 35 000] tonnes, as calculated based on the request for review, adjusted for the alleged reduction presented by Changmao of [3 000 – 6 000] tonnes.

(34) Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/262 of 25 February 2016 imposing a provisional anti-dumping duty on imports of aspartame originating in the People’s Republic of China (OJ L 50, 26.2.2016, p. 4), recital 150.

(35) See Appellate Body Report, US – Anti-Dumping Measures on Oil Country Tubular Goods (WT/DS282/AB/R), 2 November 2005, paras. 121 and 123.

(36) European Commission, Directorate-General for Trade, Directorate G, Rue de la Loi 170, 1040 Brussels, Belgium.

(37) Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2018/1046 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 July 2018 on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union, amending Regulations (EU) No 1296/2013, (EU) No 1301/2013, (EU) No 1303/2013, (EU) No 1304/2013, (EU) No 1309/2013, (EU) No 1316/2013, (EU) No 223/2014, (EU) No 283/2014, and Decision No 541/2014/EU and repealing Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 (OJ L 193, 30.7.2018, p. 1).